Customer Reviews

That Sweet Enemy: The French and the British From the Sun King to the Present

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This tome of nearly 700 pages of text about the relations between Britain and `that sweet enemy, France' (a phrase from a sonnet by Sir Philip Sidney) is like a huge pudding stuffed with goodies: I have rarely read a history book whose brilliance is sustained over such an immense time-range - from the reign of Louis XIV to that of Jacques Chirac. The authors - the husband an Englishman, his wife born in France - handle the story with skill, and efficiency, and they frequently employ a joyous felicity of phrase to point up differences and similarities between England and France. There are neat descriptions of personalities - the authors are always forthright in their judgments - and spirited accounts of campaigns. Even someone who, like myself, considered himself quite familiar with the political narrative will come across sections which throw a new light upon it. I learnt much, for example, from the Tombs' description of France's involvement in the American War of Independence, and from their interesting reflections on how the loss of the American colonies, even in the short term, turned out to be a blessing in disguise for Britain. And the wider narrative is frequently interrupted by vignettes of little-known episodes, set in a different type, which further illuminate the themes under discussion.

There is a particularly striking chapter about the differences between the British and French navies during the Second Hundred Years' War: here, as throughout the book, the authors fully acknowledge and make excellent use of the secondary literature they have consulted. (Their list of secondary authorities runs to 28 pages.)

After the Napoleonic Wars Britain and France were never again at war with each other, and since the Entente Cordiale of 1904 they have technically been allies. But that does not mean that there have not been tensions and suspicions between the two countries throughout all these years, even during the First and Second World Wars, and of course during the inter-war period also. The authors are interesting on Appeasement. Most historians say that the French could not stop Hitler marching into the Rhineland or the Sudetenland because the British would not have supported them. The authors say that for various reasons the French governments, like the British, would not have wanted to risk a conflict anyway and were glad later to blame their non-intervention on the lack of British support.

After the Second World War Britain and France took such different attitudes towards `ever closer union' in Europe that there really has been very little cordiality between them. The parts of the book dealing with the issue of Europe bring out very well the very different visions of the two countries in an account that shows clearly how British policy handed the leadership of Western Europe to France for more than half a century, but which has broken down in today's enlarged European Union. Besides, the book argues, that leadership was exercised in a way which, after early economic successes, eventually brought stagnation to France.

The political chapters are interspersed with sparkling chapters on culture and society: how each nation saw and often stereotyped the other; how each alternatively (or simultaneously) mocked and copied, despised and envied, hated and admired the other, but could never be indifferent. Travel, manners in general and table manners in particular, sport, fashions in clothes, attitudes to the theatre, the views the two countries had about each other's women, philosophical traditions - these are some of the subjects that are treated with wit and learning.

Not the least among the charms of this book are the debates between husband and wife which end each of the four parts into which the volume is divided. It is perhaps a bit of a knockabout, in which both rally fairly uncompromisingly to the defence of their native countries; but the summing up of the `British' and `French' points of view is very well done and thought-provoking.

This must already be the most authoritative and enjoyable treatment of the period under review; but I hope that the success of this book will encourage the authors to produce a prequel, from the Norman Conquest to the 17th century, or at least from the 16th to the 17th century: the Tudor-Valois period is, in my opinion, the defining period during which the most essential differences between England and France took shape, and I would love to see the authors tackle it with the same verve which has made this book such a remarkable achievement.

This very long (I guess about 750,000 words of text), informative and frequently amusing narrative and analysis of the clashes and misunderstandings between Britain and France (even when they were on the same side) over the past 300+ years is fascinatng and very well done. I thought I knew the history pretty well, at least from the British side, but this opened my eyes many times.

The strict focus on the two protagonists has produced what to me as an American seems to be an oddly distorted (although not inaccurate) picture of the last 70 years or so, because there is relatively little discussion of the participation of the United States in world events.

I have two complaints about the book. One is that the detailed comparison of the economic position of the two countries in recent times virtually overlooks the stultifying effect on France's employment level and economic activity of its restrictive and "protectionist" trade policy.

The second is that the index is truly dreadful, particularly considering the length of this book. I frequently looked, for example, in the index to see if a particular person was mentioned. When I failed to find that person's name in the index I assumed he/she was not mentioned. But it turned out that the index was incomplete.

Yes, I read a lot of books. And I review the books I enjoy (there is no point to reading what one dislikes, is there?). Once in awhile I run across a book I find to be very special and am especially enthusiastic about. This is one of those books.

Robert and Isabelle Tombs are scholars on the history of France and Britain and the combine their wonderfully expansive knowledge of those histories to give us a tour of the social, economic, military, political, and cultural histories of these nations from Louis IV through the first few years of the Twenty-First Century. As an American who grew up while America was always a dominant (if not the dominant) world power, it is particularly interesting to see how the world's major powers interacted and contended when America was largely, as yet, unpopulated by the Europeans.

Even our Revolution, so central to every American's understanding of our nation, takes a minor role in a much larger global struggle for supremacy. Both Britain and France tried to cause the other to stretch their ability to hold their growing Empires together. Each had to make choices on what to hold onto and what had only secondary importance, and what to let go. This happened over and over again. Eventually, their mutual struggles became a mutually cooperative relationship to deal with the rising German (and other) threats.

What I like about this telling is that the authors do not feel the need to side with anyone in particular. They provide quite a number of side articles (in the shaded areas) to flesh out specific points. There are also special sections such as the "interlude" (a couple of pages) on the French and Shakespeare. We also get some wonderfully chosen illustrations. However, what I like most are the chapters where the authors draw their separate conclusions and disagreements on various topics. The provide differing perspectives on the same topics that through the subject into better relief than one side alone. These sections provide for a rich perspective and help make the reading experience seomthing I wanted to savor.

The book has a tremendous amount of information about economic expenditures, the great leaders, the common folks, the literary digs at each nation, the technological leaps, the balancing of the benefits of a strong navy with the amazing costs incurred to build and maintain it. The authors are also quite clear about what was fortune (for good or ill) and what happened that actually looks like good judgment and skillful execution.

For Americans, this is can be a very helpful and educational book. It has been for me and I am grateful to the Tombs for writing it.

This is a well-written book about the relationship between Britain and France over the past three centuries or so. It reviews the history, the development of their cultures and identities, and the influence that both have exerted on one and another, and in fact on many aspects of modern society allover the world in areas ranging from politics and economics to art, literature, fashion and cuisine. The authors are a couple, a British husband and professor of history at Cambridge University, and a French wife with a Ph.D. in modern British history. The authors' background, in my view, might help ameliorate some potential biases. The authors have attempted to provide several point and counterpoint discussions to illustrate the difference between the British and the French views.

The book however is a lengthy tome of a little more than 700 pages. Many scholars tend to believe that writing about history usually benefits from looking backward at events after the passions of the day have subsided, and more historical records become available for serious study. Perhaps this book could have presented a more balanced and a somewhat shorter review by omitting Part IV,"Revival" dealing with recent history. In particular, chapter 14, "Ever Closer Disunion", including commentary on ongoing events such as the War against Militant Islamic Terrorism, seems to suffer from the lack of a decent historical distance to allow a dispassionate review; and seems to be somewhat influenced by anti-American propaganda.

The authors seem to consider that the American Independence War, as a part of the British-French continued wars in the 18th century. They further argue, "France's victory in 1783, though it created the United States of America, has bankrupted the French Bourbon monarchy and led to the French revolution. Clearly, France's assistance to the American colonies was not only important but also instrumental for the ultimate victory at Yorktown on October 19, 1781. After the French and Indian war 1754-1763,France attempted to foment rebellion against Britain in the American colonies. In 1775, the French minister of foreign affairs, Comte de Vergennes, dispatched a representative to Philadelphia, who secretly met with five of the leaders of the colonies, one of whom was Benjamin Franklin. These attempts however did not stir up the Americans to take the French bait. However after approximately a year of war between the British and the American Continental armies 1775-1776, and the declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress sent Benjamin Franklin in December 1776 to France to seek assistance. The initial French assistance was relatively small, measured in a way so as to avoid war with Britain. It was only after the Americans prevailed at the battle of Saratoga in October 1777, that the French attitude started changing, and finally agreed to sign a treaty with the colonies in 1778. A more serious assistance was attempted by France afterwards. Also it seems that the French Bourbon monarchy bankruptcy is more related to a spree of spending and borrowing from 1783 to 1787 managed by France's controller general, Charles de Calonne. The spending and borrowing bubble ultimately burst in 1787. The bubble burst was further aggravated by the Assembly of Notables refusal in February 1787 to authorize further taxation to increase revenues, and remedy the incipient Bourbon bankruptcy.

This is a well-written book that I believe the serious readers and aficionados of modern western civilization would find both informative and entertaining.

This book is another "monument" to the francophobia of the Anglo-Saxon world. It is full of clichés and often it distorts the truth. I will take only three examples :

- 1 - The section on Napoleon is ridiculous. To start off by putting on the same level Napoleon, Stalin and Hitler is just not right.

- 2 - The narration of the start of WWI is not right too. I suggest that Barbara Tuckman's book "The Guns of August", Pulitzer price, is the correct history. It shows how poorly the English were prepared for the war, how they kept retreating and that the French were left alone against the full fury of the German attack. Come on, be fair ! The French won the first World War, not the English.

- 3 - Then what happened in the thirties is not reported fairly. Churchill, in "Gathering Storm" writes : "How the English speaking people through their unwisdom, carelessness and good nature (?) allowed the wicked to rearm". Many others make the same point, for instance, Zara Steiner in her book "The Lights that failed". The result of francophobia was Hitler.

This book was a waste of my time. And I would venture that the English and Anglo-Saxon world are now in permanent relative decline. As the subprime mess is showing, finance has its limits. Nial Ferguson in his book "Colossus" writes about the three Anglo-Saxon deficits : attention deficit disorder, people deficit, money deficit. How true!

In 1945, the Anglo-Saxon world was the victor. But since then, it has lost all its advantage and more.
The defining moment was when Jean Monnet understood that France and Germany should be tied together so tightlty that never a European war could again take place. Monnet succeeded. Since then, continental Europe is an island of prosperity and good life : perfect infrastructures, education for everybody, good health system, high productivity and long holydays. The Anglo-Saxon world is the reverse: the rich live very well but the low and middle classes are being squeezed to complete dispair. Continental Europe shows more balance and less greed.
The rest of the world has progressed a lot. China, Brazil, India, Japan, etc... are great success stories. The problem of the Anglo-Saxon world is that it has not yet realized that the rest of the world has improved so much that it is tired of Anglo-Saxon arrogance.

Today, when America does something right, in six months it has been taken up by the rest of the world . When something right is done in Europe and elsewhere, the Anglo-Saxon world will argue for five years before taking it up... The surest path to mediocrity. Just look at what happen to the Anglo-Saxon automobile industry.

Today Europe is prosperous. America and England still have to spend billions - that they don't have - to rebuild their education system, their health system and their infrastructure. France is not agressive toward England, but France is amazed at the fact that England is still Bush and America's poodle... France and continental Europe want peace and democracy but they understand that it is a process to be negotiated and which requires time and respect. Bombs don't solve problems, diplomacy does. Jean Monnet showed the way. Thanks to his honesty, sincerety, openness and patience, peace was achieved. Read his memoirs...

I am a solid anglophile but this book could make of me an anglophobe. But I shall not condescend to such pettiness. Let us stop this cheap in-fighting. Climate change is the biggest threat that the world ever will meet. We need England to convince America to give up on its selfishness and work with the rest of the world on an equal and generous footing.