Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Tag: France Page 1 of 3

Verdun Then and Now

By

On July 1, 2025

Comments

Thirty-one years ago on my first trip overseas I visited Verdun in France. Specifically to see the battlefield of Verdun, where von Falkenhayn sought to bleed the French white. From 21 February 1916 to 18 December 1916, 9 months, 3 weeks and 6 days the Boche–the term the French used for the Germans–did exactly that. I’d written my senior’s honor thesis in history on Verdun and felt it was right to visit.

Fallen Lion of France at the Verdun Battlefield

I’m not going to go into too much detail. You can read about it in its fullness here. I only want to add a few things. First, this was the first time any general attempted a strategy of attrition. Some of what Grant did during the Wilderness and the siege of Fredricksburg is semi-attritional, but it wasn’t Grant’s spoken intent as it was the explicit aim of the Cheif of the German General Staff Erich von Falkenhayn’s. He knew he could not break through the ring of forts surrounding the Meuse Heights and the medieval city of Verdun. His aim was to take the heights and dig in and then take the strategic defensive, forcing France to regain her honor at any cost. 50 German divisions squared off against 75 French. von Falkenhayn succeeded in forcing France’s hand, certainly. In the end his strategy was a failure and he was dismissed by the Kaiser and replaced by Ludendorff and Hindenburg, who quickly established a military dictatorship over the Second Reich for the remainder of the war. Needless to say that over a million men–French and German–died fighting in the trenches along and up the heights and into the forts Douamont and Vaux trading them back several times.

Fort Douamont on the Meuse Heights

If the Miracle on the Marne was the most important battle of the 20th century–and it was we ought paraphrase Churchill and call it France’s finest hour. That being so makes the Battle of Verdun one the finest last stands in the annals of human endeavor. To a man the good, stolid French poilus stood and died in the mud, the filth, the lice, the decaying bodies and the artillery shells shattering overhead all day long, every day for almost a year.

When I visited in 1994 I walked from the city of Verdun all the way up the heights along the single supply route the French called the “voie sacrée” – the sacred way. It was ten miles there and ten miles back. A long day. I walked through trenches, both forts Douamont and Vaux and at the end of the day I walked, rather solemnly through the hallowed arches of the Ossuary, which holds the bones of over 130,000 unidentified French and German soldiers. There was no entrance fee for anything and I was free to roam just about anywhere I wished, except when I saw signs that declared, “Non! Munitions non explosées!” Unexploded ordnance, still active almost a hundred years after being fired.

Ossuary of Verdun

So this morning I watched a video made by a young French woman of the battlefield and its environs. A lot has changed. There is a new, modern museum, and to walk the grounds and see the museum cost about $20. The young woman does an admirable job of guiding the viewer through the most important parts of what I now guess is a monument park of sorts called Mémorial de Verdun Champ de bataille. She’s tactful, sincere, respectful and cognizant of the sacrifice the men made for her. She honors them in her own way. I was pleased to see their sacrifice is still remembered and revered. (As some of you may recall, I had the good fortune to befriend an American WWI veteran in the 1990s before he passed away. So, WWI is important to me, I carry the memory of one of the last American soldiers to fight in the war and I cherish that memory.) She also pays her respects to the Germans who fell during the battle (part of the site was re-dedicated in the 50’s after the Franco-German rapproachment after WWII). She even visited the graves of our doughboys who fought in the area in 1918.

In all honesty, I can’t say I would have enjoyed walking through the museum. Of course seeing the uniforms and the kit of the poilus was fascinating, but there was a rich, chilling awe of gravitas to my imagination that day as I walked through the empty echoing halls of forts Douamont and Vaux. There were no wax figures as there are now. Only a haunting silence. If I listened closely enough I could almost hear the distant echoes of incoming artillery. The shots of mausers. The cracks of the countering French Berthiers. And the loud pops and booms of French and German grenades.

Sometimes less is more.

Regardless, it was an unforgetable experience.

The Real Reason for French Collapse at the Outset Of WWII

By

On June 18, 2025

Comments

I doubt one in ten of you know the importance of the Battle of the Marne? Quite simply, had the French, plus a smallish-medium but crucial contigent of soldiers from the UK, not halted the invading Germans at the Marne, the 20th century would have looked very different. Sure, von Moltke the Younger lost his nerve and pulled two corps from his right flank, and shipped them East to help fend off the Russian hordes. But, the French were glorious at the Marne, and each and every one of us owe a debt a gratitude to France for the elan and courage.

As Holger Herwig writes in The Marne, 1914, “At dawn on 6 September, 980,000 French and 100,000 British soldiers with 3,000 guns assaulted the German line of 750,000 men and 3,300 guns [across a front stretching from] Verdun and Paris.” The Miracle of the Marne had begun. By the 9th of September the Germans were in full retreat. For the next three days they were battered by and bloodied by the French and English. Most historians of World War One agree that the Miracle on the Marne was the most important battle the 20th century.

What followed were two giant armies trying to outflank each other in a race to the sea. Then, they settled down into four years of siege warfare. Now, all the European observers who came to watch our Civil War — von Molke the Elder was one of them — all took away the wrong lesson. They were more interested in the use of railroads for logistics — not unimportant. But, had they really paid attention to just how much proto-siege warfare was conducted during our Civil War, they might have anticipated trench warfare and its horrific casualties. Fredericksburg anyone?

So, we got four years of muck. And for France, in that four years, the flower of her youth perished. Cheese-eating surrender monkeys is the most common and ugly perjorative for them that I can think of at present. It refers to the French collapse in six weeks and one day in the face of the German Invasion. But no one asks the question why? There is a one word answer: Demographics.

One of every six young men in France’s Lost Generation died. Not wounded, or maimed. Dead. Add in the cost of the maimed and disfigured, the skewed ration between men and women? Twenty years later when their children had to serve the nation, they were simply unwilling to endure the sacrifices of the previous war. Not in the face of all the odious crimes of the Nazis.

So, any time I hear about cheese eating surrender monkeys, someone gets an unsolicited history lesson.

LePen Being Banned From Running For President Is Not Lawfare

By

On April 1, 2025

Comments

I should note that this was NOT my original assumption. I assumed this was like Georgescu, or Khan in Pakistan or the arrest of Istanbul’s Mayor: politically motivated bullshit, designed to make sure a popular politician can’t run and either disproportionate or a stitch-up.

It’s true that LePen is leading the polls and would probably be the the next President, yes, but as best I can tell it’s also true that she’s guilty of misusing public funds and that the court case and the sentence are not politically motivated.

The sentence is:

4 years prison (2 years suspended, 2 years at home under electronic monitoring), a €100,000 fine, and most devastatingly, 5 years of ineligibility for public office with immediate execution.

The best summary I’ve found is this one by Arnaud Bertrand. But I’ll summarize the salient points:

  1. The case started in 2015, and it was dragged out so long by LePen’s own lawyers who filed every delaying motion they could think of, the timing is not a government plot.
  2. Parties, including LePen’s, were using EU parliamentary assistant funds to pay for party matters. LePen is not the only one to do this, but she did much more of it than the other French party, the MoDems (Macron’s party): 2.9 million vs. 204,000, plus did it longer and the MoDems stopped before being forced to while LaPen kept doing it until she couldn’t. The MoDem’s punishment was minor, LePen’s is savage, but this appears to me to reflect the seriousness of what each did.
  3. There really isn’t any question that the RN and LePen are guilty. They are.
  4. Being forbidden from running is part of the law: if found guilty, you can’t run for office. However the court could have delayed that until after appeals.

So the questions are:

  1. Is the sentence disproportionate to what was done to the MoDems. (No, I’d say.)
  2. Is the timing based on LePen now being the front runner. (No.)
  3. Should the court have held off on banning LePen from running until the appeal?

Again, I’d say no. There’s no question she’s guilty. If it was a case where there was some doubt, then holding off would make sense. The intent of the law is clear: if you have misappropriated funds, you shouldn’t be in office. This seems like a reasonable law: we don’t want politicians who misuse public money in office. The appeal won’t change the fact she’s guilty, and if guilty, she shouldn’t be allowed to be President.

This is unfortunate but the law is reasonable, there’s no case that she’s innocent and she did do something wrong and didn’t stop until forced to.

This isn’t Lawfare. This is justice, and the system working the way it should (except the case took too long) to enforce a law which is entirely reasonable, and not un-just. The higher penalty compared to the MoDems is also reasonable, because it is proportionate to the different actions of different defendants.

It’s easy to be cynical right now, to assume that law enforcement and justice is always corrupt, because it so often is. But on the rare occasions where it is reasonable and just, we should admit it and celebrate.

LePen is guilty, and she shouldn’t be allowed to be President of France and the court was right to rule both things, and was following a law which is actually reasonable and just.

You get what you pay for. This blog is free to read, but not to produce. If you enjoy the content, donate or subscribe.

The Left’s “Victory” In France

By

On July 8, 2024

Comments

The left coalition has won the most seats in France, but failed to get a majority. Macron’s party is second, with LaPen third, though with more seats than ever before.

This is a result of candidates who were in third or worse place dropping out so as to not split the vote.

As a result it’s unclear who will form the next government, and how. La Pen is correct in saying:

“National Rally leader Le Pen, expected to make a fourth run for the French presidency in 2027, said the elections laid the groundwork for “the victory of tomorrow.”

“The reality is that our victory is only deferred,” she added. But Le Pen’s older sister, Marie-Caroline, was among her party’s losers Sunday, defeated by a leftist candidate and just 225 votes in her district.

It’s clear that the Center can’t stop the right. Policies like increasing the retirement age and various other austerity measures aren’t popular and can’t fix France’s economy. Macron’s reign has seen repeated mass protests and strikes, often violent.

For the Left to take over in the next election they need to deliver at least a bit. It may not be impossible: the right might vote with them on some issues, such as rolling back the  pension age increase (which they opposed) and they may be able to convince the center to vote with them on other issues.

In addition, when they are stopped from pursuing popular policies like taxing the rich to pay for social programs, they need to scream to high heavens and make the case that with a majority they will be able to deliver their entire program.

Much of the problem in France has been that when Neoliberals want to do the right thing, like fight climate change, they do it in the most regressive way possible, hurting workers and farmers, rather than making the rich pay. Outlawing private jets and taxing the rich, then using the money to pay farmers to make necessary changes rather than forcing farmers to take the hit is a winning policy.

France now has a real chance to avoid fascism. Let’s hope the left can maneuver well enough to make it happen.

IanWelsh.net is supported by readers. Please subscribe or donate, and please share articles. The more you help, the more I can write.

Le Pen Is Delusional But Macron Deserves To Lose

By

On June 10, 2024

Comments

So, Macron has dissolved his government and a French legislative election is on. The Harris Interactive June 9/10 poll shows La Pen with the highest support at 34%, with the left wing Nantes coalition at 22% and Macron’s ENS coalition at 19%. Macron is not on the ballot, but if his party loses power, the Prime Minister of whatever group has the majority will be in control of French domestic policy, leaving Macron to foreign affairs.

Macron has been a terrible President. He got in only because of strategic voting. In the second round, people were too scared to give Le Pen a chance, so they went for him. During his tenure France has been rocked by repeated and massive protests. Economic performance has been bad and his signature move was to increase the age at which people can retire.

This is the Brexit/Trump/Javier problem. To whit, when things are bad for a long time and nothing seems to help, people reach for something extreme. They know the status quo isn’t working and that things keep getting worse no matter who they vote for among the mainstream, so they look for someone or something completely different. Trump is a billionaire, but he doesn’t parse the same as normal politicians. The EU was adopted around about the time Britain went into a severe multi-generational slump manufactured to hurt the working class. The EU wasn’t mostly responsible for it, but the status quo was “things are going to get worse, but if you stay in the EU more slowly than if you leave” and people were willing to throw the dice.

Javier is a libertarian loon who looks and talks nothing like a normal politician, so Argentinians gave him a shot: neither ordinary right nor ordinary left had been able to fix Argentina.

Of course, Javier is a loon, so:

La Pen is delusional, and not a solution. As an illustration:

Le Pen – who calls wind turbines “horrors that cost us a fortune” – would end all subsidies to the solar and wind energy sector, apply a moratorium on both and dismantle already existing turbines.

Solar is substantially cheaper than fossil fuels. Wind varies, in France it seems to be slightly more expensive than fossil fuels, but prices continue to drop, and thanks to Europe’s geopolitical stance the price of fossil fuels is higher than it once was. Even if you don’t want to build more turbines, dismantling already existing turbines is expensive stupidity.

Ending subsidies is questionable, in the sense that if you want to end subsidies and allow “true” competition, you’d also have to end fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies.

But a moratorium is beyond stupid. If solar is cheaper, why not build it?

There’s a lot of this sort of nonsense on the right, “liberals and left wingers like renewable energy and acknowledge climate change, therefor we must oppose renewable energy and deny climate change.”

It’s driven by tribal nonsense, science denialism and desire to keep things the same.

But sticking your head in the sand doesn’t change the fact that climate change is real and happening, or that solar is now cheaper than fossil fuels in most cases.

We can’t fix our problems is we deny reality. It’s that simple. It afflicts the center as well, with their “we’ll win in Ukraine” nonsense and their complete unwillingness to recognize the consequences of austerity and neoliberal politics. They want lots of rich people, so anything that would mean less rich rich people is anathema.

But the right, like Le Pen, are equally delusional. She may do some good things. Perhaps she’ll undo the increase in pension ages, for example. I hope so.

But the right isn’t the answer to real problems. Everything but climate change and ecological collapse, in 20 years, will seem like a sideline, completely meaningless. Any politician who isn’t taking it seriously and preparing for it shouldn’t be in office. Macron was not doing enough, not even close. Le Pen wants to make it worse.

France’s only real chance is to go left: fix the social and economic problems at the same time as dealing realistically with environmental problems.

Perhaps that will happen. If it doesn’t, as with Britain rejecting Corbyn, they will pay a frightful price. The European era is over, but how well France adjusts to its new place in the world will matter a great deal to those who live there, and, indeed, to all of Europe.

Right now the French seem determined to accelerate their decline rather than adapt to new circumstance in a way which is beneficial to them.

You get what you support. If you like my writing, please SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE

Macron & Many European Leaders Call For WWIII?

By

On February 27, 2024

Comments

So, French leader Macron thinks Europe should send troops to Ukraine to fight Russia. (This is colloquially known as “declaring war on Russia.”)

rench President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday that sending Western troops to Ukraine should not be ruled out, as European leaders concluded a summit on supporting Kyiv.

“There is no consensus today to send ground troops officially but … nothing is ruled out,” Macron said at a press conference in Paris, where the meeting had just wrapped up. “We will do whatever it takes to ensure that Russia cannot win this war.”

“The defeat of Russia is indispensable to the security and stability of Europe,” the French president added.

…

The subject was first raised publicly by Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, who said a “restricted document” ahead of the summit had implied “that a number of NATO and EU member states were considering sending troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis.”

…

Macron also announced that leaders agreed to set up a ninth capability coalition on deep strikes that will focus on medium- and long-range missiles. Other coalitions include artillery, air defense and de-mining.

This is, in effect, an acknowledgment that Europe knows Ukraine is losing.

So, there are two main possibilities here. First, it’s a negotiating ploy, to get a better deal for Ukraine. Second, they’re serious.

Let’s point out a couple things: Russia is outproducing the entire West in artillery shells and ammunition and Western armories are bare: they’ll run out in two weeks to a month of real war, at most. Second, China is not going to let Russia really lose a war, because they know who’s next and Europe has mostly been very willing to follow the US in anti-Chinese actions.

Iran, obviously, will support Russia as well. They know they’re on the list.

It’s actually not clear that the West would win this war: Russia is out-producing the West in terms of war materials, China is the undisputed largest industrial power in the world and it’s not clear that if other powers step in, China and maybe Iran won’t step in on Russia’s side. They really, really don’t want to: but the defeat of Russia, as already noted, is an existential threat to them.

Next, if either side starts losing, there will be a strong temptation to reach for the nukes.

On a smaller note, if Europe supplies long range missiles and those missiles hit something that matters (say the Kremlin, or the Bolshoi) things could get ugly fast. Seeking to expand the war further into Russia is certainly “legal” but it’s not wise. It won’t change the outcome of the war, it will merely make the war more likely to expand, which is why the German Scholz is correct to oppose it.

All my life, the charge against people outside elite circles has been that we are “un-serious”.

This is extremely un-serious behaviour.

I will note, further, that the reason Europe and the US can’t compete with China and Russia is that they simply refuse to reduce economic rents, lower living costs and make their rich less rich in order to reduce operating costs and oligopolies and monopolies sufficiently to ramp up production, both of war materials and, well, everything else.

They want to live like Kings, our elites, having the South send them materials and the Chinese and other nations send them manufactured goods, while using their populations for rent extraction so they can become richer and richer.

They have confused money with power. Money is only power when it can buy power. And increasingly, in the West, it can only buy power domestically, not internationally.

This is a grave mistake, and the graveyard of Empires.

Fools. And worse than fools.

You get what you support. If you like my writing, please SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE

France Isn’t In A Civil War Yet, But It Is Close

By

On July 4, 2023

Comments

So, the main police unions in France put out this rather deranged statement:

Now that’s enough…

Facing these savage hordes, asking for calm is no longer enough, it must be imposed!

Restoring the republican order and putting the apprehended beyond the capacity to harm should be the only political signals to give.

In the face of such exactions, the police family must stand together.

Our colleagues, like the majority of citizens, can no longer bear the tyranny of these violent minorities.

The time is not for union action, but for combat against these “pests”. Surrendering, capitulating, and pleasing them by laying down arms are not the solutions in light of the gravity of the situation.

All means must be put in place to restore the rule of law as quickly as possible.

Once restored, we already know that we will relive this mess that we have been enduring for decades.

For these reasons, Alliance Police Nationale and UNSA Police will take their responsibilities and warn the government from now on that at the end, we will be in action and without concrete measures for the legal protection of the Police, an appropriate penal response, significant means provided, the police will judge the extent of the consideration given.

Today the police are in combat because we are at war. Tomorrow we will be in resistance and the government will have to become aware of it.”

So. The bolded part is important: it’s a declaration that the police unions won’t obey the orders of the government if they don’t agree. This is something I’ve been expecting (and seeing) for a while. During the Trucker Convoy in Canada, the police refused to enforce the law and arrest the protestors. That’s why, in the end, the government froze the bank accounts of protestors, because they couldn’t get the cops to enforce the law against people they liked and agreed with.

The same sort of thing happens over and over in the US, where right wing protestors aren’t arrested, often even when they commit violence, but are protected by the police.

Now the riots in France are largely Muslim, though not entirely. The Muslim immigrants have been pushed into suburbs and left to rot, with no effective way to move up in society, and at the same time social services have been repeatedly cut and money has, in France, as in all neoliberal nations, been funneled to the top. This bleeding ulcer is old, about 50 years old, and everyone has noted that it was bound to cause problems. These aren’t the first riots, they’re just the worst.

France has had a lot of riots and protests over the past few years, notably related to Macron’s increase of the pension age and rules, which means that many people will have to work into their 70s. (Theoretically one can retire before then, but for most people, the pension will not be enough without more years of work.) Those protests and riots were mostly white.

One of the topic categories on this blog is “the age of war and revolution”. I put it up in 2000, to indicate what was to come.

The current riots will be defeated. They’re large, but not serious. The rioters are not marching on the government and government officials, which is what would be required to actually overthrow the government. It isn’t a civil war.

But the police indicating they won’t accept legal orders, not just by passive resistance (as in Canada) but in outright defiance of the government is a very dangerous sign. The usual requirements for a successful revolution are an elite faction in support, a popular protest and the defection of at least some of the enforcer class.

France is very close to meeting those requirements: part of the elite agrees with the cops, there is a right wing primarily white conservative populist movement and the police are now showing clear defiance.

So, France isn’t in a civil war yet, but it could be soon.

As for the left, this is a fulcrum point. They need to strike and strike hard as soon as possible, because France’s Fifth Republic appears to be on its last legs. If the right overthrows it, the left will be in exile for at least two generations. It’s the right or the left, and right now the right seems most likely.

More on this and the general situation soon.

This is a donor supported site, so if you value the writing, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Is France Near A New Republic?

By

On March 27, 2023

Comments

This video is worth watching, though I have no idea whether the bit about dead cops is true:

The situation is simple: Macron unilaterally raised the pension age by two years from 62 to 64. This is after it was increased to 62 from 60 in 2010. He couldn’t get it past the legislature, so he used a clause which allows him to do so without legislative approval. Macron one the final round of the last election by 17%, but he had no mandate for this sort of reform. People voted for him to keep LaPen (the far right candidate) out.

This has caused an explosion of protests which is not abating.

A little more background is useful. The standard talking point is that France can’t afford the current pension system and thus MUST push back the qualification date and that this is reasonable because people have longer life spans than when the pension system was created and because the age pyramid has changed: there are proportionally fewer younger people and more older people.

Here’s the French GDP per capita char from 1980 to 2021:

So, it rose pretty consistently till about 2008 (surprise) and since then is flat to slightly rising depending.

Next chart. Labor productivity.

Same basic pattern.

One more, inequality.

That last table, in particular, deserves a good looking at if you have time.

But for current purposes, what is important is simply this: France is richer than it used to be and more productive and more of its income and wealth is held by the rich, and if France wants to keep its retirement age at 62 it can certainly afford to do so, it just might have to tax rich people a bit more and maybe not give billions to Ukraine and so on.

Of course France can afford an early retirement age of 62 or 60. It can only not afford it if you “hold everything equal” in the sense that you assume doing so is not a priority.

So, Macron is full of shit. The government can easily afford the current French pension age and should probably even drop the age a couple years if the majority of the population want that.

Meanwhile while what Macron has done is constitutional, it clearly shows that the constitution is broken: he’s doing something the majority of the population and the majority of the legislature oppose, which in a democratic society shouldn’t be possible.

Since he’s shown that the constitution itself is broken and that majority will cannot be accommodated because doing so would require the government to tax rich people who have been doing very well over the last forty odd years, French citizens are entirely justified to get out in the streets and not just stop this bill but overturn the Republic and institute the next one.

As for Macron, he’s always been insufferably sure that he’s right about everything (I am aware of the irony of me of all people writing this) and that it’s OK to make the majority of the population suffer to keep neoliberal orthodoxy running. He’s a true believer, a genuine ideologue, his ideology is just neoliberalism and neoliberalism doesn’t work any more.

France should be a model for more countries. When your rich people screw you over, take to the streets.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

 

 

 

Page 1 of 3

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén