Franco-American relations

For real.

During our revolution, they were our biggest cheerleader. Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier de La Fayette, Marquis de La Fayette was so enamored that he came to fight with General Washington. Franklin spent a ton of time in France and was a major celebrity. The statue of liberty. Then they had a revolution that was wildly different from our own. Then Napolean came and did a bunch of amazing things, and we enlarged our country to help pay for some of them.

Then there's a big black spot somehow, and our countries hardly get along at all. I want to know what happened, and from an authoritative well-researched person. If that person is here, chime in. If it's an author, tell me about them.

I just finished this https://www.amazon.com/America-Iran-History-1720-Present/dp/0307271811 by John Ghazvinian and it was amazing. It was long, but went blow by blow and told the whole story, from Iran and the US sides. I want the same for France.

They did a lot more than cheerlead and send Lafayette over during our revolution. They actively joined the war on our side. Without their navy, I doubt the colonies would have prevailed.

And I'm not sure where you get "hardly get along". We fought beside them in two world wars, and to this day they are one of our closest allies. We've had disagreements, but never anything too major. 

Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:

They did a lot more than cheerlead and send Lafayette over during our revolution. They actively joined the war on our side. Without their navy, I doubt the colonies would have prevailed.

And I'm not sure where you get "hardly get along". We fought beside them in two world wars, and to this day they are one of our closest allies. We've had disagreements, but never anything too major. 

I was just trying to be brief with the cheerleading comment. You are undoubtedly correct in your assessment.

As far as our current relations, perhaps I am being pessimistic. From what I would hope, we should be the closest of allies. From what I see, we are cold and distance acquaintances.

tuna55 said:

As far as our current relations, perhaps I am being pessimistic. From what I would hope, we should be the closest of allies. From what I see, we are cold and distance acquaintances.

Are we though? I mean, we're not as close to them as Canada or the UK. We seem to get along with France about as well as we get along with Germany.

They like to disagree with us on things like climate change actions, and some of our more aggressive foreign policy of the last 2 decades. But that's not really unique to them.

In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :

Politically we are great allies, personally we seem to hate each other.  What he said about Jefferson going over there and being a celebrity is a pretty fair statement and I can't see it happening today.

Part of it is probably that pre-French revolution, France was seen as this mecca of enlightenment amongst the ruling class and the US was desperately trying to do the same amongst the elites of our country.  Neither are anywhere close to true today.

Maybe part of the answer is that in both cases the people rose up and took control of what the people wanted? Left the political control to the top?

I'm pretty sure we alienated a lot of the French in 1965, when we introduced SpaghettiO's in a can under the Franco American brand.

https://groovyhistory.com/spaghettios-invented-1965-campbells-franco-american

I always assumed the French support for the US during the Revolutionary war had a lot more to do with hatred of England, than love of the US.

aircooled said:

I always assumed the French support for the US during the Revolutionary war had a lot more to do with hatred of England, than love of the US.

I think Layfayette was certainly more US loving than UK hating. I can't speak for the rest of France. I would love to read something with the level of detail and research in the book I referenced that could explain that point well. I have heard both points, and both aspects are likely somewhat true.

Ignore political theater and a group which seems to be constantly aggrieved about the kids which may or may not be in their yard and there's not much wrong with our relationship with France.

aircooled said:

I always assumed the French support for the US during the Revolutionary war had a lot more to do with hatred of England, than love of the US.

No doubt. They certainly didn't do it out of the kindness of their hearts. But they still did it.

aircooled said:

I always assumed the French support for the US during the Revolutionary war had a lot more to do with hatred of England, than love of the US.

Yeah, 80% of French participation in the American Revolution was to make trouble for England.

French support for the US during the American Revolution was purely a matter of geo-strategic maneuver, and had nothing to do with the ideology the revolution represented. The French monarch was as anti-Enlightenment as anyone, and the only reasons he countenanced support for the Americans were 1) they opposed the British, France's primary rival for global supremacy, and 2) they were far away, and there was little danger of the revolution spreading (or so he thought). The French defeat in the Seven Years/French & Indian War set the stage for both the American Revolution and the desire of the French to take any opportunity to weaken Britain. Support for the US was opportunism, plain and simple; note that the French only signed on when they felt the Revolution had a reasonable chance of success, after Saratoga, and that their efforts were not confined to helping the Americans, but rather to attempting to weaken Britain all around the world, and to claim territory where they could (notably in the Caribbean).

America had little to do with France diplomatically for some time after that, though there are exceptions of course. The French Revolution horrified many Americans, and the rise of Napoleon was significant only in the it allowed the US to purchase Louisiana, and that the US and France were both fighting the British between 1812-14. French sympathies tended toward the South during the Civil War, but of course they did not enter to support the Confederacy. French trade policies tended to be more protectionist than some other countries, so post-Civil War manufactured goods from the US presented only limited trade. The US stayed well out of European politics until WWI, at which point it supplied France with equipment while maintaining strict neutrality until 1917, at which point it joined as an associated power. The French (and the British) both despised Wilson's idealistic policies, and their unwillingness to acquiesce to his demands reinforced the general American view that isolationism was the best policy. FDR's relationship with DeGaulle was similarly thorny during WW2, and this continued post-war with Truman and Eisenhower. Post-DeGaulle, France has continued to assert its independent interests, sometimes with US support, sometimes with direct opposition.

Franco-American relations have never been about cultural affinity. They have been more directly characterized by respective national interest than any other relationship the US has had with any other great power. This is perhaps due to the fact that, unlike most other great powers, the US has never fought a war against France. Lacking cultural ties, existential ideological opposition, or unconditional victory in war, the US and France have been free to pursue their interests from a relatively equal and uncluttered view of what each believes is best for it at a given time. Sometimes this has lead to a unified effort, but more often there has been some level of divergence, leading to tensions.

02Pilot said:

French support for the US during the American Revolution was purely a matter of geo-strategic maneuver, and had nothing to do with the ideology the revolution represented. The French monarch was as anti-Enlightenment as anyone, and the only reasons he countenanced support for the Americans were 1) they opposed the British, France's primary rival for global supremacy, and 2) they were far away, and there was little danger of the revolution spreading (or so he thought). The French defeat in the Seven Years/French & Indian War set the stage for both the American Revolution and the desire of the French to take any opportunity to weaken Britain. Support for the US was opportunism, plain and simple; note that the French only signed on when they felt the Revolution had a reasonable chance of success, after Saratoga, and that their efforts were not confined to helping the Americans, but rather to attempting to weaken Britain all around the world, and to claim territory where they could (notably in the Caribbean).

America had little to do with France diplomatically for some time after that, though there are exceptions of course. The French Revolution horrified many Americans, and the rise of Napoleon was significant only in the it allowed the US to purchase Louisiana, and that the US and France were both fighting the British between 1812-14. French sympathies tended toward the South during the Civil War, but of course they did not enter to support the Confederacy. French trade policies tended to be more protectionist than some other countries, so post-Civil War manufactured goods from the US presented only limited trade. The US stayed well out of European politics until WWI, at which point it supplied France with equipment while maintaining strict neutrality until 1917, at which point it joined as an associated power. The French (and the British) both despised Wilson's idealistic policies, and their unwillingness to acquiesce to his demands reinforced the general American view that isolationism was the best policy. FDR's relationship with DeGaulle was similarly thorny during WW2, and this continued post-war with Truman and Eisenhower. Post-DeGaulle, France has continued to assert its independent interests, sometimes with US support, sometimes with direct opposition.

Franco-American relations have never been about cultural affinity. They have been more directly characterized by respective national interest than any other relationship the US has had with any other great power. This is perhaps due to the fact that, unlike most other great powers, the US has never fought a war against France. Lacking cultural ties, existential ideological opposition, or unconditional victory in war, the US and France have been free to pursue their interests from a relatively equal and uncluttered view of what each believes is best for it at a given time. Sometimes this has lead to a unified effort, but more often there has been some level of divergence, leading to tensions.

While I adamantly disagree with the first sentence, I appreciate your thoughts.

I seek much more knowledge, and more more research than can be transmitted in a forum post.

Mr_Asa said:

Part of it is probably that pre-French revolution, France was seen as this mecca of enlightenment amongst the ruling class and the US was desperately trying to do the same amongst the elites of our country.  Neither are anywhere close to true today.

If there is a problem, it's that both nations are convinced they should be the world's premier defender of democracy and human rights. But this is more of a rivalry than a real source of hostility.

You also have the fact that a lot of American culture has developed along British and German lines, so you end up with much the same "frog versus roast beef" sort of ribbing. Even if the USA probably has a much higher per capita consumption of frog meat than either Germany or Britain.

But if you pay more attention to what's actually done than said, the US and France have usually been on the same page for most major actions they've taken, or at worst, it's been "If you want to do this, we can't contribute anything, but we won't raise any real objections either."

1988RedT2 said:

I'm pretty sure we alienated a lot of the French in 1965, when we introduced SpaghettiO's in a can under the Franco American brand.

https://groovyhistory.com/spaghettios-invented-1965-campbells-franco-american

More to the point:  The Jingle

tuna55 said:

02Pilot said:

French support for the US during the American Revolution was purely a matter of geo-strategic maneuver, and had nothing to do with the ideology the revolution represented.....

While I adamantly disagree with the first sentence, I appreciate your thoughts.

I do wonder with such things if the presentation of motive may be in contrast with the realistic motive.  Such things can be very difficult to untangle in historical perspective.

I am no super up on that period of time, but I seem to remember Franklin doing a bunch of shmoozing around France.  I don't know if that was the right time period, but Franklin of course was very influential in the US and did do a lot of writing (it's hard to know it historically, if someone didn't write it).  He may have had a motivation to make a slightly skewed presentation?

(please forgive if this is completely off base time wise)

aircooled said:

tuna55 said:

02Pilot said:

French support for the US during the American Revolution was purely a matter of geo-strategic maneuver, and had nothing to do with the ideology the revolution represented.....

While I adamantly disagree with the first sentence, I appreciate your thoughts.

I do wonder with such things if the presentation of motive may be in contrast with the realistic motive.  Such things can be very difficult to untangle in historical perspective.

I am no super up on that period of time, but I seem to remember Franklin doing a bunch of shmoozing around France.  I don't know if that was the right time period, but Franklin of course was very influential in the US and did do a lot of writing (it's hard to know it historically, if someone didn't write it).  He may have had a motivation to make a slightly skewed presentation?

(please forgive if this is completely off base time wise)

You're exactly right. Franklin spent a lot of time there and was a major celebrity as I stated in OP. I know that France wanted to get back at the UK, but also Lafayette's enthusiasm (further evidenced that his name is on so many towns, schools, and streets) shows us that there was more to it than that. This is why I want a well-researched account from both sides like I read in America and Iran. It's likely complicated.

slantvaliant (Forum Supporter) said:

1988RedT2 said:

I'm pretty sure we alienated a lot of the French in 1965, when we introduced SpaghettiO's in a can under the Franco American brand.

https://groovyhistory.com/spaghettios-invented-1965-campbells-franco-american

More to the point:  The Jingle

Golly that was painful.

In reply to tuna55 :

I'm away for a few days, but when I get back home I'll look through the library and see if I have anything that specifically deals with this topic.

02Pilot said:

In reply to tuna55 :

I'm away for a few days, but when I get back home I'll look through the library and see if I have anything that specifically deals with this topic.

Thanks!

Do you know of Ghazvinian? He, holding an dual American/Iranian citizenship, was able to pour through archives there as well as here, and provide a remarkably well researched and balanced view. I seek the same.

In reply to tuna55 :

I am not familiar with Ghazvinian. I haven't done a lot of work on Iran, except for the Mosaddeq affair in 53.

The King of France during our revolution nearly bankrupt his country to help us.  King Louis XVI only decided to help after it looked like we would eventually win, and stick it to Britain, not because of Liberty for all.

02Pilot said:

In reply to tuna55 :

I am not familiar with Ghazvinian. I haven't done a lot of work on Iran, except for the Mosaddeq affair in 53.

Hopefully you were part of the team trying to wreck the country during the revolution.

Ha

Aaron_King said:

The King of France during our revolution nearly bankrupt his country to help us.  King Louis XVI only decided to help after it looked like we would eventually win, and stick it to Britain, not because of Liberty for all.

I think the world "only" is wrong here. I think it's more complicated than that.

Also we totally didn't pay them back. That was probably not a good long-term move.

The revolutionary war was kind of a while ago. World politics change a lot.

By the metrics you suggested, we should be bitter rivals with England, but instead we're each others closest allies. Of course, England would have a tough time keeping up rivalries with every former colony that decided to give them the boot.

I mean... WW2 was only 80 years ago, and we're not only buddies with Germany, but have spent decades making noises asking them to build their military up.