Back in the USSR with French luxury

I wonder if others were saddened by this picture, which covered the back page of the International Herald Tribune today. What is Mikhael Gorbachev, the last president of the Soviet Union, doing hawking luggage for Louis Vuitton, the French luxury brand?

No-one cares if actors and sports people cash in on their images. I don't mind if second-ranking statesmen make money moving merchandise. The late President Gerald Ford did it and so does Bernard Laporte, the national rugby coach who is about to join Sarkozy as minister for sport (see him selling ham below).

Gorbachev, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, is another matter. He may be unloved in modern Russia but he is a giant. No lesser word applies to the man who wound down the communist empire of Lenin and Stalin and engineered the peaceful end of the Cold War. He shouldn't be selling capitalist luxury goods. What's next, Nelson Mandela pitching for Tiffany's?

The picture is stylish, one of a series by Annie Leibowitz, the American portraitist, for an advertising campaign that Vuitton calls "Exceptional People, Exceptional Journeys". Another features Catherine Deneuve perched on a suitcase by a steam train at the Paris Gare d'Austerlitz. The married tennis stars Steffi Graf and Andre Agassi appear in another in a New York setting.  Vuitton, part of the LVMH group, says that it is celebrating its corporate "core values" and projecting the notion of travel as a personal journey -- whatever that means.

Of course Vuitton is making fashionable donations to environmental charities: Al Gore's Climate Project and Gorbachev's Green Cross International. But the stars of the adverts are still selling their images to help Vuitton unload its logo-laden bags.

Deneuve's picture, is just harmless fantasy. Austerlitz hasn't seen steam for decades. Gorbachev's picture is another matter. The former General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party has played along with another retro mise-en-scène. He is posing with a Vuitton bag in the back of a 1950s Kremlin limousine as it skirts the modern vestiges of the Berlin wall. The caption reads: "A journey brings us face to face with ourselves. Berlin Wall. Returning from a Conference."

It's not surprising that Gorby does not look comfortable. The wall still chills anyone who remembers the Cold War, especially those who lived, as I once did, on the wrong side of the iron curtain. The advert, produced by Ogilvy & Mather, inevitably brings to mind Ronald Reagan's plea at the Brandenburg gate in 1987: "Mr Gorbachev. Tear down this wall."

Getting Gorbachev to use the wall to sell leather is, to put it mildly, unseemly. We are told that he was initially unwilling to take the work. I suspect that his decision reflects the naive side of his character. A decade earlier he made a fool of himself doing a spot for Pizza Hut.

His guileless side was evident when he was overtaken by events and Boris Yeltsin in 1991 and failed in his ambition to keep the Soviet Union together with some kind of reformed Socialist system.  But anyone who came near Gorbachev was deeply impressed by the man. In the 1980s, I lived in Moscow and shared in the amazement over the emergence of this inspired reformer from within the ranks of the sclerotic Soviet machine.

Vuitton told the New York Times that its choice of Gorbachev mirrors a shift in the "geopolitics of the luxury business". Pietro Beccari, Vuitton's marketing director, said the campaign aimed to broaden the brand's appeal in new markets such as Russia and China. I'm sure that Vuitton does its research, but I find if hard seeing this world-weary former communist, now in his 77th year, as a model for the post-Soviet nouveaux riches.

Much more suited would be our very own Sarko, a man who loves to decorate his person with brand names. His unabashed fondness for Nike, Ralph Lauren, Ray Ban and big Breitling watches have earned him a new nickname --  President Bling-Bling. Unlike Gorbachev, Sarkozy is, we suppose, not receiving payment for his product placement.

[France's new Minister for Sport earns extra cash]

Comments

[Daniel Strohl]

Charles,

Since I have seen on TV the ham ad of our (future ?) "ministre des sports" Bernard Laporte, I do no more buy this brand of ham when I am being volunteered to "faire les courses" in the nearby supermarket.

I wonder if Gorby's ad will have the same result among potential Vuitton bag buyers - probably not ...

Charles, "our very own Sarko" - is Sarkozy also of Scottish descent? This blog is turning into a colony of Scotland ...

[rocket]

I have nothing against "Gorby" doing this type of commercial. Hey! you only go around once in life. Why pass up the good side of life and the money that goes with it if one has the possiblity.

Plus what a beautiful marketing coup for LVMH. There is so much money in Russia being amassed by former communists that there is a serious market in the luxury goods market for these people. You should see the Russian yachts docked in Monaco.

I only regret that Yeltsin didn't live long enough to do a commercial for Russian Vodka

[Michel S.]

It is rather sad to see Gorbachev brought down to this level. On the other hand, I could see the advertisement having an impact in ex-Soviet markets: it is common knowledge, after all, that the CPSU nomenklatura like their Western consumer goods!

By the way, Charles, it's Leibovitz, not Liebowitz.

[azloon]

Charles, i am heartened that SOMEONE is able to muster even the slightest indignance about the RAMPANT COMMERCIALIZATION OF VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING. thank you for the heavy lifting.

for the fun of it, let's imagine the most egregrious possibilities for endorsements whch may emerge in coming days, years!

my entry:

pope benedict hawks a disposable medical kit to help women determine the onset of ovulation.

the ads, video and print, will feature prominently the theme "the days of our lives, the times of our month."

[Dominique]

This Bernard Laporte of yours...what a shame.

How is it possible to be minister and ham seller at the same time?

The only chance we have of listening at him is when he sells ham eventhough we should be hearing him explaining how he will fight against dopping in in the next rugby world cup.

By the way, isn't that an other sort of "conflit d'intérêt"?

He just saw is idol (Sarko) and probably concluded that the purpose of being at the governement is to make money and become a "people".

This governement is so vulgar. La droite bling bling dans toute sa splendeur.

[Jorg Andersen]

Charles -- Imagine that other Charles (de Gaulle) endorsing Stolichnaya vodka. Imagine Winston Churchill trumpeting BMW cars. We live in a world where the trivial has become substance. Geopolitical corporate values indeed! But, hey, it doesn't matter because it's all entertainment.

[Donald]

Charles,

"Gorbachev, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, is another matter. He may be unloved in modern Russia but he is a giant. No lesser word applies to the man who wound down the communist empire of Lenin and Stalin and engineered the peaceful end of the Cold War. He shouldn't be selling capitalist luxury goods."

This is a typical misreading of history by Europeans.

Fact: It was because of Reagan's initiative that American Pershing and cruise missiles were put into Europe as a response to the Soviet's S20's in Eastern Europe. Eventually, the Soviets came back to the negotiating table and for the first time a whole class of nuclear weapons were destroyed on both sides by mutual consent - making the world a safer place (and especially Europe because the S20's were medium range missiles and could only hit Western European cities.)

Fact: It was Reagan who stood in Berlin and gave his "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Wall" speech years before the Wall fell. The Europeans thought the Wall would be there forever and thought Reagan slightly touched in the head. The Wall eventually fell because the East Germans were swarming onto the lands of foreign embassies and to stem the tide Gorbachev would have had to send in the tanks as the Soviets did with the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians. This time they couldn't because they were seeking loans from the West because the Soviet Union was imploding. It is important to note that at no time did Gorbachev take a pro-active stance to dismantle the Wall. It fell because his hands were tied.

Fact: At the first international press conference that Gorbachev gave after coming back to Moscow from being temporarily deposed he
- literally - quoted from Lenin to justify his continued opposition to having more than one party in the Soviet Union. This at a time when the people throughout the Empire were tearing down their Lenin statues and the people of Leningrad were changing their name to St. Petersburg!

In short, the Soviet Union was falling down around Gorbachev and the tide of history swept him from power which paved the way for Yeltsin who did allow other parties than just the communist party. Gorbachev did not engineer anything but a reluctant retreat from forces he could no longer control.

The person who had the vision about the eventual demise of the "Evil Empire" - years before even some in his own administration - was President Reagan. (I must add, I did not vote for Reagan in 1980 or 1984 so I am not justifying my vote with this message - I am simply acknowledging what I believe to be historical fact.)

[Terry]

Russian communist leaders were always for luxury goods. Just not for the average citizen who was unworthy of such delicacies. They all lived high on the hog while it was bread lines for everyone else during the "high mark" of communism. So, there really is nothing new here to this hypocrisy.

Interesting article though.

[pouet]

"Much more suited would be our very own Sarko."

I don't think so, Charles. Precisely, because "bling bling" has nothing to do with luxury...
If you meant that he would have enjoyed the job, I do agree with you.

Terry,

thanks for your good advice about Tuscany. I'll write you later about it.

[Monika]

I can't agree more to CB (and Azloon). It is definitely sad to see Gorbatchev posing for an ad.

He is still held in very high esteem in Germany for his courageous Glasnost et Perestroika politics which he imposed surely under high opposition of hardliners and hardcore communists. And of course for making German reunification possible.
Surely one large figure in history.

[Scaree Gee-Oh!]

Hi, Charles! Scaree Gee-Oh! alias Georgina Oliver speaking (or should that be @ l'appareil)... When on vacation in our ruin in the South of France (near Uzès), we do not have television, so buy Paris Match, from the village tabac, from time to time... Question from our 15-year-old re the LVMH campaign featured in France's popular weekly... Who's that? Suitable parental description of the impact of Gorbachev and Glasnost, followed by no less swift teen reply... "Et maintenant il fait de la pub pour Louis Vuitton"... Sharp, our li'l Emma... Talk about le choc des images...! The Match article labours on the fact that the money's going to Gorbachev's Foundation... A specious argument? Come to think of it, is L-Vee Gorbee any more reprehensible than a former A-list politician defending an Inconvenient Truth via a mega-sponsored movie?? All of this brings us back to the classical question familiar to sophomores throughout the planet... Does the end justify the means?

[rocket]

Excellent post Donald. I truly agree

[George Elliott]

Given that all politicians are criminals, and that all companies are criminal (Age of Enron, etc), why should one criminal company not employ a criminal in order to influence the wanna'be crimianals?

[Frank Schnittger]

"Gorbachev, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, is another matter. He may be unloved in modern Russia but he is a giant. No lesser word applies to the man who wound down the communist empire of Lenin and Stalin and engineered the peaceful end of the Cold War. "
- CB

It great to read somebody with personal experience of the Soviet Union acknowledge the enormous contribution of Gorby to world peace. In my view he ranks only below Gandhi, Mandela, De Klerk and Churchill as the greatest statesmen of the Twentieth century.

It's also great to read Donald articulate a typical misreading of history by Americans! The notion that Reagan made a positive contribution to the end of the Cold War is truly laughable.

Gorbachev achieved the most difficult feat in politics - to persuade a ruling elite to give up their exclusive hold on power even though doing so would threaten their privileged position and quite possibly their lives.

At a time when Reagan was heightening Cold War tensions with his "Evil Empire" speeches - which led many Soviets to believe Reagan was looking for a "first strike" capability, and that an attack by the West could be imminent - he persuaded the Soviet Elite to accept a number of dramatic unilateral reductions in nuclear armaments which completely wrong-footed the Reagan regime.

Gorbachev recognised the madness of the MAD (mutually assured destruction) doctrine, which far from acting as a deterrent, was an accident waiting to happen. Reagan's moving a few missiles here and there, and indulging in “star wars” fantasies merely threatened to escalate the Cold War to another level.

Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost and Perestroika also loosened the Communist Party's exclusive hold on power and paved the way for future democratic reforms, and ultimately the collapse of the Berlin wall.

I do agree with those western analysts who argue that the underlying dynamic behind these reforms was the failure of the Soviet System to match Western levels of productivity, and ultimately living standards. However it is one thing to realise that political reforms are needed, and quite another to achieve them against the vested interests of those whose best interests were served by a continuation of the Soviet System.

Having achieved this remarkable feat, Gorbachev made the fatal mistake of thinking that he could control the reform process from a position of centralised power. He didn't realise that once he had let the genie of openness and democracy out of the bottle, all the long suppressed nationalisms within the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block would reassert themselves and centralised control - long based on the power of the Soviet Army - could no longer be exerted.

Gorbachev thus became the first victim of the revolution he himself started. The new nations, in asserting their independence, had to denounce the old Soviet Empire, and thus also denounce the last Soviet Emperor. Of course the revolution also had its many victims, principally the party apparatchiks and pensioners whose position depended on the maintenance of empire. Little wonder he is such a despised person in Russia today. He lost them their empire.

However he also enabled the economic revolution which has followed in the wake of the political reforms he initiated. It will take several generations until his vital transitional role is fully recognised and honoured in his own country.

Without Gorbachev the Cold War could very well have turned hot - as an increasingly desperate Soviet regime sought to hold onto power by utilising the fear of Western attack as a means of preserving internal cohesion. Any reforms would have been crushed by tanks - as they had been in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and as they were subsequently by the Chinese in Tiananmen Square.

However history is written by the victors, and thus it will be a long time before Gorbachev receives his just recognition worldwide. It is sad to see him reduced to selling hand bags, and the vacuous rhetoric of the Louis Vuitton marketing people merely underlines how pathetic the western celebrity culture truly is.

There is of course an historic antecedent to all this: the parading of captive leaders in the Roman Coliseum for the delectation of the masses and the massaging of Caesar's ego. We are all diminished by his humiliation.

[christopher muir]

Funds for Green Cross International must have been Gorby's motive for making the commercial. Why else would he submit himself to this odd experience? He may be paving the way for future commercials with former Presidents and Prime Ministers - the Vuitton crowd had better get to Havana before it's too late.

[Tara_Lane]

The Jezebel.com site covered this a while back and missed the angle that you took, Charles. Azloon's response was like mine: What next?

But in case anyone's curious, here's what Jezebel wrote:
http://jezebel.com/gossip/mikhail-gorbachev/louis-vuittons-newest-model-glasnost-glamourpuss-282831.php

[terry]

Monika:

That's a laugh-Gorbachov making german unification possible. Germany should be thanking Reagan.

[terry]

I was watching a documentary on the fall of the wall. Interestingly enough, the U.S. Pershing missiles etc. was not what crippled the Soviets. Nuclear missiles are relatively cheap and easy too maintain. A nuclear arms race is much cheaper than a conventional arms race. Here's how Reagan won it. A russian admiral or general said that what cripple the Soviets was the 600 fleet navy the US went to. Fleets are very expensive to build and maintain. This general said that the Russians tried but could not keep up with the naval arms race. If conventional hostilities ever broke out in Europe, the US could have its way with the entire east coast of Russia due to our naval supremacy. He said this is what bankrupted Russia.

[terry]

On my last point, there is an interesting article from 1989 on the subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/summit/archive/dec89.htm

In it you will find this quote about the naval battle:

"Gorbachev also proposed opening negotiations to limit superpower naval forces, but Bush gently rejected the idea."

[Maggie G]

Thank-you, Frank. It's wonderful to see opinions by people who know what they're talking about.

[Ros]

"What's next, Nelson Mandela pitching for Tiffany's?"
Maybe not the right day to mention him - they are unveiling his bronze statue in Parliament Square almost at this very moment!

[Daniel Strohl]

Maggie,

"It's wonderful to see opinions by people who know what they're talking about" - LOL !

That is the a contrario reason why I kept my comment about Gorby short and neutral. But I like Frank's comment too.

[Pierre]

L for Leather

Franck recognises that underlying forces were stacked in favour of the west but prefers to give credit to the vanquished. An excellent example of confused socialist thinking.

George Elliot, bien sûr, la propriété c'est le vol. Et ce sont les entreprises qui créent la richesse.

Marvellous that this ex-communist should prove the case for the free market. Naturally the left-leaning crowd (that includes you Charles) misses the underlying justification for LVMH's actions: the quest for art. The sublimation of politics is the highest expression of aspirational values.

Let us decode the picture. What do we learn about Gorbachev's personal journey? no man is separate from his environment. For Gorby, this means placing him in the back of a limousine, gazing at a wall. There is added resonance for those whose habitat remains torn apart by conflict. For the rest of us, the bag symbolises the loneliness of the door-to-door salesman.

I first thought that he'd actually become a salesman for LVMH - that would have been pushing it a bit!

[Terry]

Maggie:

"It's wonderful to see opinions by people who know what they're talking about"

Yes. Wouldn't it be nice if you could do this?

[Terry]

"In my view he ranks only below Gandhi, Mandela, De Klerk and Churchill as the greatest statesmen of the Twentieth century."

That's right. Gorbachev is one big hero. If only the world could have more dictators just like him. It seems to me he is is best loved for trying to preserve a totalitarian government by allowing people to write letters to the Pravda editor and farm in their backyard. What a wonderful guy.

The affection by leftists for the last guy to preside over the "Evil Empire" never ceases to amaze me. Probably the true Russian hero is Boris Yeltsin. I guess he doesn't make the list.

Framed on my wall in my office is Ronald Reagan. He made the vision of a free Europe possible by challenging the evil Soviet Empire, not coddling it. I am thinking of framing CB's picture of Gorbachev and putting it next to it. Sort of like Lenin waxed in a glass case. I don't think the picture is sad at all. It's about time he worked for a living.

But I do agree with Frank on one thing. It is just like a triumph. It should show precisely how leftist "values" end up on the dog pile because they run counter to human nature.

BTW. I note Gorbie's still got his limo.

[Terry]

Maggie or Monika:

I think it was one of you that I exchanged comments with about the decline of the Kibbutz some time ago. My point was that the communistic system did not work because it ignored human nature. Here's a recent article from the NY Times on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/world/middleeast/27kibbutz.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

BTW: the article calls the kibbutz a "socialist" venture. But I think its more communistic.

[azloon]

why all this need to crown a victor in the fall of soviet communism? the seeds of it's disintigration were sown much earlier, promoted by a number of factors.

as chief adversary, the u.s. certainly played a role. ronald reagan, as cowboy hero? that's a dramatization.

i recall in the u.s., not a sense of reagan as hero, but gorby as a truly remarkable person as the very visable process of this historic event unfolded. it was almost as tho, where did this guy come from?

the perception of gorbachev as either proactive hero or just another soviet communist without alternatives is a pretty good litmus test for separating the political right from everyone else.

CB, i think if you were exposed to reality tv in the u.s., and the mindless culture of personality which is dominating all aspects of our culture, you might be able to accept all this with less regret. as a former journalist in moscow, it has to be particularly poignant to see this devolution. but that's what we've got. let's laugh as hard and as long as we can about the basic absurdities of existence.

[Maggie G]

Terry,

It was not me you discussed the kibbutz system with, I think it might have been Isabelle. I remember you had a long series of exchanges with Isabelle about whether or not the right to private property was part of the definition of democracy.

I agreed with everything you said about the kibbutz system, but am still not certain which of you was right about the democracy question. (I have been thinking about it ever since.) If I remember correctly, you were more convincing about democracy than you are about national socialism.

The argument you had with me was about 40 percent of Americans not knowing how to find Iraq on the map but being able to fix their car when it breaks down on the side of the road.

[Donald]

Frank,

"At a time when Reagan was heightening Cold War tensions with his "Evil Empire" speeches - which led many Soviets to believe Reagan was looking for a "first strike" capability, and that an attack by the West could be imminent - he persuaded the Soviet Elite to accept a number of dramatic unilateral reductions in nuclear armaments which completely wrong-footed the Reagan regime."

What were these "reductions" in nuclear armaments? I am only aware of the one Reagan and Gorbachev negotiated after the Soviets came back to the negotiating table - after the introduction of Pershing and cruise missiles into Europe.

When Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as an Evil Empire the Soviets were making toys filled with explosives and dropping them all over Afghanistan to go off when children picked them up. The Soviet Union killed more Russians than Hitler. Perhaps this constitutes "evil"?

At the time the Left didn't like Reagan calling the Soviet Union an Empire, which it certainly was. Now even the former Soviets admit it was an Empire. So what part of Evil Empire can any rational person disagree with? Should not a leader tell the truth, especially one so blatant as the fact that the Soviet Union was an Evil Empire?

As to its political ramifications, Yelena Bonner (wife of Sarkharov, the last great Russian, in my opinion)said on an American news program that when she heard this it gave all democratic movements in the Soviet Union some hope. She said she would never forget it, that it meant the West hadn't abandoned them to their fate and that at least one person of signifigance in the West understood the true nature of the Soviet Union.

It is interesting that telling the simple truth - that the Soviet Union was an Evil Empire if there ever was one - has to be defended. It's a scary world. Will one have to defend saying that Hitler's Germany was an Evil Empire as well?

[Daniel Strohl]

Azloon,

"let's laugh as hard and as long as we can about the basic absurdities of existence".

I join in, with your permission, of course !

PS : "...is a pretty good litmus test" - I like this expression - I didn't know it.

I guess that a litmus test made either on Terry or on Dominique would yield unambiguous results ...

[John Gregory Flinn]

"I do agree with those western analysts who argue that the underlying dynamic behind these reforms was the failure of the Soviet System to match Western levels of productivity, and ultimately living standards."

This dynamic decided the fate of the Soviet Union ... and the other totalitarian regimes.

One indicator is the fate of the Rouble. It is now about one tenth of its value compared to that in the USSR.

Men like Gorbachev emerge BECAUSE of the malaise, when a way out is needed. Circumstances create the men - not the other way round.

I remember, in the mid 70s watching Russian workers knocking screws in with a hammer on a production line, ignoring basic safety rules on nuclear plants and then, later, paying for my taxi fare with a carton of Wrigleys chewing gum which the driver preferred to Roubles.
It may be argued these are only snapshots but they were revealing enough.

Winston Churchill had a cigar named after him, Napoleon had a Brandy and there must be other such examples ... maybe Louis Vitton are looking to name a bag after Gorbachev (having forgotten about Gladstone)?

[Frank Schnittger]

Donald - I do not dispute that the Soviet Union was an evil empire. Stalin, in particular, rivalled Hitler in the scale of his atrocities. Much as I admire Sarkharov, dissidents in the USSR did not constitute a serious threat to the Communist party. Stalin had simply butchered or interned them by the million.

All I am saying is that Reagan's rhetoric made it more difficult, not less, for Gorbachev to persuade the Soviet Elite to accept dramatic military and political changes which threatened their privileged position.

There was a genuine fear of invasion in the Soviet Union. The experience of Hitler's double cross - making an alliance with the Soviet Union, and then invading them left a deep mark (as well as millions of causalities).

The allies actually made plans to invade after the war but concluded that their war weary peoples would not wear it. The Iron curtain started off as a defensive shield, only later did its primary purpose become the oppression of Eastern Europe under Soviet domination.

For many years after WW2 the Soviet Union felt under imminent threat and only gradually did it catch up in terms of its nuclear arsenal and missile delivery technology. Reagan heightened these fears and tensions. Speaking the truth about the evil empire is one thing, doing so in a manner which suggested the U.S. was seeking a first strike capability is another thing entirely - it is virtually a declaration of war - and made the work of rapprochement and de-escalation of the arms race much more difficult.

As Terry has pointed out, building a nuclear arsenal isn't all that expensive once the technology has been mastered. I don't accept his argument re: the costs of maintaining a Navy - Admirals are always whining for more funds. A large Navy was never a strategic requirement for the USSR once approximate nuclear parity had been achieved. A major war in Europe was never going to stay conventional - and hitting enemy ships in the enclosed waters of the Baltic with land and aircraft based missiles would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

The bigger issue was that the Soviet economic system wasn't working very well. Low productivity and low standards of living produced internal pressures for reform which Gorbachev embraced rather than repressed as his predecessors had done with enormous brutality.

He could have gone the Chinese route - seeking to maintain an authoritarian system of Communist Party control whilst allowing economic market led reforms. However he went for simultaneous political reforms with the result that the Communist party lost control of the internal political system in Russia as well as that in satellite states despite the best efforts of Soviet hardliners who at one stage staged a coup against Gorbachev.

[marine]

CB, thanks for this wonderful article, but please keep your suggestion about Sarko doing some ads to yourself. He may like the idea and change the constitution to be able to do so.

[Valentin]

"Yelena Bonner (wife of Sarkharov, the last great Russian, in my opinion)said on an American news program that when she heard this it gave all democratic movements in the Soviet Union some hope"

Yes. And not only in the Soviet Union. So refreshing to hear the Truth in such terrible situations. Makes one nostalgic about a time when America knew how to be altruistic and was worlwide loved and admired for that.

[Valentin]

"Will one have to defend saying that Hitler's Germany was an Evil Empire as well"

Yes. Everything is allowed to be doubted and and tried, for the sake of the principle. Free speech knows no taboos - it's either there or not.

[terry]

Maggie:

You're right it was Isabelle. Thanks for reminding me. I believe I said private property was essential to democracy, not the definition. My point with her was that I regarded the kibbutz as a free system (even though communistic) because it was voluntary. Everyone was free to leave. Apparently, many did. Thanks for the comment.

[Pierre]

Donald, your definition of evil (russian toys in Afganistan) needs to equate with the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perhaps the only ones not to have been evil in the second world war were Belgium and France.

My definition opposes Evil to Beauty. Nazi Germany produced nothing beautiful, only enduring ugliness. No one who has heard the Red Army Choir, on the other hand, can doubt the Russians' enduring ability to produce things of beauty. This why I approve Vuitton's advertising (as I approved Benetton's) and CB's support for it.

[rocket]

Pierre

"Perhaps the only ones not to have been evil in the second world war were Belgium and France."

As for France. How would you classify collaboration and the anti-Jewish policies beyond Nazi "exigences" promulgated by Vichy.

Survival?

[Terry]

Pierre:

"Perhaps the only ones not to have been evil in the second world war were Belgium and France."

Which country again was so insistent on war reparations against Germany after WWI? The French sowed the seeds for their own occupation 20 years earlier. Oh, and who built the maginot line only to the belgium border? That French nicety was to ensure Hitler would attack through its neighbor.

[Jon]

Terry,

You are implying that the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an evil act?

It was an act that took hundreds of thousands of lives but saved millions more. The estimates for an invasion of Japan was 1 million casulties, just on the Allied side. Japanese casulties would have been in excess of 5 million including civillian.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings actually spared Japan from a destruction that would have far surpassed what actually happened. Japans post war recovery to an ecconomic power would have been much more difficult.

What would you have done?

[Terry]

Frank said:

"I don't accept his argument re: the costs of maintaining a Navy - Admirals are always whining for more funds. A large Navy was never a strategic requirement for the USSR once approximate nuclear parity had been achieved. A major war in Europe was never going to stay conventional - and hitting enemy ships in the enclosed waters of the Baltic with land and aircraft based missiles would be like shooting fish in a barrel."

Yes, ships in the Baltic would be like shooting fish in a barrel. But if you noticed, I said the Russian EAST coast, meaning the pacific. If war broke out in Europe, the Russian navy would want to break out into Atlantic to disrupt US reinforcements and supplies to Europe. When Reagan raised the navy to 600 ships, the idea was to have naval supremacy in the Atlantic and the Pacific. The russians could not afford both. So, when war broke out, the US navy would have naval supremacy in the PACIFIC and thus be able to threaten Russian from the east. To counter this, the Russians produced two new carrier fleets, which are very expensive to produce and maintain. However, this was not enough to challenge the US navy. What Gorbachev wanted more than anything else, was a reduction in naval forces. After all, it doesnt matter if you have 10K missiles as opposed to 20K. The problem with Frank's dismissal of the general just wanting more money, is that the documentary was made ten years AFTER the fall of the Berlin wall. So, I dont think the general (I think he was a russian "joint chief of staff") is really looking for money now. Also, I copied Gorbie's quote asking bush to reduce naval forces.

Would a conventional war turn nuclear? Possibly, but not likely. NATO strategy called for the use of limited nuclear weapons against the Russians. However, this was more of a preemptive strategy. It was meant to dissuade russia from concentrating its forces fully for fear of limited nuclear strike. The threat by itself would hamper a soviet strike without having to actually use limited nuclear weapons. The Russians would have to attack with less concentration of forces for fear of a nuclear strike. Im not so sure Germany wanted nukes actually used on their soil. Also, once you start using nukes, you can expect retaliation. I am not so sure everyone was really willing to go that route.

To his one credit, Gorbachev didnt use tanks to stop the revolution. Here, Reagan's rhetoric probably also played a role. Gorbie wasnt dealing with Carter anymore but someone who was vocably committed to defending Europe and democracy. And Reagan had a fleet to back it up.

"Low productivity and low standards of living produced internal pressures for reform which Gorbachev embraced rather than repressed as his predecessors had done with enormous brutality."

True enough with regard to low productivity. But the point you ignore is that Gorbachev's "great" reforms (you dont tell us what were these great reforms), were meant to keep the Soviet Union totalitarian. In other words, to continue the repressive political structure. How does that make him such a great statesman?

[Daniel Strohl]

Rocket,

"Survival?"

Rocket, everybody (or every country) has skeletons in the closet. As a (minor) example, may I remember of the US senator Mc Carthy, who was not a paragon of moderation and intelligence, but who had nevertheless numerous followers in the population ?

Regarding armies at war, all of them have committed atrocities - may be the scale varies a little bit ... But that depends mostly upon what history book one reads ...

[Blendi Progri]

I too think that Gorby in the back of that limo, seems sad.

He might be old, sick and tired, but he sure does cut a lonely, pathetic and rather confused figure. Almost as if he is in a cage.

What CB presents in here is that anyone is free to do as they please, but there still should be some boundaries for few, the very few. And Gorby certainly is one of them. I also saw some of his policies and monumental efforts at work from the other side of the I.Curtain, and how it gave many people a great deal of hope.

It wasnt just a great balancing act- to try and keep happy the new aspirations and the old guard apart- but managing to engage with the world in a serious and honourable fashion and the sense of clear intentions that you got from Gorby. Whatever the history can and has said about him, no one can deny that he was a visionary. It will be a mistake to think that cirsumstances alone force people like him to come to the fore. We have seen Empires in transitional stages before and not all of these transformations were peaceful. Gorby was his own man, peace-loving, clever and with a clear sense of purpose in life.

And as already mentioned, a tad naive. Despite us wishing them perfect almost all the GREATS are a tad naive.

As for Laporte someone could remind him to -ham it down- for a while, till he is a minister no more. lol

[textibule]

Is it just my imagination or do the comments on every single one of Charles' posts, regardless of subject, converge entropically on socialism vs democracy, good vs. evil, Ronald Reagan vs any other 20th-century politician, ad nauseum.

This is the binary stuff that us Americans like to map the world onto, so I'm also wondering whether the discussions are being hijacked by Americans.

[azloon]

let's see if i can keep all this straight....russia passes the beauty test, the nazi's flunk (couldn't hold a tune). soviets and u.s qualify for evil status (genocide/hiroshima), while france, of all places, gets a pass (thx, rocket). hmmm......it's a strange world we live in, master jack!

valentin..there ARE limit on free speech ("free speech knows no taboos"): as u.s. chief justice oliver wendall holmes pointed out 100 years ago, "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater."

also, there was no wonderful day when the u.s. unfailingly supported the good guys, and opposed the bad guys ("the good old days when u.s. was worldwide loved'). we've 'looked' better at times than others, but often have supported despots who maintain societal order and our economic interests.

Daniel -- yes, the blue test strip turns pink, i believe. or is it the other way around? ahhh..... high school chemistry, not the high point of my uncelebrated academic career.

[Pierre]

Glad you're back Rocket.

No, that was entirely in Germany's hands. I recommend Robert Paxton's 'La France de Vichy 1940-44'. France's quick defeat might on the other hand be attributed to a weakness for Hitler's European project. Only the other day my wife was reminding me that her traditional enemy was England. This really hurts me after the years I spent growing up in London. I reminded her that the country had been invaded and ruled by the French (Normans, what have you), and the coat of arms bears the French motto 'Dieu et mon Droit', but she replied 'don't care, they're English'. And then a chap on a documentary on Arte about the Queen chipped in with 'It may not be politically correct to say this, but a lot of us actually feel closer to Germany than to France.' Well, you would, wouldn't, you, look where your royal family comes from. Complicated place, Germany. How many other countries have a different name in every language (allemand, tedesco, deutsch, german...)?

[rocket]

Daniel,

I agree with you 110%. I was only responding to Pierre's comment about France and Belgium possibly being the only one's that had not been evil. As if he was saying it was the others to blame not us (France)

Throughout history France also has a very large part to play in atrocities

I am aware of US atrocities also as I am of others.

Jon,

I know about the story of a million US soldiers lives saved by the dropping of two bombs and though I don't express an opinion on the right and wrong of the issue (I've been to Hiroshima and you never come back the same as before) I just hope that this bomb will never happen again.

I know the story of Japanese massacres in Korea and China. It's just that I am close to the Japanese people for certain reasons and always have a pain in my heart when I see those pictures.

scroll down to Hiroshima pix

http://tinyurl.com/24sejy

Pierre,

You said without researching

"No, that was entirely in Germany's hands. I recommend Robert Paxton's 'La France de Vichy 1940-44'."

I've read Paxton and seen him on History channel and also have read Verdict on Vichy by Michael Curtis and am now just at the end of The Unfree French by Richard Vinen. You cannot tell me in all honesty that Vichy was not at the origin of anti semetic laws.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsh25.htm

and I quote from the article

"As Weisberg accurately
points out, in some ways Vichy's language was more wide-ranging
than the German. (For example, a half-Jew not practicing Judaism
could not be a Jew under the Nazi dictate; but would be deemed one
under the Vichy act if he/she had married a Jew.)"

In fact Paxton DID hold Vichy responsible.

And I continue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France

"Proportionally, this makes for a lower death toll than in some other countries (in the Netherlands, 75% of the Jewish population was exterminated) [25]. This fact has been used as arguments by supporters of Vichy. However, according to Paxton, the figure would have been greatly lower if the "French state" had not willfully collaborated with Nazi Germany, which lacked staff for police activities. During the Vel'd'hiv raid of July 1942, Laval ordered the deportation of the children, against explicit German orders. Paxton pointed out that if the total number of victims had not been higher, it was due to the shortage in wagons, the Resistance of the civilian population and deportation in other countries (notably in Italy) [25]."

I think the collaboration question has been largely resolved.

Regards

[Monika]

"It was an act that took hundreds of thousands of lives but saved millions more. The estimates for an invasion of Japan was 1 million casulties, just on the Allied side. Japanese casulties would have been in excess of 5 million including civillian.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings actually spared Japan from a destruction that would have far surpassed what actually happened. Japans post war recovery to an ecconomic power would have been much more difficult.

What would you have done?"

Now things are always easier to judge and weigh after one knows what happened.

The dispute about if Hiroshima and Nagasaki was as such a necessity or an evil will never be determined for sure I guess.

One clue could be to ask what had been the alternatives and if anything else hed been tried to avoid the actual use of both bombs on civilian target but leading to the same result.

Another question would be for the motivations apart from shortening the war if there'd been any.

I know that it had been considered to drop the bomb on uninhabited island to demonstrate its devastating effects. Some argued that it wouldn't have been as effective on the Japanese psyche. On the other hand one could argue that one could have given a try to drop it first on an uninhabited island and see how the Japanese react before dropping it on a Japanese town.

What is sure that the deployment of the bomb was also intented to keep the Soviets in check because cold war started already while the war still raged in Europe.

[Pierre Bernardi]

Just had a look at the post of 11/11/2005. Sure Charles remembers it - it's the first on the blog. Interesting subject, fab contribution by Thibaud, and it occurs to me: frenchness isn't a race, it's a faith. France's superiority bases itself on the fact that anyone can be French. Like a religion, based in secular law, anyone can become a convert. Isn't that a strong moral position to take? Could anyone say the same of Britain, Germany or China? The Chinese seem incapable of integrating anywhere - even in France. Germany maintains 'right of blood' - a sure recipe for trouble. Britain has 'right of confusion': "so you're british. English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish? Who do you support in the cricket?"

No doubt our numerous American friends are straining at the leash, so let me address your objection: I said that frenchness was based in secular law. Now if you can just throw away your bible, we can maybe make some progress.

This is how I live with my dual nationality: my heart is scottish and my head is french. Because if you had to choose, what else would you want to be?

I don't want to respond to Lucy Finsterwald, Victor Tan, Michael Blackburn, Philippe Seré, John Halford, Ray Elliott... but I note that a certain RM was there from the start. Perhaps you might tell us now who that minister was?

PS: you may disagree with the above. I note that in the start of a very long post, Felix Lowe wrote: "In its very efforts to see beyond race, France has become, inadvertently, a intolerant nation rooted in an institutionalised racism profoundly deleterious to its immigrant population."

[VisitorHK]

Textibule: I absolutely agree with you. And this is a pity. Right versus left seems to provide people with some structure they or we? need in order to understand a topic, but doesn't it undermine the subject's or issue's own right to be? It is as if everything had to be classified right/left first. It then becomes a little easier to understand somebody's comments or reasoning. This is difficult for those who are less black/white personalities, who sometimes think left, sometimes right, according to the subject and without realising that every statement can be interpreted as a political statement in the eyes of some. In the end, real topics suffer. Whether someone thinks left or right, let's agree to disagree, no matter anyone's particular personal political ambition. Nobody gets elected right here anyway!

BTW: It is not that American to think in those categories! Other people seek the same security through this kind of discrimination of thought, but it might be less obvious.

[rocket]

From Wiki

The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 exploded with an energy of about 15 kilotons of TNT (~6.3×1013 joules). The nuclear weapons currently in the arsenal of the United States range in yield from .3 kt to 1.2 Mt TNT equivalent. During the Cold War, the United States developed hydrogen bombs with a maximum theoretical yield of 25 Mt; the Soviet Union developed a prototype weapon, nick-named the Tsar Bomba, which was tested at 50 Mt, but had a maximum theoretical yield of 100 Mt.[4] The actual destruction of such weapons can vary greatly depending on conditions, such as the altitude at which they are detonated, the nature of the target they are detonated against, and the physical features of the landscape where they are detonated.

On a much grander scale, supernova explosions give off about 1044 Joules of energy, which is about ten octillion (1028) megatons of TNT.

By E=mc2, when 1 kilogram of antimatter annihilates with 1 kilogram of matter the reaction produces 1.8×1017 J, which is equal to 42.96 Mt, although up to 50% of this is in the form of neutrinos.

Simply speaking as I learned at the Hiroshima museum. The tsar Bomba was 50,000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.

More from wiki on the Tsar Bomba

"The original U.S. estimate of the yield was 57 Mt, but since 1991 all Russian sources have stated its yield as 50 Mt. Nonetheless, Khrushchev warned in a filmed speech to the Communist parliament of the existence of a 100 Mt bomb (technically the design was capable of this yield). The fireball touched the ground, reached nearly as high as the altitude of the release plane, and was seen and felt 1,000 km away. The heat from the explosion could have caused third degree burns 100 km away from ground zero. The subsequent mushroom cloud was about 60 km high (nearly seven times higher than Mount Everest) and 30–40 km wide. The explosion could be seen and felt in Finland, even breaking windows there [4]. Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage up to 1,000 km away. The seismic shock created by the detonation was measurable even on its third passage around the Earth. Its Richter magnitude was about 5 to 5.25[4]"

I sometimes ask if mankind/humankind has a problem.

[Valentin]

"you can't shout fire in a crowded theater."

That is, as Master George would put it, a matter of state security :)
You mix genders here, mister : "no taboos" was about political correctness, a very efficient censor these days. Why bring chairs, teapots and fire escapes in a discussion about abstract self declared conscience taboos.

[terry]

VistorK, Daniel:

On the right or left thing...

You will find that basically people fall generally into one of the two categories based on how they percieve the world and themselves in it. In other words, a person's ideology. Generally, you can predict how people will view an issue if you understand their worldview. Not always and not on every issue. But it is useful if you want to find out why people believe what they do. Why do most teachers and journalists tend to view the world from the left? Most baseball players tend to vote Republican. Most financial people and those that own their own businesses are on the right. Labor and employees are usually on the left. I think the answer is that journalism and teaching tend to attract people who see the world in the same way. I should point out that I don't think we are doing the left/right thing here. But we are still hashing that out on Paris Falls on the Bike.

Textibule said:

Is it just my imagination or do the comments on every single one of Charles' posts, regardless of subject, converge entropically on socialism vs democracy, good vs. evil, Ronald Reagan vs any other 20th-century politician, ad nauseum.

You might be right on other posts. But here the subject is, in fact, Gorbachev and his socialist past. So you might expect the conversation to converge on Reagan and socialism quite naturally.

[terry]

Jon said:

"Terry,

You are implying that the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an evil act?"

I said no such thing. But since you asked....(I hear people groaning)

Well, let me phrase it to you this way.... Do you think bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a good act, Jon? I don't think so. It wiped two cities off the face of the map. It certainly ended the war sooner resulting in fewer deaths. So, should we do that anytime it will result in fewer deaths? I won't go as far as to say it was an evil act but it certainly was not a good act. And it is certainly nothing to boast about.

I do find it grossly odd that certain people are more horrified by the fact we used "a nuclear weapon". Several months before that, we firebombed tokyo killing 100K people. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0310-08.htm
People suffocated in the middle of the street. But people complain about Hiroshima because an atom bomb was used. I really don't see much distinction between the two other than the manner.

It is hard to feel terribly bad for Japan considering the atrocities it committed in China and elsewhere. But I am still not sure what we did was "good". War is never a good subject to discuss morality. Often the side that is on the side of the good (and I believe the Allies were on that side), feels compelled to do things that are quite terrible in order to be victorious.

Surprised some of you, didnt I? It shouldn't be if you understand my worldview.

BTW: Monika, I don't think bombing the "deserted island" first would have worked. Having Hiroshima completely obliterated apparently did not make much of an impression on the Japanese.

[Pierre Bernardi]

All right then Rocket, that leaves Belgium.

[Joan]

Why not? Why should Gorbachev not be able to make a little money for himself or for his favorite charity? Maybe he had fun! How much fun could he have had in his life? Doesn't he deserve a little? Of course he looks thoughtful in the ad--clearly he was at the center of history for a time and no longer is. He seems to me to have been a brilliant player who was born in the wrong country at the wrong time, a man who apparently loved his wife and who has always seemed to me to be more than a politician. Events overwhelmed him, as they often do to people, and touched his soul. I think it says much about him that he's able to accept, participate in, and perhaps enjoy the power of advertising in the western world--the power of capitalism. I hope he has a nicely framed copy of this photo. I think it's great. Leave him alone. (And as far as Sarkozy is concerned...he's earned the right to enjoy some of the perks...leave him alone, too!)

[rocket]

Pierre

Lest you forget Lichtenstein!

[John Gregory Flinn]

"By E=mc2, when 1 kilogram of antimatter annihilates with 1 kilogram of matter the reaction produces 1.8×1017 J,"

Sorry to be a pedant Rocket but you may have a problem with your computer key board - its not printing the powers of ten correctly.
For example the figure 1017 above should read 10 to the power 17, which, if you remember your school maths is a lot bigger.

[Pierre Bernardi]

Pétain's priority was to maintain the unity of France. To do this he needed to stay as close to German France as possible. Why overshoot? In his trial, he claimed that "Pendant que le général de Gaulle, hors de nos frontières, poursuivait la lutte, j'ai préparé les voies à la Libération, en conservant une France douloureuse mais vivante." (Robert Paxton, 'Vichy France, Old Guard and New Order, 1940-1944'). This is his sole and sufficient justification for being considered in control of France from 1940 to 1944. By putting the Nazis to sleep on their western front, he played a significant part in preparing for the successful allied landings in Normandy and in the south, which enabled French troops to liberate Marseille, Lyon and Paris in 1944.

[rocket]

Hi John

It's not me it's Wiki. Do you think I understand that stuff?

My high school maths was limited to 1+1=3 (I think)

[rocket]

Pierre

"Pendant que le général de Gaulle, hors de nos frontières, poursuivait la lutte, j'ai préparé les voies à la Libération, en conservant une France douloureuse mais vivante." (Robert Paxton, 'Vichy France, Old Guard and New Order, 1940-1944').

Yes that was the Marechal's side of the story. History has recorded it otherwise and even J. Chirac recognized publicly:

"The French president’s clear statements on dark memorial issues have repeatedly confounded friends and foes alike. Jacques Chirac will be remembered as the president who recognized the responsibility of the collaborationist Vichy government during Nazi Occupation."

And I defer to our Communist friends at

http://www.humaniteinenglish.com/article533.html

[Terry]

By putting the Nazis to sleep on their western front, he played a significant part in preparing for the successful allied landings in Normandy and in the south, which enabled French troops to liberate Marseille, Lyon and Paris in 1944.

I'm sorry, who really liberated Paris?

[Pierre]

Général Leclerc and his Deuxième Division Blindée, with the help of Parisian insurgents and the approval of US General Bradley.

[Terry]

Pierre:

I said who REALLY liberated Paris? Which countries did all the heavy lifting while a rather tall frenchman in a funny hat sulked in the background doing everything possible to be a thorn in Eisenhower's sign?

[Terry]

Make that Eisenhower's side.

[Valentin]

"I said who REALLY liberated Paris? Which countries did all the heavy lifting while a rather tall frenchman"

Argh, there we go again.
This asks for a right-back-at-ya question: who REALLY made it possible that the US exist at all, as an independent state?

Clue: the same people who offered the Statue of Liberty

[rocket]

Terry

Don't worry about it. It's a French thing!

[rocket]

I get a serious chuckle out of this Paris liberé par les francais bullshit.

See statue of Gen . DeGaulle on Champs Elysées

[Daniel Strohl]

Valentin,

"Clue: the same people who offered the Statue of Liberty"

And the man who designed it was my fellow "Colmarien" Bartholdi... Sorry for repeating myself !

Rocket,

"But you may have a problem with your computer key board - its not printing the powers of ten" (John Gregory Flynn).

Definitely yes. It does not print accents either, and some other letters as well (liberé, francais). It even makes a massacre of our general (DeGaulle = de Gaulle). Next time, you will be "mis au ban de la République Française" (with un "c cédille")!

Terry,

"My high school maths was limited to 1+1=3 (I think)" (Rocket).

Rocket has probably studied maths in the same high school than a French lawyer who told me once : "In law matters, 2 + 2 does not always equal 4". Since I have always been more or less aware of this, I tried (and succeeded up to now) to avoid any professional contact with law people!

[James]

Interesting debate in the comments as to who brought the wall down, Reagan or Gorbachev. I go for Reagan. Sure, he scaled up the aggression and scuppered various SALT talks, but only because someone had told him a secret: 'The USSR is out of cash! If you make them spend, they'll fall!' Hence the hilarious Star Wars project. Utter fantasy but the Soviets couldn't prove it didn't exist and had to pour money into a repost. Brilliant strategy.

[VisitorHK]

Where (in what post)is the discussion on the death penalty (Terry vs Maggie/Monika)? ??

[Daniel Strohl]

Visitorhk,

This discussion is in the end section of "Paris falls for the bike"; this post is primarily a rather extensive exchange about nazism and socialism (and severeal other "isms" as well). The death penalty discussion is merely a "fall-out" of the nazism/socialism debate.

[azloon]

the discussion about who liberated france at the end of ww2 is interesting.

i always thought it was the allied forces.

pierre and others say otherwise.

what is taught in french schools, textbooks?

is it important for french to believe they liberated themselves after several years of nazi humiliation?

i don't have a problem with this version of history, if it is actually true. if it exists only for the purpose of making a nation feel better about itself, no thanks.

[Pierre]

HANG ON AZLOON, I NEVER SAID THAT THE FRENCH LIBERATED FRANCE. I SPOKE OF PARIS AND MARSEILLE. AND LYON. PEOPLE SOMETIMES FORGET WHICH SIDE FRANCE WAS ON.

[Daniel Strohl]

Azloon,

I don't know what French school books say today regarding who liberated France - when I was at school, they didn't say anything, since WWII was at that time "hors programme" (off program).

Of course, it is mainly the allied forces who (or which ?) liberated France, aided also of course by the French "Résistance". But it is more than unlikely that the Résistance alone would have been able to push the German army back across the river Rhine.

There are many stories about the Résistance. May be it is interesting to note that for instance Mitterrand entered in "résistance" in 1943 only - may be it is a mere coincidence, but one should have in mind that the German army was (heavily) defeated in Stalingrad in december 1942/january 1943 by the Soviets. It was not so difficult then to foresee that the allies would win, since it was clear that they would try (and probably succeed) to land in Europe, thus forcing the German army to fight on two fronts. This actually happened.

Before turning "résistant", Mitterrand worked for the Vichy régime which was collaborating with the Germans (of course, Vichy had no other choice since the German army occupied after the armistice of 1940 the northern half of France and occupied the remaining part of France in 1942). May be it is interesting to know what Encylopaedia Britannica - electronic edition 2006 - says about Mitterrand :"he worked with the collaborationist Vichy government—a fact that did not become publicly known until 1994—before joining the Resistance in 1943".

What this august encyclopaedia does however not mention is that Mitterrand has been decorated by Vichy with the order de la "Francisque". Less than 3000 Francisque décorations were attributed - Mitterrand got the Francisque Nr. 2202 (Source : Encyclopédie QUID 1996, page 691).

For your information : a francisque is a war axe (your neighbours in the Grand Canyon would call it tomahawk) used by the Francs, a German tribe who invaded France a long time ago.

However, Azloon, I do not at all intent to make fun with the résistance. It was a real movement, and many lost their live in it or joined later the regular French troops which made combat against the Germans in 1944/45. For instance, Paris was liberated in August 1944 by a French armoured division (2.ème DB - DB stands for "division blindée); Strasbourg and Colmar (where I live) were also liberated by the French army - Northern Alsace, where I lived at the time, was liberated by the American army.

PS : I have mentioned my sources above - I do not want to have controversies with (remaining) Mitterrand fans.

[terry]

PEOPLE SOMETIMES FORGET WHICH SIDE FRANCE WAS ON.

Perhaps because of Vichy. Perhaps because they fired on American and British troops in North Africa. Do the French history books cover that?

[terry]

PEOPLE SOMETIMES FORGET WHICH SIDE FRANCE WAS ON.

Perhaps because of Vichy. Perhaps because they fired on American and British troops in North Africa. Do the French history books cover that?

[Pierre]

Sorry, you've lost me. Do you want me to answer that question twice?