The Wall Street Journal's Alan Murray quotes Alan Greenspan and Mark Zandi, who believe that the key drag on the U.S. economy today comes from foreign policy: uncertainty about just what President Bush is getting us into with respect to Iraq:
Posted by DeLong at January 28, 2003 02:43 PM | TrackbackWSJ.com - Political Capital: ...Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan takes it even further. In public statements and in private, he makes clear that he thinks eliminating the uncertainties surrounding war with Iraq is more important than passing a stimulus plan. Indeed, he sees it as a prerequisite. As long as the cloud of imminent war hangs over the U.S., any stimulus package is sure to fail. It's a fair bet that much of the discussion at Tuesday's meeting of the Fed's policy committee will focus on this critical question of timing: When might a war begin? If it begins soon, then an economic recovery may soon be under way. But if it gets delayed until spring -- or next fall -- then recovery will be delayed as well.
Mark Zandi, chief economist for Economy.com and one of the smartest analysts of today's economic scene, agrees with the Fed chief. "A necessary condition for any improvement in the economy is getting Iraq behind us," he says. "It would be nice to get both" an end to the war-related uncertainty and a stimulus package, "but the first is most important."
The point here is not that war is good for the economy. Rather, it's that the reality of war likely won't be as bad as the threat of war. The Fed chief's analysis holds that there's a 95% probability that the U.S. can take out Saddam Hussein reasonably quickly. But the 5% scenario -- involving burning oil fields, the possible use of weapons of mass destruction and calamity in the region and possibly here at home -- is sufficiently scary to cast a pall over business decisions.
Mr. Zandi believes that uncertainty is imposing a direct cost of $5 a barrel in the price of oil. But even more important are the indirect costs, as businesses delay decisions to invest in new equipment or even stock their warehouses and shelves.
An interesting part of this question is just how quickly the economy may turn once a war begins. Twelve years ago, all Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf had to do was cross into Kuwait to cause U.S. markets to soar. But that war was about driving Mr. Hussein out of Kuwait, not out of power, which makes the calculation more difficult. Even if the early days of the war go well, what happens if U.S. soldiers are forced to fight in downtown Baghdad? Or if Mr. Hussein decides to drop a chemical bomb? It's these scenarios that make the calculations for Mr. Bush so much more complicated, and frightening, than those that faced his father.
In any event, the president's campaign against Iraq has thrown a wet blanket over the U.S. economy. And now there are only two ways to remove it. One is to get on with it, and finish the job. The other is to say "never mind," and remove the threat of war -- something this president isn't likely to do...
And a third one (just as unlikely) would be for this Administration to make clear that it is serious about inspections. If you put yourself in Saddam's shoes, there is no reason to completely disarm or allow massive spying on his military capabilities if the chance of war is either close to 0... or 1.
We know he thinks (quite rightly, I think) that with this Administration the chances are close to 0.9999. Why would he surrender the very weapons he plans to use to defend himself and his regime with?
My own causual observations lead me to think that the market likes inspections when they look credible on both sides. We also need to ask ourselves the following: Will we be safer if we invade? Because we wouldn't want to be dreaming of a recovering economy under the serious possibility that a major US city becomes a very dark page in history. Surely, during the Cold War, nuking the USSR would have releived a lot of uncertainty, but I am still glad we saved millions and millions of people from a nuclear holocaust...
Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on January 28, 2003 03:49 PM"The Wall Street Journal's Alan Murray quotes Alan Greenspan and Mark Zandi, who believe that the key drag on the U.S. economy today comes from foreign policy: uncertainty about just what President Bush is getting us into with respect to Iraq"
This is absolutely an incorrect interpretation of the article. It's so far off the mark that it isn't even close. There is nothing whatsoever even implying that President Bush is to be blamed for the uncertainty surrounding our current crisis. There are economic risks associated with any option we may exercise regarding Iraq. One could easily rewrite the sentence to emphasize the uncertainty caused by Saddam Hussein’s shenanigans.
Posted by: David Thomson on January 28, 2003 03:54 PMIf that were true, then market should have jittered over North Korea. None of that happened because markets felt reassured that the prefered way to deal with Kim Jong II was through diplomacy (in spite of all the tough rhetorics.) And what does this case study reveals?
It's still quite likely that a mutually beneficial deal is going to be struck (yes, a la Clinton or perhaps more, a la Reagan) where non-aggression and a bit of aid will be exchanged for NK's giving up for good on its nuclear program. Of course, the difference is that there is no oil in NK, that they got the nukes early enough to be considered a real threat, that Kim isn't presumed to have tried to kill Daddy Bush etc.
Conclusion? A pretty good chance that vis-a-vis NK we can still hope they're will be no US soldiers coming back in body bags, no deaths of innocent Koreans, no use of WMD's on either side, and very little cost for the US government.
And the market in all this? They couldn't care less as long as it stays that way. Zip effect on the American economy. And I believe that if Hussein was credibly presented with such a deal, he would sign on it with both hands. Remember: you have to assume that there is nothing he likes more in life than hanging on to power.
But replicating this too many times would just showcase how inappropriate the preemptive strike doctrine is. And that would just not be good for someone's reelection... Or would it?
Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on January 28, 2003 05:51 PMThe American economy could be in deep trouble if we listen to the French cowards. A few years ago a brilliant book was released entitled "Strange Victory: Hitler's Conquest of France" By Harvard University historian, Ernest R. May. The following comments are from reviews of this work:
"In Strange Victory, the distinguished diplomatic historian Ernest R. May argues that Germany's success is even more of a puzzle than Bloch could have imagined, for we now know that its armed forces were measurably inferior to those of France and its allies, even in tanks, and its top military leaders all considered an attack on France to be a long-odds gamble."
"Third, the French people must have had no stomach for fighting. Marshal Philippe Pétain, who headed the satellite French government of 1940-44, ascribed France's defeat to "moral laxness." Though not everyone would have used Pétain's particular term ("relâchement"), most people around the world agreed that France's defeat owed something to lack of moral fiber."
http://www.fsbassociates.com/fsg/strangevictory.htm#reviews
Posted by: David Thomson on January 28, 2003 11:14 PM"most people around the world agreed that France's defeat owed something to lack of moral fiber"
And it didn't have anything to do with the rather rapid death of 100,000 men?
Posted by: Jon H on January 29, 2003 05:42 AMOne drag on the economy that doesn't get enough play in my opinion is dishonesty from the top.
I'm sure the uncertainty over various possible outcomes of war with Iraq are an important factor. But the really big doubt is how much it's going to cost and who gets the tab. Will it be $50 B (current administration story), $100-200B (fired economics advisor Lindsay's estimate) or $1 Trillion (the high side from academia?)
Will we stick it out for 10 years, long enough to see Iraq become the "Germany of the Arab World" or run out leaving a civil war and Afganistan-style chaos behind as Perle and Wolfowitz have advised?
Will the result be sacrifice by today's Americans or another $3 or more trillion of debt left for future generations as with Reagan and Bush I? Do the people in charge understand or have they deluded themselves as well?
Who can answer any of these questions with any degree of certainty? The last time this level of dishonesty ruled Washington it took 12 years to unseat it and many good people tried and failed-- Carter, Mondale, Dukakis-- or tried and gave up-- Bush I and Dole. Once the Big Lie is entrenched it's tough to undo. It may be a long time before anyone up to the task comes along.
"Who can answer any of these questions with any degree of certainty?"
We would have never defeated the Axis power during WWII if held that attitude. More importantly, what price do we pay if we don't smash Saddam Hussein and his ilk?
"The last time this level of dishonesty ruled Washington it took 12 years to unseat it and many good people tried and failed--"
I though that Bill clinton was only in office for eight years. Wow, was it actually twelve?
Posted by: David Thomson on January 29, 2003 08:30 AM"I though that Bill clinton was only in office for eight years. Wow, was it actually twelve? "
Would have been much better for the country and the world if it were so.
Posted by: Chuck Nolan on January 29, 2003 11:02 AM>>The American economy could be in deep trouble if we listen to the French cowards. A few years ago a brilliant book was released entitled "Strange Victory: Hitler's Conquest of France" By Harvard University historian, Ernest R. May.<<
The Israeli writer Uri Avnery once delivered a wickedly sharp open letter to Menachem Begin, the Israeli prime minister who sent his army to defeat in Lebanon. Enraged by Begin's constant evocation of the Second World War – likening Yasser Arafat in Beirut to Hitler in his Berlin bunker in 1945 – Avnery entitled his letter: "Mr Prime Minister, Hitler is Dead."
[...]
How can the sane human being react to this pitiful stuff? One of the principal nations which "did nothing about Hitler" was the US, which enjoyed a profitable period of neutrality in 1939 and 1940 and most of 1941 until it was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.
From Robert Fris, "The wartime deceptions: Saddam is Hitler and it's not about oil," the Indenpendent, 27 January 2003.
Memory recall: didn't Bush's great-grand Father made his fortune trading with the Nazis? (You know, the promoters of "Hitlerism".)
Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on January 29, 2003 12:06 PMThe more appropriate questions is, "what price will the US pay for smashing Iraq". There has been no credible evidence given that Iraq is a threat to the US (if there is, cough it up David). There is a good argument to be made that smashing Iraq will reduce American security and cost a great deal, however.
And David, perhaps I can introduce you to one of my French friends who has studied Savate for years. And perhaps you can repeat your crack about French cowards to him?
Of course, that's a playground level dig. But then so are your cracks about "French cowards".
Tell me David, what were French casualties in World War II?
Only a fool wants war if it is not necessary. And only a demagogue calls those who are unwilling to send OTHER people ro kill and die without a good reason cowards.
(Brad: yeah, this is way off topic, sorry. Must have swallowed something upsetting while reading David's screeds.)
Posted by: Ian Welsh on January 29, 2003 12:22 PM"We would have never defeated the Axis power during WWII if held that attitude. More importantly, what price do we pay if we don't smash Saddam Hussein and his ilk?"
I think the US alone could defeat Iraq and North Korea. And, with multi-lateral help simultaneously continue the war and police work against Al Qaeda. And-And, do reasonably well economically, though with some sacrifice.
That's why I suggested above that it's not so much the threat of war that's dragging down the economy, but the threat of war prosecuted by this administration. Until they start presenting a cohesive and honest message about war, taxes, and the budget, investors and consumers are going to remain in a downward spin. The enormous doubt they've created about our future because Bush-Cheney can't or won't come clean will overcome the ongoing good news about productivity gains.
I predict that later this year, perhaps as we're struggling through an Iraqi war or its aftermath, we'll get the second deeper and longer dip in the recession accelerated in part by cuts in state spending coupled with state tax increases, then deflation will reach into property values and we'll enter a world only our grandparents experienced.
It's interesting Hitler keeps coming up. I mentioned the Big Lie above. I may have to this day not realized it was Hitler who coined the term (the lie that becomes accepted as truth because it's said loud enough and often enough is big) had it not been for David Stockman who borrowed it to describe Reaganomics. I never thought I'd hear myself saying this, but at least Reagan hired economists willing to speak honestly every once in awhile. (Stockman was his budget director.)
>>The more appropriate questions is, "what price will the US pay for smashing Iraq". There has been no credible evidence given that Iraq is a threat to the US (if there is, cough it up David). There is a good argument to be made that smashing Iraq will reduce American security and cost a great deal, however.<<
And set a dangerous precedent that will come to haunt world politics for many decades at least. Already Russia has been making use of the "war on terrorism" rhetorics to do things in Chechnya that in other times would have spured outrage accross the world. Not to mention the convenient excuse it is providing nationalists in India, Turkey and Israel. And what we will able to tell China when it cooks up reasons to invade Taiwan etc?
Don't get me wrong: I am apparently more concerned by "terra" than this Administration's chickenhawks seem to be. But I think they're busy making the world a more dangerous place (and have put staunch resistence to the few things that have made it a safer place, like Homeland Security.) I happen to live in a big American city. I don't want my daughter, my wife, myself or anyone I like to die. And if Europe follows the US in its madness, I am going to start worrying about my family back home... I don't give a damn about Saddam, I just want to be safe. That's not being a coward, it's being sane.
And by the way, regarding the rise to power of Hitler, if you go read Keynes' The Economic Consequences of Peace, you will learn that what set the stage for WWII was the uncessary humiliation and economic sanctions imposed unto Germany in the inter-war period, following Versailles. That was a hell of a prediction at the time. Treat yourself by actually reading it. It's available online here.
Another interesting reference is John Kenneth Galbraith's Name Dropping. Therein you learn that he was bestowed the job of asessing the effectiveness of US bombings. Note: Galbraith actively participated in his Presiden's war effort, actually he was responsible, if I remember well, for military procurement. His main conclusion, after detailed investigation? Bombings were unnecessarily heavy. To tell you the truth, I was surprised to read that (even though it does not seem to be an isolated observation...) I used to think that however regretable these bombings were the unfortunately necessary. How candidly (naively?) thankful of me...
Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on January 29, 2003 01:15 PM"Tell me David, what were French casualties in World War II?"
More importantly, what would have been the casualty rate if France had used its military might to crush the Nazis? How many people died needlessly because of the pacifist inclined French refused to the honorable thing.
Also, who cares that you can point to your savate trained French buddy? When did he get elected to a major political office?
Posted by: David Thomson on January 29, 2003 03:42 PM"And by the way, regarding the rise to power of Hitler, if you go read Keynes' The Economic Consequences of Peace, you will learn that what set the stage for WWII was the uncessary humiliation and economic sanctions imposed unto Germany in the inter-war period, following Versailles. That was a hell of a prediction at the time."
Oh my goodness, the myth that the allies bankrupted the Weimar German Republic is apparently still with us. This nonsense should be put to rest. Only about a month ago Brian Lamb interviewed Margaret MacMillan, Professor of History at the University of Toronto, concerning her book, "Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World."
“LAMB: Do you remember what the total figure would have been?
MACMILLAN: The total figure that was asked from Germany in the end was something like $32 billion.
LAMB: How much did they actually pay before it was over?
MACMILLAN: $4.5 billion.”
>>Oh my goodness, the myth that the allies bankrupted the Weimar German Republic is apparently still with us.<<
A post must have been deleted, or my browser is not functionning properly, since I can't read anyone writing this.
In any case, I wished I knew the current dollar value of the Weimar Republic's government budget. Also should I assume these are real 2003 dollar figures? Can someone help me out scaling this...? I wished I had unlimited amount of time to spend on this, it would make for a really cool post...
Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on January 29, 2003 05:36 PMUh, the Allies *did* bankrupt the Weimar government. That they didn't pay us the full amount doesn't somehow disprove this; most bankruptcies don't pay in full, do they?
Posted by: Jason McCullough on January 29, 2003 06:13 PM"The American economy could be in deep trouble if we listen to the French cowards. A few years ago a brilliant book was released entitled "Strange Victory: Hitler's Conquest of France" By Harvard University historian, Ernest R. May. The following comments are from reviews of this work:
"In Strange Victory, the distinguished diplomatic historian Ernest R. May argues that Germany's success is even more of a puzzle than Bloch could have imagined, for we now know that its armed forces were measurably inferior to those of France and its allies, even in tanks, and its top military leaders all considered an attack on France to be a long-odds gamble."
"Third, the French people must have had no stomach for fighting. Marshal Philippe Pétain, who headed the satellite French government of 1940-44, ascribed France's defeat to "moral laxness." Though not everyone would have used Pétain's particular term ("relâchement"), most people around the world agreed that France's defeat owed something to lack of moral fiber."
http://www.fsbassociates.com/fsg/strangevictory.htm#reviews
Posted by David Thomson at January 28, 2003 11:14 PM"
Actually, the second paragraph you quote is not from a review. It is taken from May's introduction. The full quote:
"In June 1940, and for a long time thereafter, the fact of France's rapid defeat seemed to speak for itself. Three conclusions were thought obvious. First, Germany must have had crushing superiority, not only in modern weaponry but in an understanding of how to use it. Second, France and its allies must have been very badly led. Third, the French people must have had no stomach for fighting. Marshal Philippe Pétain, who headed the satellite French government of 1940-44, ascribed France's defeat to "moral laxness." Though not everyone would have used Pétain's particular term ("relâchement"), most people around the world agreed that France's defeat owed something to lack of moral fiber.
Now, sixty years later, in light of what is known about the circumstances of France's defeat, none of these conclusions holds up well."
May specifically rejects the proposition that the French lacked moral fiber:
" The third proposition -- that France fell in 1940 because of moral rot -- is not so easy to dismiss, in part because France earlier in the 1930s had unquestionably suffered deep malaise and in part because the moral condition of any country or people is hard to gauge. France had had four and a half million men killed or wounded in the Great War of 1914-18. The Great Depression had bruised French workers and farmers. Clashes between dogmatic leftists and rightists sometimes became so intense as to seem omens of a new French Revolution. When Hitler began to threaten war, the French government and people were alarmed and appalled, and many reacted like the students at the Oxford Union who in February 1933 had voted 275 to 153 never again to fight for king or country.
But the more we have studied the period 1938-40, as opposed to the earlier 1930s, the more we have seen indications of a profound change in mood and spirit among people in both France and Britain. By the summer of 1939, when a new Great War clearly impended, Daladier complained that he could not appear in an open place or in a bistro without seeing people stand up and cry, "Lead! We will follow you!" When war came in September, reporters said the prevailing mood in both countries was one of resigned determination. When fighting actually commenced in May 1940, after more than eight months of military inactivity, reporters told of celebrations. A Danish journalist described Paris as "bubbling with enthusiasm."
In the field, soldiers of France and Britain fought well. They won battles. At Hannut in Belgium on May 12-13, 1940, for example, two divisions of French tanks clashed with two divisions of German tanks and carried the day, losing 105 tanks to the Germans' 160. Even when losing, most French military units showed gallantry. At Monthermé, a plaque commemorates a French African regiment's Thermopylae-like defense of a crossing over the Meuse River. At Stonne, a few miles south of Sedan, stands a small monument which says accurately that the town changed hands seventeen times between mid-May and mid-June 1940 and became "a cemetery of tanks."" During the six weeks of fighting, France lost approximately 124,000 men, with another 200,000 wounded. The total number of French battle deaths was two and a half times that of the United States in either the Korean War of 1950-53 or the Vietnam War of 1965-75. Do these bits of evidence suggest "moral laxness"?
And again arises the matter of comparison. Foreigners in Germany in 1939-40, including Italians and Hungarians, whose governments sided with Hitler, described a public with little or no appetite for the war, carried along by sureness that their adored Führer would find a way out of it. In the winter of 1939-40, after the Allies had rejected Hitler's proposal for a negotiated peace, an Italian diplomat in Berlin wrote of "frightening demoralization" among the German people. As for Germany's generals, they believed to a man that Hitler had gotten the country into a war for which it was not prepared and which it might well lose. Among themselves, they talked of a possible coup. When Germany opened its offensive against the Low Countries and France in May 1940, not a single general expected victory to result. The chief of staff of the German army wrote to his wife that his fellow generals thought what they were doing was "crazy and reckless ." Can one say that morale was stronger in Germany than in France?"
May's analysis of the cause of France's defeat is much more complicated than you represent. And he also includes Britain, France's chief ally, in his explanation.
When Britain and France had not yet made a military move, Hitler proposed a peace parley. It was reasonable to believe, as many writers later pointed out, that Hitler had no desire or plan for aggression in the West. If his proposal had been accepted, Poland would have been lost, as it had been partitioned and lost so many times in the past, but countless British, French, and American lives might possibly have been saved. Many men of wisdom in England and the U.S. thought there were other ways of handling Hitler than a worldwide bloodbath. But Churchill, like Roosevelt, was intent on war.
"Many men of wisdom in England and the U.S. thought there were other ways of handling Hitler than a worldwide bloodbath. But Churchill, like Roosevelt, was intent on war."
Wow, I had to read this post twice to make it said what I initially thought it said. I cannot remember the last time I encountered someone who argued that the allies should have continued to appease Adolph Hitler. Oh well I’m sure this poster also contends that we should not invade Iraq for exactly the same reasons.
"I cannot remember the last time I encountered someone who argued that the allies should have continued to appease Adolph Hitler."
The last person I heard suggest we should have *joined* with Hitler was Pat Buchanan. Wonder where he is on all this Iraq stuff. Given all the Saddam equals Hitler stuff we're reading & hearing about makes me think that Pat might be terribly conflicted. I guess it's neither here nor there, Bush does not equal Buchanan even if they're both Republicans, sort of like this thread. How'd we get here from "Alan Murray on What the U.S. Economy Is Scared of"?
Are consumers and investors really weighing whether Saddam is another Hitler? For the majority I doubt it. If they really felt that way it's just as reasonable for them to think, "why couldn't we have had weapons inspectors in 1937 and avoid WWII?" It's useful to remember Munich in the 30s and Sarajevo in 1914 but it only goes so far. Nothing before compares well with US power in 2003, but if we don't apply it wisely we could end up less secure and more broke.
Posted by: Dennis Slough on January 30, 2003 07:05 PMWhile the argument that the French were cowards in 1940 and are still cowards today has been correctly shown above to be so much merde, I should add that the total French casualties in WWII exceeded the U.S. casualty rate in the European theater. About what one would expect from those cowardly quiche-eaters.
As for the question of Saddam Hussein today, few people seem to mention that according to most polls, Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi, and Jose M. Aznar are going _against_ popular opinion in their countries, which is in favor of giving inspection more time. But the Spanish, British, and Italians have not been included in the Axis of Weasels, apparently because of the poll-bucking of their elected leaders.
It doesn't take an Einstein to realize that the world economy and financial markets will be much better off if some non-violent way is found to disarm Saddam Hussein as opposed to going in and digging him out. Even the latter course would not be so bad if it weren't for the usual overkill that the U.S. military will engage in: massive quantities of bombing and large amounts of civilian casualties in order to minimize U.S. casualties on the ground. Combine to that potential damage to the oil wells and it really makes you wonder if there is _anyone_ in the Bush team capable of doing decent cost-benefit analyses.
Posted by: andres on January 31, 2003 01:28 PMA Military History of France
Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years
of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who
inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies
are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."
Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever
lose two wars when fighting Italians.
Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots
Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to
get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other
participants started ignoring her.
War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as
chapeaux.
The Dutch War - Tied
War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War -
Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded
Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French
military power.
War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their
first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future
Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far
more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the
Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of
the fighting." (Note that the French entered this conflict in order to
oppose Britain more than to aid the colonists. Does this sound at all like
French foreign policy since WWII?)
French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also
French.
The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!)
due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British
footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat
boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
A Military History of France
Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years
of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who
inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies
are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."
Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever
lose two wars when fighting Italians.
Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots
Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to
get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other
participants started ignoring her.
War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as
chapeaux.
The Dutch War - Tied
War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War -
Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded
Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French
military power.
War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their
first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future
Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far
more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the
Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of
the fighting." (Note that the French entered this conflict in order to
oppose Britain more than to aid the colonists. Does this sound at all like
French foreign policy since WWII?)
French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also
French.
The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!)
due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British
footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat
boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
A Military History of France
Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years
of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who
inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies
are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."
Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever
lose two wars when fighting Italians.
Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots
Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to
get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other
participants started ignoring her.
War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as
chapeaux.
The Dutch War - Tied
War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War -
Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded
Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French
military power.
War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their
first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future
Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far
more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the
Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of
the fighting." (Note that the French entered this conflict in order to
oppose Britain more than to aid the colonists. Does this sound at all like
French foreign policy since WWII?)
French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also
French.
The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!)
due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British
footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat
boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.