Redstate

n/t

what the Germans did, since most of the French nation were actively cooperative or complicit.

Saw the mediocre movie "Battle of Britain" (1969) the other day. The end was shocking when they showed allied losses. While the Poles contributed 139 pilots to the RAF the French contributed only 13. You would think they would have played a part in winning back their country...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain_Foreign_Contribution

"The pain inflicted by your country's indifference is tenfold that inflicted by your ruthless captors."

Rep Sam Johnson on the House floor commenting on his experience as a Vietnam POW

Those figures are for a very limited period (July-October 1940) almost immediately following the French surrender, and in a particular location. There was a Free French Armee de l'Air, which many more French pilots joined.

The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth wasn't partitioned until 1795, and both Poland and Lithuania were independent countries from 1919-1939, and, of course, since 1989 and 1991 respectively.

It would, of course, be accurate to say that every adult alive in those countries remembers a Russian hegemony which, with a brief respite of 20 years, stretches back to Washington's presidency, but Russian domination of these countries is not longer than the US has been a country, it is almost 40 years shorter than the full history of the US.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts

by saying that it is not longer than America has been a country, but dates *only* to George Washington's second term. ;)

You are right, of course, that Poland-Lithuania's neighbours had made several attempts to manipulate the politics of the Commonwealth on several occasions before 1795, however, you overstate your case by several orders of magnitude. It is wrong to equate a foreign monarch with tyranny - just ask the Swedes who have had a French dynasty on the throne for 200 years.

It is almost 1,000 years since an English dynasty reigned in England/the UK. And foreign dynasties can be immensely liberating. Just ask George I of England. Indeed it was the Anglicisation of the House of Hanover that sparked the American Revolution. If George III had not spoken English the relationship between your country and mine would have unfolded in a very different way.

But back to Poland-Lithuania. The period immediately prior to the third partition was the Commonwealth's enlightenment and the Constitution of May 3 1791 has an enormous symbolic importance and May 3 remains Poland's most important civic holiday.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts

but I think we may be getting a little obscure for further elaboration.

Enjoyed it though!

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

a bit depressing, yes, but not remarkable. I didn't believe the leftists on 9/12 when they said we had all been attacked and should stand as a nation. I wished it were true, but believed they had their polling fingers in the air and knew it was time to lie about their true intentions. After all, it was only 3,000 people who were killed, a miniscule number in a nation of hundreds of millions. Even counting their friends and families it still didn't affect a significant minority of the population. Oh sure, everybody was inconvenienced for a few days when they grounded all the planes. And the images on the tv were heart rending, but only for so long as they remained. It would only be a matter of time before their co-conspirators would have them removed on the basis that it unecessarily a) raised our anger or b) caused renewed stress for those who lost a loved one. Then, with no prolonged imprint on the masses of the impact of tyrany, the righteous anger would begin to fade, and the faith in the justice of our cause would as well, which in turn would undermine our willingness to pay any price or bear any burden to ensure our liberty. This has come to pass. Even now their hatred for our armed forces begins to show itself. They will be more careful this time of course, making sure they continue to mouth the words "we support the troops," at least until they believe it is once again safe to openly spit upon them, slander them, and perhaps even seize their property on the basis of social justice against those who commit war crimes against the peace-loving proliteriate. No, I know these traitors to the cause of freedom too well.

The Czech people on the other hand have all been touched by the tyrany of the left. They know it first hand, as did their parents, grandparents, and possibly even great grandparents. Those who were oppressed handed those memories down from the first generation to the next, each adding their own insight from their own personal experiences. It might not have been long enough to become a genetic imprint, but it is stamped in their psychology, as is their release from that terrible life. Their nation won't forget until at least half their population wasn't born under the iron boot heel, and even then I believe it will only fade slowly.

The leftists believe it is better to live a slave (or better yet, be the master of the slaves, as they always envision themselves leading the less intelligent proliteriat), than to fight, perhaps even die, for liberty. Neither I, nor the Czechs who have experienced that tyrany believe that.

It’s wonderful to, finally, hear a voice lauding America friends (while day-after-day hearing about ever growing number of our “critics” and enemies). Nobody could explain this ingratitude better that Mark Stein in his “America Alone”, quoting the most unappreciated Donald Rumsfeld: “If we know anything, it is that weakness is provocative” and …. Bin Laden: “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they like the strong horse”. This in great contrast to the deceptive Chamberlain-dems claim that our defeats and erosion would turn our enemies into friends. (By simply feeling sorry for the looser?). The main reasons for “America in the hostile world” (prof. Zbigniew Brzezinski) have been our enviable technological, scientific, economical, social, cultural and humanitarian successes and our friendship with Israel. Nobody though can dispute that it is better to have few true friends than hordes of Judases. Nowhere there is a greater sentiment and support for traditional, strong, moral America than in the central-european countries who were liberated from under soviet boot by Rondal Reagan. These newest NATO members understand that their reliance, future, independence depend on America’s strength, decisiveness, resolute and values. Poles well understand that the same day America degenerates, in Iraq, Israel, economically or morally – the Russian tanks will roll into Warsaw. The future of central-eastern Europe depends on America’s strength and honor – the qualities being most ferociously attacked by the democratic party of Hollywood, mad doctors, Obama and his “reverends” who won’t rest before seeing whipped America repenting, on its knees.
We don’t hear about anti-missile shield protests in Poland. This is a friend who truly feels that there is a debt of gratefulness to be re-paid to America. This is a friend who, in spite of knee-jerk pressure from France and other eurabian critics has equipped its air-forces with American F-16’s. This is a country where conservative America still symbolizes principles, valor and freedom, where people understand that America’s safety is more important than their visa-less convenience.
God Bless true friends of righteous America.

it is very odd that the US/UK relationship hangs by the thread of one man, a left wing tony Blair. And for once left wing is not an insult since the self destroyed "right wing" Tory party is just as anti-American as is Labour. In fact, in Britain, they all wish Blair would go away ASAP so they can turn on America.

the British disdain their own history, they disdain their own flag. They are perpetual apologizers and a country in a state of funk even though their stock market continues to outperform our own.

I have lost all respect for the tory party, the party of the great Winston Churchill. They bash America and Iraq moreso than even labour. I know the pro American Labour party is only a facade because of blair, but the Tories are worse, they are brothers who have abandoned us.

We need to look to Britain as an example. Not an example for good but for devastation. Anyone with a clear eye, even the most rabid American exceptionalist, will realize that the UK is at least the second most influential country in the history of man. And for their own people to give up that legacy, to disdain themselves, is the ultimate result of multi culturalism and leftist teachings. The UK is gone as we know it, the day Blair leaves it is over. It is a terrible shame but that is the way it goes, they did it to themselves.

The American left wants the same for the USA. They want us to disdain our accomplishments, weaken our defenses, and beccome just another UN vote not more important than Cuba.

Molon Labe!

>>it is very odd that the US/UK relationship hangs by the thread of one man, a left wing tony Blair.

Not at all. The affection runs very deep. There are anti-Americans here, though not as many as in America.

>>And for once left wing is not an insult since the self destroyed "right wing" Tory party

The "destroyed" party you are talking about is currently leading in all polls and likely to make strong gains in the mid-term elections in May.

>>is just as anti-American as is Labour.

No, it's not. There is an anti-American faction in Labour, currently out of power and unlikely to gain power when Blair quits, as his likely successor is more friendly to America than Blair is. The Liberal Democrats are dominated by anti-Americans. There is no such faction in the Conservative Party, though there is a small and shrinking faction which would place the European alliance as being of similar or greater importance to the UK than that with America. That group was removed from all positions of influence when David Cameron became leader.

>>the British disdain their own history,

You are talking about a tiny media/academic elite. Glorious periods of British history - such the Tudor period - are immensely popular with popular historians writing competitive best-selling biographies of the period and entire TV channels devoted to little else.

>>they disdain their own flag.

We have very few feelings about our flag. That is an American peculiarity related, in my view, to the merging of Head of State and Head of Government in the US Constitution. We do not swear allegiance to our flag but to our Head of State. That is problematic in the US, since the Head of State is usually a controversial figure charged with an important decision making role. In common with most other liberal democracies, we have a ceremonial Head of State.

>>They are perpetual apologizers and a country in a state of funk

Again you are confusing an unrepresentative elite minority, a very similar situation to the US.

>>even though their stock market continues to outperform our own.

From a hugely lower base. Recent billion $ listings have been mostly in London and Hong Kong, thanks to Sarbanes, Oxley and Spitzer, but the NYSE is still the largest stock exchange in the world by an enormous margin. The NYSE has more than six times the value of the LSE, and NASDAQ is also larger than the LSE. Last figures I saw they had 7.5 times the value between them, when the US population is about 5 times that of the UK. I will swap tax rates with you anytime.

>>I have lost all respect for the tory party, the party of the great Winston Churchill.

I am not surprised, since you have no idea of the current state of the Party.

>>but the Tories are worse, they are brothers who have abandoned us.

Not so. You are thinking of people like Douglas Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind and Ken Clarke who have no influence in the Party.

>>We need to look to Britain as an example. Not an example for good but for devastation.

Sure, but focus on the genuine and silly policies such as the welfare state, not the cultural ones you have imagined.

>>The UK is gone as we know it,

Since what you 'know' is fanciful in the extreme, good.

>>the day Blair leaves it is over.

He will be replaced by a leader more pro-American than he is - in fact, the man who introduced him to America in 1992. Blair's heart lies principally with Europe. Brown mostly disdains Europe and aspires to imitate the US. Of the leading contender for power, Blair is the most European and least pro-American.

If you want to live in the past, and judge the Conservative Party by people now without influence, you could imagine a Conservative government about as pro-American as Blair is, but not restrained by an anti-American rump. If you look to the future you will see that the current leadership is much more friendly to America than any previous British leadership. The whole fantasy of a European 'pole' to balance America which has obsessed British politics for decades now exists only in the wildest wet dreams of the Lib Dems.

>>The American left wants the same for the USA. They want us to disdain our accomplishments, weaken our defenses, and beccome just another UN vote not more important than Cuba.

Yes, that is a pretty strong trend in one of America's main poltical parties. It is less influential in Labour and not present in the Conservative Party, so I would suggest you worry more about the US, where such ideas have more support than in the UK.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

and you did on a few of those. I will not copy and paste your responses because I really don't care enough to do it. But I will admit I was in a foul mood last night so I was over the top. Of course I cherish the "Special relationship" that is why I am angry about the current state of affairs. And your wrong when you say I know nothing about the UK.

1. sorry, I can not agree that more Americans are anti-American than Britons. Of course we are talking percentages and not raw numbers. I believe in a recent poll Britons said they have a more favorable view of China than the US.

2. I said the Tory party is destroyed, you argue they are leading in the polls. I know where they are in the polls. What has been destroyed is their beliefs not their ratings. The Tory party of David Cameron and his horrible predecessor has abandoned Thatcherite conservatism and is as anti American as it has been since Suez. Cameron recently talked about how the UK should not follow the US slavishly. And former Tory head william hague had this recent headline http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/news-channels/headline-channel/hague-uk-must-turn-away-from-us-$1047270.htm

3. stock market, good points. Certainly I am aware the NYSE is larger than the LSE. But my positive comment about the UK FTSE index is still true.

4. You say Gordon Brown is more pro American than Blair? I have actually heard some good things about him but I still think he is a Europhile and I bet he will try to join the Euro, something Blair gave up on.

5. the flag thing is interesting. However, in the past, the Union Jack was flown with pride a lot more than it is today. Britons seem to think their Empire was a horrible thing. Today's Britain is full of empty cathedrals and teeming mosques.

5Lib dems, yes they are crazy!

anyway, we are on the same side. I like Britain and have spent a lot of time in London. I am glad there are Brits that feel as you do. And you are very right that many of the things that have weakened British society are in play on this side of the pond.

I think that you and I agree more often than not, and not just on these questions.

1. There are certainly anti-American Brits. Outside of the media and universities (I work in the media school of a university, by the way) they are a small minority. Even when Brits are angry at America, which some often are, they have such feelings by way of disappointment. Those of my compatriots who oppose the Iraq War feel angry about it in part because they expect high standards of Americans and (mistakenly in my view, of course) feel let down on this question. Stories of political corruption in America are big news in the UK when similar stories from France or Italy are ignored because, well, that is what we expect of the French and the Italians.

I didn't see the poll you cited on the US vs China, but I suspect it would not have been possible to get such an answer without wording the question very carefully with the aim of achieving that result.

2. Okay, I misinterpreted what you meant by the Conservative Party being destroyed. I still think you are utterly wrong. David Cameron is very pro-American, William Hague even more so. There are perfectly valid criticisms of Michael Howard, but certainly not that he is anti-American. He and Hague are two of the most pro-American politicians in the country. Howard is a leader in the 2020 campaign for free trade between the EU and NAFTA.

I see little in the article you cite that I find objectionable. It is perfectly sensible for the UK to manage its foreign policy around good relations with countries in the Asia-Pacific region as well as the US and Europe. The inward looking focus of the Europhiles is very dangerous. The UK is a global power with global trading interests and always has been. Blair has hopelessly mismanaged his foreign relationships and it sensible for the Opposition to say so. That is what Oppositions do.

Blair's problem is that because of his party management problems he has never been able to portray his Iraq policy as being one he has pursued in the interests of the UK and the people of Iraq. People see it as him sucking up to America and therefore he has focused on what he can get from a America for agreeing to back American policy. What he has got is nothing. He wanted the US to change its policy on Israel/Palestine, and he failed.

A Conservative government would had no such difficulty. Sending troops to Iraq would never have been portrayed as a favour to America for which we expected a favour in return but as a policy right on its own merits.

3. Yes.

4. Blair is first and foremost a Europhile. He does not see this as being in tension with being pro-American. Brown is first and foremost committed to the Anglosphere model. Blair vacations in France and Italy. Brown vacations in Cape Cod. Blair desperately wanted to go into the Euro, but Brown has consistently vetoed the idea, as he thinks he is doing a better job than anyone in the Euro area.

Our next PM is likely to be Gordon Brown, followed not long afterwards by David Cameron. Each will be more friendly to the US and less friendly to France than his predecessor.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

I agree with much you said there. I hope your positive views of the present Tory leaders are correct. I just think they take too many shots at Blair over Iraq. I know this is for domestic political reasons but Republican Americans don't like it when our ally is attacked for being "too close" to Bush. And you are very right that Blair went into Iraq for the interests of HIS country. Also, many don't realize he was the driving force behind intervention in Kosovo, not Clinton.

My problem is that it seems the Tories are moving to the left to gain support. I never see the leaders decry the Health Service as an instution, just mistakes in it and not enough funding. Cameron explicitly rebuked Thatcherism

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20060221/ai_n16164385

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/commentary/displaydocument.asp?docid=110...

also, here is the poll on that says Britons have a higher favorable view of China than the USA. I do think this will not last, but it did happen.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247

check the second box.

Molon Labe!

But you must realise that promising to do nothing about the NHS except feed it more is exactly the approach Margaret Thatcher took, in both rhetoric and substance. In that sense she was very like Bush, and allowed many areas of expenditure to rocket out of control.

Overall, she managed to restrain the rate of growth in expenditure, but certainly not in the NHS.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

it is an untouchable, well i can't cast stones, we are the same here with social security. Then again, Bush did TRY to address it, but that got shot down.

Molon Labe!

The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts