text:
Istoria Statelor Unite
America and the French Nation, 1939-1945
Până la Julian G. Hurstfield
Salvați pentru mai târziuSalvați America and the French Nation, 1939-1945 pentru mai târziu
Hurstfield analyzes American responses--diplomatic, military, intellectual, and popular--to the plight of the French nation during World War II, as the constitution of the Third Republic was suspended, Petain ruled in Vichy, the Germans administered Occupied France, DeGaulle organized the Free French movement, and an internal French resistance slowly gathered strength. Interweaving diplomatic and intellectual history, the author combines analysis with a sensitive account of American currents of opinion.
A UNC Press Enduring Edition -- UNC Press Enduring Editions use the latest in digital technology to make available again books from our distinguished backlist that were previously out of print. These editions are published unaltered from the original, and are presented in affordable paperback formats, bringing readers both historical and cultural value.
Istorie europeană
Julian G. Hurstfield
Anne Sebba
Pat F. Garrett
William Balsamo
John Balsamo
Nina Willner
Stephanie Storey
Margaret Rhodes
Nicholas Frankel
A.J. Baime
Legat de America and the French Nation, 1939-1945
Francis I: The Maker of Modern France
Autor Leonie Frieda
We'll Always Have Paris: American Tourists in France since 1930
Autor Harvey Levenstein
Culture and Society in France 1789-1848
Autor F. W. J. Hemmings
The Story of French
Autor Jean-Benoit Nadeau
France's New Deal: From the Thirties to the Postwar Era
Autor Philip Nord
Soulblade (Dragon Blood, Book 7)
Autor Lindsay Buroker
Living, Studying, and Working in France: Everything You Need To Know To Fulfill Your Dreams of Living Abroad
Autor Saskia Reilly
A Refuge Assured
Autor Jocelyn Green
Our Man in Paris: A Foreign Correspondent, France and the French
Autor John Lichfield
The Rough Guide to France (Travel Guide eBook)
Autor Rough Guides
Autor Susan Harris
Open Roads, Closed Borders: The Contemporary French-language Road Movie
Autor CSPacademic
Sharp Turn
Autor Marianne Delacourt
Collected Works of Paul Valery, Volume 11: Occasions
Autor Paul Valéry
Licensing Loyalty: Printers, Patrons, and the State in Early Modern France
Autor Jane McLeod
Cultivate Your French Episodes 103 à 106
Autor Laetitia Perraut
History Of France
Autor M. Guizot
Francophone Africa at fifty
Autor CSPtrade
What to see in Paris
Autor Skyline Editions
The Paris Adventures of Judith & Amy
Autor Judith V. Branzburg
Joint-Stock Enterprise in France, 1807-1867: From Privileged Company to Modern Corporation
Autor Charles E. Freedeman
The Cercle Social, the Girondins, and the French Revolution
Autor Gary Kates
Defending National Treasures: French Art and Heritage Under Vichy
Autor Elizabeth Karlsgodt
America: An Anthology of France and the United States
Insight Guides Pocket France (Travel Guide eBook)
Autor Insight Guides
France in the Age of the Scientific State
Autor Robert Gilpin
Insiders' French: Beyond the Dictionary
Autor Eleanor Levieux
French Provincial Police and the Fall of the Second Republic: Social Fear and Counterrevolution
Autor Thomas R. Forstenzer
Memories of May '68: France's Convenient Consensus
Autor Chris Reynolds
France, the Soul of a Journey
Autor R J ODonnell
Lindsay Krasnoff, "The Making of Les Bleus: Sport in France, 1958-2010" (Lexington Books, 2012): In 1967, an official of the French basketball federation lamented the team's poor finish at that year's European Championships in Finland. The French team finished sixth in their group of eight, and then lost in the first game of the knockout stage.
Nicole Rudolph, "At Home in Postwar France: Modern Mass Housing and the Right to Comfort" (Berghahn Books, 2015): Nicole Rudolph's At Home in Postwar France: Modern Mass Housing and the Right to Comfort (Berghahn Books, 2015) contributes to a growing body of scholarship on the three decades after 1945 known as the Trente glorieuses.
Julia Nicholls, "Revolutionary Thought after the Paris Commune, 1871-1885" (Cambridge UP, 2019): NIcholls offers the first comprehensive account of French revolutionary thought in the years between the crushing of France's last nineteenth-century revolution and the re-emergence of socialism as a meaningful electoral force,..
Rebecca Scales, "Radio and the Politics of Sound in Interwar France, 1921-1939" (Cambridge UP, 2016): What did sound mean to French people as radio and other listening technologies began to proliferate in the early twentieth century? What was the nature and significance of French auditory culture in the years between the two world wars?
Autor New Books in Science, Technology, and Society
Emile Chabal, "A Divided Republic: Nation, State and Citizenship in Contemporary France" (Cambridge UP, 2015): Emile Chabal's A Divided Republic: Nation, State and Citizenship in Contemporary France (Cambridge University Press, 2015) is an in-depth analysis of the languages and preoccupations of French civil society and political culture from the 1970s to the p...
Richard Fogarty, "Race and War in France: Colonial Subjects in the French Army, 1914-1918" (Johns Hopkins UP, 2008): The thing about empire building is that when you're done building one, you've got to figure out what to do with it. This generally involves the "extraction of resources." We tend to think of this in terms of things like gold, oil, or rubber.
WDF Xtra Teaser: August 2017: A Sneak Peak At August's Xtra Episodes
Autor When Diplomacy Fails Podcast
Ethan Katz, "The Burdens of Brotherhood: Jews and Muslims from North Africa to France" (Harvard UP, 2015): In The Burdens of Brotherhood: Jews and Muslims from North Africa to France (Harvard University Press, 2015), Ethan Katz examines and interrogates Jewish-Muslim relations from 1914 to the present. Arguing that interactions between Jews and Muslims must...
Autor New Books in Jewish Studies
Alexia Yates, "Selling Paris: Property and Commercial Culture in the Fin-de-siecle Capital" (Harvard UP, 2015): What comes to mind when you think of Paris in the nineteenth century? For me, its revolutionary politics, the circulation of increasing numbers of people and goods, a range of spectacular cultural displays and amusements,
Autor New Books in Economics
Autor New Books in Islamic Studies
Autor New Books in Public Policy
Robert Darnton, "A Literary Tour de France: The World of Books on the Eve of the French Revolution" (Oxford UP, 2018): Five decades ago, a young scholar named Robert Darnton followed up on a footnote that took him to the archives of the "Typographical Society of Neuchatel"(S.T.N.) in Switzerland, not far from the French border. Many years,
Mary Louise Roberts, "What Soldiers Do: Sex and the American GI in World War II France" (University of Chicago Press, 2013): Tracking soldiers from the villages and towns of Northern France, to the "Silver Foxhole" of Paris, to tribunals that convicted a disproportionate number of African-American soldiers of rape, Mary Louise Roberts' latest book reveals a side of the Liber...
Autor New Books in Gender Studies
Danna Agmon, "A Colonial Affair: Commerce, Conversion, and Scandal in French India" (Cornell UP, 2017): People sometimes forget—if they are even aware—that France's empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries included a colonial presence in South Asia, a presence that at one time rivaled that of the British.
Autor New Books in Hindu Studies
Richard Rubin, "Back Over There" (St. Martin's Press, 2017): The majority of the books we profile on New Books in Military History are traditional research narratives, monographs written by historians and authors seeking to present a particular campaign, organization, battle, or individual in detail.
Katie Jarvis, "Politics in the Marketplace: Work, Gender, and Citizenship in Revolutionary France" (Oxford UP, 2019): The king's guards became increasingly nervous as they watched nearly 7,000 individuals march on Versailles on October 5, 1789...
Jonathyne Briggs, "Sounds French: Globalization, Cultural Communities, and Pop Music, 1958-1980" (Oxford UP, 2015): "Pop pop pop pop musik" -M Jonathyne Briggs' new book, Sounds French: Globalization, Cultural Communities, and Pop Music, 1958-1980(Oxford University Press, 2015) makes music the historical focus of the Fifth Republic's first two decades.
Jeremy Ahearne, "Government through Culture and the Contemporary French Right" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014): How did two right wing presidents use culture to govern France? In Government through Culture and the Contemporary French Right (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), Jeremy Ahearne, a Professor of French Studies and Cultural Policy Studies at the University of W...
Autor New Books in Critical Theory
Catherine Clark, "Paris and the Cliché of History: The City in Photographs, 1860-1970" (Oxford UP, 2018): What's the first image that comes to mind when you hear the words "Paris" and "photography"?
Laurie M. Wood, "Archipelago of Justice: Law in France's Early Modern Empire" (Yale UP, 2020): Wood recasts our view of France's empire by evaluating the interwoven trajectories of the people, like itinerant ship-workers and colonial magistrates,..
All Blood Runs Red: President of France, Charles de Gaulle is on a state visit to the United States of America and he asks to meet a French hero who holds the Légion d'honneur and who lives in New York. Eventually, retired lift operator is found and brought to the Presid...
Autor Plane Tales
Andrew Sobanet, "Generation Stalin: French Writers, the Fatherland, and the Cult of Personality" (Indiana UP, 2018): How did Rolland, and other French leftists, come to celebrate and actively promote the authoritarian regime of Joseph Stalin?
Richard Carswell, "The Fall of France in the Second World War: History and Memory" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019): Carswell emphasizes the various contingent factors that led to the military defeat of French forces by the Germans...
France: Ernie Rea and guests discuss religion in France.
Autor Beyond Belief
Why Is Napoleon Buried at Les Invalides? Episode 135: France, Paris, French Culture, French History
Autor Join Us in France Travel Podcast
Napoleon, Part I: The Man: (Nathan and Christine) It's Bastille Day weekend so we make a return to France for today's topic.  In the third installment of our Revolutionary France series, we'll talk about the scandals, intrigues, and tragedies of Napoleon and his inner circle.
Autor Footnoting History
France Moves To Ban Students From Using Cellphones In Schools
The country's education minister says the strict rules are a matter of public health. But some teachers and parents call it a losing battle.
Channel-Crossing Crisis
According to an article in the Journal du Dimanche, France is the largest exporter of millionaires in the world. Over the last decade, it has consigned 60,000 of them to other countries in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere. London, in particul
JOY Magazine
"The NOTRE-DAME FIRE Is Not An Attack Or An Accident, But A SUICIDE ATTEMPT." —philosopher Alain Finkielkraut
I recently read the article, The Suicide of France, on Gatestone Institute's website. This is a good indication of how the secular world views the current state of affairs in France. "Regarding France in 2019, it can no longer be denied that a moment
True To Self
Known for the decadence and artistry of its fabrics and wallpapers, Pierre Frey embodies French tradition and Parisian luxury at its finest. As a family business passed down generation to generation, its philosophy and French way of life has largely
French Man Praises Police Death, Is Arrested For Apologizing For Terrorism
The man, who had run for political office in France, tweeted "how great!" about the death of an officer who offered himself up in a hostage exchange Friday.
TechLife News
French Lawmakers Adopt Bill On Removing Hate Content Online
France's parliament has approved a bill aimed at fighting hate online that obliges platforms and search engines to remove prohibited content within 24 hours starting July 1. Lawmakers adopted the proposed legislation this week. Submitted by French Pr
The Truth About Military Parades
Military parades say more about those who order and watch them than those who participate in them.
In Famously Slender France, Can the Tide Turn Against 'Fatphobia'?
Though France has a reputation as a country of slim women and slender men, nearly half of all French people are overweight. Now it is seeing a new 'body positive' movement that encourages tolerance of plus-size physiques.
Signature Luxury Travel & Style
Welcome To L'édition Française
This year has been an exciting one for Signature Media and for the travel industry. Recent figures released by leading luxury travel network Virtuoso revealed that Australians are the world's biggest consumers of luxury travel by leisure nights and t
The Cottage Journal
Welcome to French Cottage, our newest special issue fromThe Cottage Journal magazine. In this issue, we travel about, touring the homes of people who love the French style, whether displayed in architecture, interiors, garden and floral designs, or c
Google Pays France Over $1 Billion To Settle Tax Case
Tech giant Google said it has paid over one billion dollars to French authorities to settle a years-long dispute over allegations of tax fraud. A Paris court approved a penalty of 500 million euros ($551 million) from the digital giant over charges o
La Vie en France
The familiar peal of bells from the twelfth-century church next door to her home in Courances, France, is all the timekeeper Elizabeth New Seitz needs. Each hour and half-hour are marked, just as they have been for centuries—a steadfast reverberation
OBJEKT International
Chateau Bonheur
Château Bonheur was such a prestigious place, where Alexandre was responsible for the complete structural renovation and where Bruno's wife Dominique designed the lush gardens. Flanked by two bell towers topped with glazed tiles, Château Bonheur dat
France's 'Yellow Vests' Only Have One Common Message: Anger At Government
France's "yellow vest" protesters have been highly visible, but their motives have been cryptic, thanks in large part to their lack of leaders and structure.
A Lost Mandate in Europe
Covid-19 reveals what we would have preferred not to know: we're no longer in the forefront.
After Brutal Beheading, Rallies Erupt Across France To Honor Slain Teacher
Thousands of demonstrators gathered in solidarity in French cities on Sunday, as the number of people detained in connection with the history teacher's beheading rose to 11.
French Lawmakers Approve 3% Tax On Online Giants
France's lower house of parliament approved a small, pioneering tax on internet giants like Google, Amazon and Facebook — and the French government hopes other countries will follow suit. The bill aims to stop multinationals from avoiding taxes by se
Yellow Vest Unrest Leaves Protester Severely Injured In Paris
Violence broke out Saturday as yellow vest protesters kept the pressure on French President Emmanuel Macron's government, for the 13th straight weekend of demonstrations.
'Citizen Candidates' Aim To Support French President Macron With Bids For Parliament
Emmanuel Macron promised France a "political revolution" if he became president. Now he is encouraging members of the public with little or no political experience to run for the National Assembly.
Australian Country Homes
One of Jules François' earliest memories is of arriving in Sydney as the eldest of six children of a migrant family and living with her maternal grandparents. While most of the family was Scottish, her grandfather was from Brittany and he introduced
Macron's Strategy For Trump In Paris: Long Handshakes And Military Spectacles
A much-discussed awkward moment at the Notre Dame Cathedral didn't stop the two leaders from grasping each other in an epic handshake Friday.
Rugby World
A Very French Future
WITHOUT HESITATION Claude Atcher says "yes" when asked if the 'legacy' of the 2007 World Cup in France did not deliver. "We were not prepared," the France 2023 CEO tells us. "Today the structure of our society is totally different. We have different
Constructing India and Campaigning in the Banlieues: The Week in Global-Affairs Writing
Urban Dreams Rollo Romig | California Sunday "The three titans of India at its moment of independence had divergent visions of the country's urban future. Mohandas Gandhi insisted that 'the true Indian civilization is in the Indian villages.' B. R.
Why France's Top General Quit
The move came after days of back and forth with President Emmanuel Macron over proposed budget cuts for defense.
WellBeing Wild
A Chosen Exile
I landed in Australia in March, 2020, exactly six hours before quarantine was imposed on all travellers arriving into the country. I flew from Berlin with my new partner. We were looking forward to our first romantic holiday but instead ended up in l
Inès Cagnati: The Insider Who Always Felt Like an Outsider
How do you learn the stories of people who are too impoverished, powerless, or uneducated to write their stories themselves? Often it is outsiders who relay them, through leaps of empathetic imagination—as Harriet Beecher Stowe did with Uncle Tom's C
PHOTOS: 'Slackers Unite' In Rallies Against Changes To French Labor Law
The show of opposition to President Macron's proposed labor law overhaul is seen as the first major test for the recently elected leader. In Paris, there were clashes between protesters and police.
'A Bite-Sized History Of France' Delightfully Combines French History With Gastronomy
Whatever this rollicking survey lacks in focus, it more than makes up for with its brisk, witty, imaginative voice.
Why Strikes and Poor Polling Aren't Derailing Macron's Reform Plans
Despite his showy numbers in French presidential elections earlier this year, Emmanuel Macron's actual support has always been fairly limited. But his campaign promises were clear, and he is moving quickly to follow through on them.
France Fights Flight To Big Cities With Funds For Smaller Towns
With high unemployment and empty storefronts, France's smaller towns aren't functioning well. The government hopes an investment of €5 billion in 222 communities will help attract younger residents and revitalize city cores.
Biografii ale membrilor familiilor regale
Istorie afro-americană
Istorie modernă
Istoria amerindiană
America and the French Nation, 1939-1945 - Julian G. Hurstfield
Chapel Hill and London
©1986 The University of North Carolina Press
Manufactured in the United States of America
Hurstfield, Julian G., 1949-America and the French nation, 1939-1945.
Bibliography: p.
1. World War, 1939-1945—Diplomatic history.
2. United States—Relations—France. 3. France—
Relations—United States. 4. France—Foreign opinion,
American. 5. Public opinion—United States.
6. Roosevelt, Franklin D. (Franklin Delano), 1882-
1945—Views on France. I. Title.
D753-H83 1986 940.53'22 85-20899
Betty Hurstfield,
and in memory of my father,
Joel Hurstfield
1 William C. Bullitt, the American Administration, and the End of the Third Republic
2 American Attitudes toward France in 1940
3 An American at Vichy: The Mission of Admiral William D. Leahy
4 Gaston Henry-Haye and the Eclipse of Franco-American Diplomacy, 1940-1942
5 French Currents in the United States, 1940-1941
6 St. Pierre and Miquelon Revisited: The Perils of Higher Diplomacy
7 The Roots of American Attitudes toward France, 1941-1942
8 The Darlan Deal and After
9 The United States and Great Britain in North Africa, 1943
10 Liberation and Recognition
11 Franklin Roosevelt: A Retrospect
Abbreviations and Acronyms
This study is conceived as an essay in American history, an exploration of American behavior toward France during the Second World War. After 1940, the French nation, defeated and divided, offered to an apparently sturdier republic a remarkably complex spectacle of divided loyalties and fratricidal conflict. Some splinters from this fracture, the French emigres, presented themselves in the United States, for closer scrutiny. The American investigation of France during this period thus took a number of forms.
Of these, diplomacy was the most public, and remains the most straightforward to chronicle. Very simply, it consisted of a steady reliance upon representatives of the French nation who were in no way associated with the French resistance or the movement around General de Gaulle. The successive appeal of these men, Marshal Petain, Admiral Darlan, General Giraud, to American policymakers, from President Roosevelt downward, is thus one central topic to be examined in this book.
But alongside these political and military developments, other, less formal exchanges were occurring. These cannot be so precisely described. Some of them, in addition, ran athwart the actual course of diplomacy. For while the American administration was conducting its policy, a vocal element within the American public campaigned for a reversal of that policy, and for wholehearted recognition of de Gaulle. The result was an unusual situation, in which the administration was criticized by its usual admirers and supported by its usual enemies. This historical anomaly commands attention quite irrespective of any influence that public opinion may have exercised on events.
The book is so organized as to attempt to do justice to these themes. It is broadly chronological, and can be read as a consecutive narrative. At the same time each chapter examines a distinct area, which may be the experience of one particular person or group, or the course of a particular episode. Always the aim has been to consider a point of intersection between the two countries. The frequent direct quotations are intended to convey something of the polemical flavor of what proved to be, on all sides, a deeply controversial encounter.
The author of a work such as this has the very pleasant experience of acquiring debts that both parties know can never be adequately repaid. My earliest teacher of American history, Professor H. G. Nicholas, was a generous, tactful, shrewd, witty, endlessly knowledgeable supervisor. Professors Max Beloff and Alec Campbell offered genuinely helpful and constructive advice at an early stage. My colleagues Professor Christine Bolt and Dr. R. J. Crampton read drafts of several chapters with great insight, as did, in Indiana, Professor George Juergens. For incidental, particular acts of kindness and assistance I am deeply grateful to Professors Henry Blumenthal, Wayne Cole, Francis Haber, John McVickar Haight, Jr., and Douglas Johnson. Janet Rabinowitch provided some indispensable counsel. Only the very great authority of these friends, colleagues, and teachers tempts me toward the otherwise rash admission that any residual errors can only be my own. Dr. Graham Clarke, working in an adjacent discipline and thus exempted from reading drafts, was, nonetheless, an unfailing source of wisdom.
I am also grateful, for their patience and toleration, to the librarians and archivists of the following institutions: in England, the British Library and the Public Record Office, London, and Rhodes House, Oxford; in France, the Bibliotheque Nationale and what was once the Comite d'histoire de la deu- xieme guerre mondiale; in the United States, the George Arendts Research Library at Syracuse University, the Chicago Historical Society, the Houghton Library at Harvard University, the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, the Library of Congress and, within it, the Manuscripts Division, the Lilly Library at Indiana University, the National Archives in Washington, D.C., Princeton University Library, the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, and the Sterling Library at Yale University. Wherever I went I met only the warmest generosity. Neither my broken French nor my British accent proved an obstacle to a form of collaboration so much happier than that recounted in this book.
Essential financial assistance was provided, at different times, by the Department of Education and Science, the British Academy, and the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Kent, to all of whom I am most obliged.
The manuscript was prepared, in several stages and drafts, by a number of gifted typists, including Susan Davies, Pam Duesbury, and Sheila Hawkins. Eve Hurste was, by a pleasing coincidence, chiefly responsible for both the first and final drafts, and I thank her for her lavish care. The index was prepared with the expert technical assistance of Dotty Esher. The entire manuscript benefited appreciably from the editorial scrutiny of Gwen Duffey at the University of North Carolina Press.
All the time the work was moving toward completion, Geraldine Mary Hurstfield supported, encouraged, inspired.
J. G. H.
Whitstable, Kent, England
St. David's Day, 1985
WILLIAM C. BULLITT, THE AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION, AND THE END OF THE THIRD REPUBLIC
Nothing so well illustrates the American distance from Europe in the 1930s as the contrasting strategies for avoiding war. Whilst the diplomacy of the European democracies was conducted, however obscurely, with some regard for the realities at hand, in the United States long-range planning and idealistic, often abstract goals were substituted. Europeans struggled to avoid the outbreak of war; Americans debated tactics to ensure their own neutrality.
The American public was thus presented with a bewildering variety of proposals to ensure peace. The League of Nations and the World Court, disarmament and arbitration, collective security and international law: each had its advocates; and there were in addition other, more precise plans advanced: the Neutrality Acts of 1935, 1936, and 1937, ingeniously framed to avoid a repetition of America's entry into the First World War, and the Ludlow Constitutional Amendment that, if passed in 1938, would have required a national referendum before a declaration of war.¹ Meanwhile, the secretary of state, Cordell Hull, led his department to advocate free trade—the progressive reduction of economic rivalry—as the only effective international healer.² And the president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, descended from high rhetoric only to offer American mediation to ensure, in effect, that Hitler's proposed revisions of the Treaty of Versailles were performed peaceably.³
This welter of conflicting voices drowned out any possibility of a settled diplomatic approach. Always, when crises arose, the initiative apparently lay elsewhere. The result was that the United States came to seem a copartner in the Anglo-French appeasement of Germany, all the more so as Hitler's demands on behalf of the German people grimly mocked the American faith in national self-determination. A further effect was that when diplomatic crises did arise, the opinions and activities of American ambassadors abroad acquired a fresh importance. These men could, in their far-flung outposts, lay claim to a greater expertise than their superiors in Washington; and so many of them, in their different, sometimes opposed ways, did attempt to influence policy: in Britain Joseph P. Kennedy, in Russia Joseph E. Davies, in Germany Professor William E. Dodd, in Spain Claude G. Bowers, and in France, perhaps the most remarkable of them all, William C. Bullitt.⁴ As a preamble to examining the response of the American administration to the events of 1940, the career of one of its more flamboyant agents may first be considered.
Bullitt was a man of intense, but brittle loyalties, making his one of the more intriguing careers in American diplomatic history. For it possessed a distinct rhythm, in which an early enthusiasm was invariably superseded by vindictive animosity. So it proved with Woodrow Wilson, whose protege he once was; with the Russian Revolution, which he once urged Americans to favor; and with Franklin Roosevelt, in whom he once placed great trust. All of them came in time to disappoint him; and Bullitt's wrath, once aroused, was boundless.
He attacked Wilson in the conventional manner—speeches, articles, congressional testimony—but also, more originally, in a psychobiographical caricature, written in collaboration with Sigmund Freud and fortunately unpublished till 1967.⁵ Bullitt was likewise transformed from the well-disposed first American ambassador to Soviet Russia into a doctrinaire anti-Communist and geopolitical strategist, outlining during the Second World War the contours of the next, imminent global conflict.⁶ And Roosevelt, once (like Wilson) conveniently dead, was remorselessly abused by Bullitt for not following the adviser's advice.⁷ His most relentless vendetta was conducted against another man with whom he might be imagined to have much in common, Sumner Welles, Roosevelt's under secretary of state. Victory came, in 1943, with the removal of that talented man from public office.⁸
This may suggest that Bullitt had an unstable or wayward personality. Yet, while that may be so, he also had the knack of foreseeing, even when not influencing, the future course of American diplomacy. The irony—and perhaps, to him, the tragedy—of his career was that all his recommendations, those vigorously argued, densely documented position papers, arrived not early but prematurely. He earned little credit and great distrust. Though ominous, it is scarcely surprising that in 1947 he can be caught sight of on an investigative foray in Indochina.⁹
One key to Bullitt's career is that he belonged to the generation of disillusioned Wilsonian idealists;¹⁰ and his disillusionment had come at the hands of the master himself, when Wilson declined to consider the draft treaty that Bullitt had negotiated with Lenin in 1919. A member of the Philadelphia aristocracy, a Yale graduate, Bullitt had at the age of twenty-eight the intoxicating experience of being admitted to the innermost circles of government, just when a new world was being fashioned. Not to see the start of that new era, to have it instead indefinitely postponed by diplomatic intrigues and partisan maneuvering, chastened all its advocates. Franklin Roosevelt, for example, then Wilson's assistant secretary of the navy, resolved never to repeat Wilsonian errors, and developed a more flexible rhetoric in foreign affairs as well as a more astute sense of tactical politics. He shrank from that precision of thought which his mentor had so ardently promoted.¹¹ Walter Lippmann, then a friend of Bullitt, turned toward a cooler, harder appraisal of politics generally.¹² Bullitt, by contrast, withdrew from public life and joined, in effect, the intellectual exile of the 1920s. He married the widow of John Reed, the apostle of American Communism; he wrote a novel; he roamed the world.¹³
There was in all this an ummistakable element of self-dramatization, ambitious, idealistic, touched with frustration. To his friend Upton Sinclair he wrote feelingly in 1920 of his hopes for his generation. It might accomplish nothing less than the integration of the whole planet in some sort of an international system that will really mean a unified humanity. ¹⁴ For his part Bullitt had already announced his determination to employ the next few years in learning a great deal more about this country and the Far East than I do at present. ¹⁵
How natural it was then that in 1932 Bullitt should attach himself to the rising star of Roosevelt; and, once the president had overturned his predecessor's policy of nonrecognition of the Soviet Union, what more natural place was there for Bullitt's talents than the new American embassy in Moscow? In fact those were unhappy years for Bullitt. Recognition did not bring the two countries closer together: it only enabled Bullitt and his staff to gain firsthand impressions of the new Communist regime. Bullitt's were the most critical. He was affronted by all aspects of Soviet life, of which the personal harassments were only the least annoying. The physical discomforts, he wrote early on, would make life hellish if all the men were not such good pioneers. ¹⁶ More serious were the prolonged wrangles over matters that were supposed to have been settled, like the question of war debts. Discussions of such issues were never easy with the Russian Foreign Office because, Bullitt wrote, in that institution the lie is normal and the truth abnormal and one's intelligence is insulted by the happy assumption that one believes the lie. ¹⁷
One flagrant breach of faith occurred in 1935 when the Third International, meeting in Moscow, resolved to continue to spread the Communist gospel, although the Russian-American agreement of 1933 had specifically required that Moscow refrain from propaganda in the United States.¹⁸ Bullitt was growing restless, and the next year, when the Stalinist purges resumed in all their savage enormity, he left for the Paris embassy as an implacable enemy of Communism. It must be recognized, he wrote to Cordell Hull, that Communists are agents of a foreign power whose aim is not only to destroy the institutions and liberties of our country, but also to kill millions of Americans. ¹⁹ For Bullitt, personal vexations, philosophical differences, and a lack of trust had been interwoven, as they so often were in him, to produce the most profound hostility.
In Paris Bullitt was back at the center of things. Moving from a dull proletarian state to a lively cultural center made him very happy. He quickly succeeded in gaining the confidence and affection of numerous members of the French political elite, left and right, from Leon Blum to Paul Reynaud. He enjoyed the sophistication, the cabinet intrigues, the honorary degree from the University of Nancy. Perhaps he relished the metropolitan life rather too much, for his dispatches to Washington tended to dwell on political gossip at the expense of political analysis. But on the major diplomatic issues of the day he did hold pronounced views, and while these owed a great deal to his own, rather personal understanding of the dangers of Communism, they also harmonized well with the wishes of the French cabinet.
In 1937 the dream was of Franco-German rapprochement, the soothing, by direct negotiation between Paris and Berlin, of all outstanding differences. Here an American ambassador had an important, lubricating task to perform, and thus Bullitt greatly welcomed the appointment as American ambassador in Berlin of the career diplomat Hugh Wilson to replace the intellectual anti-Nazi William Dodd ("I have felt like singing a Te Deum Laudamus" he wrote to President Roosevelt).²⁰ In 1938, once that dream had faded, the new objective was the avoidance of European war, by acceding to revisions in the Treaty of Versailles. Again, American influence might prove helpful, and long before the Munich settlement in September Bullitt was active in prompting his government to bless the peaceful dismembership of Czechoslovakia. I think, he wrote to Roosevelt in May, we should attempt to find some way which will let the French out of their moral commitment. ²¹ And when finally, in 1939, war did come, Bullitt was no less resourceful in backing French pleas for American aid, endorsing the various proposals of Jean Monnet to purchase American airplanes.²²
Thus following the French government through all its reverses, from appeasement to war, Bullitt might have seemed a mere spokesman for it, a rare point of stability amidst all the cabinet shuffles and conflicting signals. Yet there was for him, if not the Quai d'Orsay, an ulterior consistency of purpose, coming from his sorry experiences in Russia. Henceforth the stemming of Russian influence—what a later generation would term containment — would be a primary goal for Bullitt. And both the appeasement of Germany before the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and the declaration of war following it, satisfied, however indirectly and inadequately, that need.
In short Bullitt was never just a propagandist for a doomed French regime. Moreover, much of his strength as ambassador came precisely from his flaunted intimacy with President Roosevelt. He would enjoy phoning the president in order to abuse the British and French foreign offices, after announcing that they were bound to be listening on the line; and Roosevelt equally would enjoy telling the story to his poker-playing friends.²³ In Paris, as before in Moscow, Bullitt was Roosevelt's most trusted servant in foreign affairs, albeit at a time when the president's main interest lay elsewhere. The two men shared a distrust of the State Department bureaucracy, and from the time of his arrival in Paris Bullitt acted unofficially as Roosevelt's personal emissary, an ambassador at large, keeping in close touch with other diplomatic missions and advising Roosevelt on foreign-service matters generally. On more than one occasion, a list of proposed State Department appointments was forwarded to Bullitt from the White House for his comments.²⁴ But the best illustration of the convergence of his American stature and French loyalties can be seen in his reaction to an early, but significant event in the Second World War: the mission of Sumner Welles to Europe.
War had been declared on 3 September 1939. There followed eight months of what was called phony war, but was in fact a period of intense fighting in Poland, Finland, Norway, and Denmark, and, for Britain and France, a time to define war aims and formulate strategy. Bullitt, playing his customary dual role, spent his time requesting American aid for France while warning the French that such aid would not be very great.²⁵ Then, in February 1940, came the announcement that Roosevelt was sending Welles on a mission for talks in London, Paris, Rome, and Berlin. Whatever the supposed purpose of such a visit—to gather information, or simply to reassure American isolationists that the president was indeed aiming at peace, not intervention—in practice this turned out to be a last-ditch attempt at appeasement.
So it appeared to the British, who resented Welles's assumption that peace could be secured via disarmament.²⁶ So it appeared to the French, many (though not all) of whom equally resented his assumption that peace could be secured via Italian mediation.²⁷ And so it appeared to Bullitt, who now had personal and professional reasons to hate Welles, a man whose intimacy with the president rivaled his own, while his intrusion into European politics challenged Bullitt's supremacy there too. Of course the mission itself was a failure, doomed by the sealing, even as Welles was in Europe, of the Rome-Berlin axis at the Brenner Pass on 17 March.²⁸ But the event is not without significance, revealing as it did the prolonged life of American appeasement.²⁹ It also highlights Bullitt's own position. He profited from Welles's failure. He felt strong enough with Roosevelt even to administer a mild rebuke, reporting back to him how Welles's praise of Mussolini had (according to Bullitt) dismayed prominent French politicians like Reynaud, Blum, Edouard Daladier, and Camille Chautemps.³⁰ Elsewhere he expressed himself more violently, and referred to Welles as a fascist. ³¹
So it was that when the phony war ended, and a more authentic one began, Bullitt recovered his old prominence. As the German blitzkrieg opened on 10 May with an invasion of the Low Countries, he conducted his own telegraphic blitzkrieg, bombarding Roosevelt with messages, often several in one day, crammed with intelligence, advice, and pleas for further assistance to the French.³² At the same time he maintained the closest possible contacts with the French leaders. On 14 May he interrupted a meeting of the French War Cabinet to provide the prime minister, Reynaud, with news of the latest Italian moves.³³ On 15 May he learned of the collapse of the Belgian Army directly from the minister of war, Daladier, the only other civilian who knew.³⁴ On 31 May he actually attended the same meeting of the Supreme War Council for which the new British prime minister, Winston Churchill, and his deputy, Clement Attlee, had flown over from England.³⁵
What is more revealing, Bullitt also came to share many of the French leaders' most distinctive attitudes during the months of crisis. Like them, he was greatly impressed by the German military machine, so much so that when he later passed through Madrid on his way back to the United States his feelings bordered on defeatism, according to the British ambassador, Sir Samuel Hoare.³⁶ Like them, though for a shorter period of time, he half expected Britain to arrive at a compromise peace with Germany; and on 16 May he sent a telegram to Roosevelt advising him, in such an event, to secure the removal of the British fleet to Canada.³⁷ Finally, like the French leaders, he subscribed to the rumors then current about the imminence of a Nazi-inspired Communist revolt in Paris. From this, in part, came his decision to remain in the capital, after the French government had fled, so as to provide the inhabitants with such protection as he could.³⁸
This was Bullitt's finest hour. It had moreover been well prepared. As long ago as October 1939, he had written to his friend, the secretary of the interior, Harold Ickes, I simply will not pull down the American flag here. ³⁹ As a symbolic gesture, Bullitt's action achieved two things. It gratified his own anti-Communist ardor, while also elevating him into the ranks of earlier American ambassadors in Paris, Elihu Washbume and Myron Herrick, who had also risked their lives to comfort the inhabitants. So, in order to supervise the peaceful occupation of Paris, Bullitt willingly neglected his more obvious diplomatic responsibility, to accompany the fugitive French government to Tours, to Bordeaux, and thence to Vichy.
His decision, naturally, was rather unpopular in the State Department; but, equally naturally, Bullitt escaped reprimand by invoking his intimacy with the president. Bullitt had announced to Roosevelt that in the event of a German occupation he would remain in Paris; and he had further gained an assurance that, if this happened, he would be appointed a cabinet member, secretary of the navy no less, to ensure his safety.⁴⁰ In fact nothing came of that, but nor did anything come of Cordell Hull's attempts to have Bullitt stay with the French government. Roosevelt later confessed that if he had ordered Bullitt to leave Paris he knew he would not have been obeyed.⁴¹ Even Hull, while deploring his ambassador's indiscipline, admitted that not much would have been accomplished with the French. Had Bullitt been in Tours, Hull bluntly remarked to Adolf Berle, an assistant secretary of state, he would have been spinning around like a goose that had been hit on the head with a com cob. ⁴²
Bullitt was in Paris for the last three weeks of June, and by the time he caught up with the French government at Vichy it had greatly changed complexion. Gone were the strong men, the resisters. General Charles de Gaulle, lately under secretary of war, was in London. The most determined parliamentarians, Daladier, Georges Mandel, Cesar Campinchi, Yvon Delbos, had sailed for North Africa in a last forlorn attempt to prolong the fight, doomed to futility as soon as the forthcoming armistice was signed. In their place was a cabinet whose first act had been to ask the Germans for information about armistice terms, and a National Assembly soon to vote itself out of existence. Thus the first impression Bullitt had on his arrival was that the French leaders wanted to cut loose from all that France has represented during the last two generations. The new premier, Marshal Philippe Petain, explained to him that all the parliamentarians responsible both for the war and for French unpreparedness should be eliminated from the French government ; he intended to dismiss every politician who had been connected with the Blum government ; indeed, the system in France must be changed. In the same spirit Admiral Francois Darlan, minister of marine, blamed the defeat less on the armed forces than on the entire system of parliamentary government in France which had been rotten ; once again, a complete change in French ways of life was needed. Moreover, such a change might yield immediate, tangible benefits. If a dictatorship . . should be introduced in France before the peace, Bullitt was told, France would obtain much better terms than . . . under a . . . parliamentary system. ⁴³
But what kind of dictatorship? To Camille Chautemps, who had contrived the request for armistice terms, the model would probably be the German constitution when Hindenburg had been president and Hitler chancellor. Petain would be Hindenburg and Laval would be Hitler. ⁴⁴ No greater gesture of contempt for the Third Republic can be imagined than the rising, out of its ashes, of Pierre Laval, the political fixer, opportunist, appeaser, the symbol of all its worst features. Rejected at the Popular Front elections of 1936, he was now back for revenge. This Chamber threw me up, he declared to the new foreign minister, Paul Baudouin, now I shall throw it up. ⁴⁵ The repudiation of that French political regime whose members Bullitt had known so well for four years was neatly exposed by the reemergence of the most dangerous parliamentary exile of those same years.
The rejection of the past, then, was total and unanimous; but what of the future? Two questions in particular arose in Bullitt's mind: how would France behave toward her former ally, Britain, and her current master, Germany? It was to be expected that Anglophobia, already visible as Britain withdrew from the fighting in France, would be sharpened by the British attack on the French fleet on 3 July, with the ensuing loss of over a thousand French lives, that hateful aggression, as Petain called it in a letter to Roosevelt.⁴⁶ Darlan for his part only smiled when Bullitt inquired whether he relished the prospect of a British defeat.⁴⁷ By contrast, as Britain declined, Germany rose in French eyes; the Germans could even exploit the prevalent hatred of Britain by relaxing some of the armistice provisions. Petain thought that the Germans would do everything to obtain the goodwill of the people of France, while Darlan believed that they desired to make France a willing vessel of Germany ⁴⁸
Such were the common, general assumptions. But with regard to the future shape of French policy there appeared little accord in the new government. Bullitt did, however, regard Petain as holding a commanding position. On those two crucial, related questions—hostility against England and collaboration with Germany—Petain could seem to be taking a resolute stand against the opportunists in his cabinet. For there were those, Baudouin in the first instance, Laval in the second, who were, it seemed, prepared to sacrifice longrange French interests for the sake of immediate gain. But, according to Bullitt, Petain at least recognized that only the defeat of Hitler could restore independence to France ; he was, therefore, secretly desirous of a British victory. ⁴⁹ Moreover, he appeared to exercise real authority. In the immediate aftermath of the attack on the French fleet the question had been raised in the cabinet of going to war against England. Yet Petain, almost alone, had, it seemed, been resolutely opposed to anything more than a break in diplomatic relations. ⁵⁰ Nor did he weaken. Bullitt's last impression was that little stands between French acts of war against the British except the good sense of Marshal Petain. ⁵¹ It was therefore a testimony to that good sense that, with the exception of some minor reprisals against Gibraltar, no such acts of war occurred.
If there was a consensus at Vichy, it was a very uneasy one. All the new French leaders assured Bullitt that the fleet would never be surrendered, to Britain or Germany, that Vichy's foreign policy would be one of inflexible neutrality. But, even in the short while that he was at Vichy, Bullitt could discern the growing divisions. Having withdrawn from the war, Vichy politicians could justify their continued power only by their success in two undertakings: alleviating the plight of their subjects and appeasing the conqueror. Their power would thus depend not on the bare fact of neutrality, but on what that neutrality would provide. And each leader spoke with a different priority. Petain seemed bent on a moral renaissance in France. Darlan was preoccupied with the integrity of his fleet, and Laval wanted to secure a cozy niche for France in Hitler's new Europe.⁵² The future of Vichy, and thus the American policy toward it, would be determined by the blending of these different tendencies, the outcome of the power struggle. Bullitt saw Petain, who nicely combined a fatherly devotion to the forty million souls entrusted to his care with an acute grasp of strategic realities, to be the likeliest winner.
Such were the impressions Bullitt carried home from Vichy. He left on 10 July, the day the Third Republic expired; and practically his first words on American soil were in defense of Petain and Vichy France. I don't know if it is right to call it a fascist state, he told reporters; Petain had a tremendous reputation, was thoroughly honest and straightforward, universally re spected, doing his best to bring order out of a desperate situation. In short, Petain was absolutely the boss. ⁵³ Nor was this statement mere diplomatic tact. Bullitt's respect for Petain was perfectly genuine, as his colleagues in Washington soon discovered. The new secretary of war, Henry Stimson, was treated to an enthusiastic review of Petain's accomplishments, while Harold Ickes began to wonder if Bullitt had succumbed to a European disease, that of calling upon Nazism and Hitler to ward off the dangers of Communism. ⁵⁴ Increasingly in his public speeches Bullitt would concentrate on the lessons taught by the failures of the French war effort, not the actual punishment visited upon the delinquents. In his Report to the American People, a major policy address delivered at Independence Hall in Philadelphia on 18 August, a speech frankly designed to aid Roosevelt's presidential campaign, there were no references to the Vichy regime, only to the mistakes of its predecessor. There were horrifying descriptions of Nazi strategy, the devious propaganda, the Fifth Column, the military machine, against all of which Americans were duly instructed to commence preparations. But the outcome of defeat, the government of Marshal Petain, was not included in Bullitt's catalog of the horrors of war.⁵⁵
Bullitt's central beliefs—that the sovereignty of Vichy was real, that Petain was in control and sympathetic to the Allied cause (if not to the former ally), that such collaboration with Germany as ensued would have to be forced upon him—these were to be the underlying assumptions of a new American policy. Yet if Bullitt inspired that policy he played little part in its formulation; he even came to abandon its original premise. His return from France marks the beginning of his involuntary retirement from governmental service, though not public affairs. He was denied his coveted secretaryship of the navy, which went to Frank Knox, the Republican publisher of the Chicago News; he was offended at the manner in which William D. Leahy was appointed to succeed him at Vichy;⁵⁶ and he was refused, again and again, a commission in the army.⁵⁷ For as Roosevelt was required to interest himself more in foreign policy, with at least the possibility of a war in sight, he turned increasingly to new (though often old) men; loyal, unobtrusive subordinates, like Colonel Knox, Admiral Leahy, and, at the War Department, Colonel Stimson, men who, conscious of the imperatives of military discipline, would not hamper presidential activities. By contrast, Bullitt, in 1940, must have seemed excitable, independent, unruly; and, thus excluded, he began to lead a strange, twilight existence.
At first it appeared that there was work for him in the Roosevelt administration as ambassador-at-large, or personal aide to the president, making factfinding tours of the Near East, and reporting on the American army's training camp for future military governors in Charlottesville, Virginia.⁵⁸ But these were marginal activities, and Bullitt's reports, like his later, more substantial offerings, however cogent, received little attention. I am doing nothing in this war, he wrote pathetically to Roosevelt in June 1942. If there is anything I can do with you or for you, I want to do it. ⁵⁹ Roosevelt's attitude towards him, however, was shifting from indifference to hostility. Bullitt's intrigues in Washington, culminating in the whispering campaign against Roosevelt's friend, Sumner Welles, effectively closed the White House doors to him as well as to Welles.⁶⁰
There now seemed little for him to do. He tended his Pennsylvania farm; he delivered ceremonial speeches on behalf of French resistance and Franco-American friendship;⁶¹ and he tried to defend himself against criticisms of his diplomatic record: he had not, he correctly insisted, encouraged the French to go to war or guaranteed American aid.⁶² Then, in 1943, he made a most unwise, and unsuccessful, intrusion into Philadelphia politics.⁶³ The following year, realizing that he would not be allowed any influence on the settlement at the end of the war, he enlisted, in a superbly ironic masterstroke, in the French army of General de Gaulle, the leading opponent of that American policy toward France of which Bullitt had been, not the author, but the prophet;⁶⁴ and from Algiers, as special correspondent for the Henry Luce papers, he wrote for Life an article, The Future of France, which asked Americans to adopt a kindlier, less suspicious attitude to the new France of de Gaulle.⁶⁵
Bullitt's skills lay in foresight, not action; they were, that is, intellectual rather than practical ones. He never had any direct effect on American foreign policy, however close he liked to feel to the center of power. At times, indeed, he seems more a European than an American figure, far more comfortable in the intrigues and ideologies of Europe than in the democratic politics and governmental machinery of the United States. Yet his career is instructive for precisely that reason; the Roosevelt administration worked under different pressures, with different priorities, yet arrived at the same destination. While Bullitt was impulsive in his loyalties and his feuds, the government moved, for the first fifteen months of the European war, with deliberate caution.
It can still be debated at which point Roosevelt decided that the United States would not escape war with Hitler; but it was certainly not in 1940, when every step was accompanied by doubts and hesitations. Not until March 1940, for example, was the Anglo-French contract for American-built planes finally signed (and deliveries would not begin until September). There the Allies were themselves partially to blame for the delay.⁶⁶ But nearly four months elapsed between Churchill's request for some American overage destroyers and the completion of the Destroyers-Bases deal in September 1940, that disingenuous piece of constitutional evasion: four months, critical to Britain's survival, during which every potential source of opposition, like the United States Congress, was effectively neutralized.⁶⁷ Then too it is symptomatic that a plainly unneutral measure, which brought the United States closer to war, was proposed to the American public as one to keep war at bay. This is not inconsistent in any way with our status of peace, Roosevelt assured Congress.⁶⁸ Even when Roosevelt's rhetoric was vigorously pro-Ally, as in the Charlottesville address of 10 June, it did not imply any change of policy. In that speech Roosevelt castigated Mussolini, who had just declared war on France, in language of a vehemence itself appropriate to a declaration of war, employing a term, stab in the back, first used in that context in a telegram from Bullitt.⁶⁹ Yet, four days later, he declined to give Mussolini's victim, Reynaud, any substantive aid.⁷⁰
Thus 1940 did not see any novel departures in American foreign policy. The most, it seemed, to be expected from the American administration was a renewed commitment to the status quo. On the day, therefore, when the French asked the Germans for details of prospective armistice terms, Cordell Hull summoned a conference of Latin American representatives to reaffirm the Monroe Doctrine;⁷¹ and in August negotiations were opened with the new French high commissioner for the Western Hemisphere, Admiral Georges Robert, with the same objective: to insulate the entire continent against the shocks emanating from a European conflict now threatening European colonies.⁷² This American stance may be termed, not unfairly, attentisme: waiting to see if Britain would last the summer, waiting to test American opinion in the November elections (and thus consolidate domestic support), waiting for the outlines of the new France to appear. The fruits of Britain's survival, and of Roosevelt's victory at the polls, came in March 1941, with the passage of the Lend-Lease Act. But in the meantime Washington had already embarked on the first stage of its Vichy policy.
The prelude to any analysis of Washington's policy must be the recognition that, in American eyes, a period of French history had, with the Armistice, drawn to a close. The claims that the Third Republic had made on American loyalties, however tardily acknowledged, were now finally extinct. That had been, of course, Bullitt's impression at Vichy. The speedy replacement of democratic politicians by soldiers, sailors, and former political outcasts presaged a more profound shift. It was tempting, therefore, to reach beyond German armed might for an explanation of the defeat, and to locate it, as Bullitt did in his Philadelphia speech, in various manifestations of democratic inertia: susceptibility to foreign propaganda, the Fifth Column, Communist pacifism.⁷³ However, to accept those explanations was also to go far toward accepting the legitimacy of the Vichy regime, which would in due course, taking that logic to extremes, actually bring to trial leading politicians of the Third Republic. Bullitt had been one of the earliest to allow a measure of French responsibility for the French defeat, and to adopt the paradoxical view that French politicians having failed in war, French soldiers might succeed at peace; but he was not alone, as the case of Anthony Drexel Biddle demonstrates.
The former ambassador in Warsaw, Biddle had moved in to stay with Bullitt in Paris when Poland was overrun in September 1939; and the following June he was the senior American official with the fleeing French government, while Bullitt stayed in Paris. For a second time Biddle witnessed governmental morale dissolve in the face of a Nazi attack; and on 1 July he sent his impressions of the defeat to Roosevelt in a memorandum that stressed moral factors. To Biddle the event was an illustration of a nation gone soft ; between the wars there had been revealed a bankruptcy of leadership in France. ⁷⁴ Robert Murphy, counselor of the French embassy, likewise viewed prewar French political life with a certain skepticism, and titled the relevant chapter of his memoirs, Frenchmen Expect the Worst and Get It. ⁷⁵
Thus informed on the causes of the French defeat, the American administration tried to analyze the new regime. But in the early stages all that was known with complete certainty were the terms of the armistice of 22 June; and this was, precisely, an armistice, not a peace treaty, nicely balancing current German needs and prospective French anxieties.⁷⁶ Its terms were, therefore, by no means free from ambiguity, though they may have seemed, at first glance, straightforward enough. They provided for the ending of all hostilities, the demobilization of all troops, the immobilization of all war materiel, and, the most humiliating measure, the occupation by Germany of about three-fifths of the country, including the whole of the northern and western coasts.
But over the remainder of French territory, including the empire, the French government would continue to exercise sovereignty. Indeed article 8, regarding the French fleet, was explicit on this point: the German government solemnly and expressly undertook not to interfere with the neutralized French war fleet, nor would it make demands on the fleet when peace was concluded. The carrot—continued French sovereignty over unoccupied France, the fleet, and the empire—was however accompanied by the stick. Article 3 provided that the Germans would, in occupied France, exercise all the rights of an occupying power, and article 18 that the French government would, in turn, uphold and finance them. But what were those rights ? That question was left tactfully unanswered, though the costs of their exercise were eventually calculated at four hundred million francs a day. French compliance was further encouraged by the retention in Germany of two million French prisoners of war, not to be released until the final peace (article 20), and by the threat (article 24), to terminate the agreement at any time if the French proved recalcitrant. Sterner measures would then be imposed.
The armistice terms, therefore, could not serve as a guide for American diplomatic action. On the contrary, they contained, in embryo, all the problems that were to plague American policymakers in their dealings with the French regime over the next thirteen months, fostering skepticism about the reality of Vichy's sovereignty, concern over the continuing immobilization of the fleet, doubts as to the strict neutrality of the empire. Given that, by 1940, German guarantees were to be treated with some caution, the crucial question for Americans was always how far France would go in the direction of placating, or resisting, her overlord. The French fleet, on either side, could tip the balance in a naval conflict, as could, in a global conflict, the French empire.
But Vichy's behavior, like her spokesmen, bordered on the inscrutable. At home, collaboration with Germany was initially so ardently desired that in September 1940, a potential opponent of it, General Maxime Weygand, was forced out of his post as minister of national defense; yet three months later the chief exponent of collaboration, Laval, was himself removed from office by Petain. Abroad, French sovereignty was maintained in North Africa, bartered in the West Indies, surrendered in Indochina. Nor did Vichy officials display much consistency in their statements. Sometimes a German victory was proclaimed inevitable, sometimes unlikely. A British defeat was first desired, then feared. In the end, only two principles emerged with any clarity from the welter of confused and confusing declarations by the new rulers of France: hostility to the Free French movement of General de Gaulle, and friendship
Ce cred oamenii despre America and the French Nation, 1939-1945
Evaluare: 0 din 5 stele
0 evaluări / 0 recenzii
Ce părere aveți?
Evaluare: din 5 stele
Scrieți o recenzie (opțional)


text:
Archive | Atheism
Tennessee Child Custody Law Favoring Parents Who Can Best Prepare Child for "a Life of Service"
By Eugene Volokh on May 21, 2013 5:55 pm in Atheism, Child Custody and Constitutional Law, Parental Rights, Religious Freedom
I just ran across the Tennessee statute, Tenn Code Ann. § 36-6-404, that provides the factors that courts are to consider in determining physical custody as between two parents. Many states have such lists of factors, but the bold text seems to me to be unique to Tennessee:
(b) … The court shall make residential provisions for each child, consistent with the child's developmental level and the family's social and economic circumstances, which encourage each parent to maintain a loving, stable, and nurturing relationship with the child. The child's residential schedule shall be consistent with this part. If the limitations of § 36-6-406 [which basically deal with abusive, neglectful, criminal, or otherwise unfit parents] are not dispositive of the child's residential schedule, the court shall consider the following factors:
(1) The parent's ability to instruct, inspire, and encourage the child to prepare for a life of service, and to compete successfully in the society that the child faces as an adult;
(2) The relative strength, nature, and stability of the child's relationship with each parent, including whether a parent has taken greater responsibility for performing parenting responsibilities relating to the daily needs of the child;
(3) The willingness and ability of each of the parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent, consistent with the best interests of the child;
[Other factors, which are much more common in such statutes than factor 1 is, omitted. -EV]
(16) Any other factors deemed relevant by the court.
Now I know that Tennessee is the Volunteer State, but preferring parents who can inspire and encourage the child "to prepare for a life of service" strikes me as an improper judgment on the government's part, and an interference with the parental rights […]
Another Example of Unconstitutional Religious Discrimination in Virginia Marriage Law
By Ilya Somin on April 4, 2013 12:49 am in Atheism, Fourteenth Amendment, Religion, Religion and the Law
Co-blogger Eugene Volokh recently linked to a Virginia state court decision striking down as unconstitutional a state law that allowed religious societies without official clergy to designate only one member as having the power to perform wedding ceremonies, while religious groups that do have clergy can designate more. The court concluded that the First and Fourteenth Amendments bar this law because "The General Assembly [Virginia's state legislature] cannot favor one type of religion over another without a compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored method."
I think the same reasoning should lead to the invalidation of another form of religious discrimination in the marriage law of our beloved Commonwealth, which I blogged about in this 2009 post:
My fiancee and I are not religious, and we plan to have our wedding performed by Judge Jerry Smith of the Fifth Circuit, the federal judge I clerked for. Unfortunately, however, Judge Smith lives in Texas. This would be fine under state law if he were a minister or other religious leader; but secular wedding officiants must be state residents.
Virginia law allows any minister of a religious denomination to perform a wedding, even if he or she is not a resident. The same applies to religious leaders of faiths that don't have any official ministers. Similarly, state law allows any Virginia resident to perform a wedding if he posts a bond, and permits federal and state judges resident in Virginia to officiate even without posting a bond. However, Virginia does not allow out-of-state judges or any other nonresident secular personages to officiate. Thus, we have a clear case of discrimination on the basis of religion. Nonresident ministers and other religious leaders can perform weddings in Virginia; but nonresident secular leaders cannot. This holds true even if the secular figure and the
3-Year Sentence for Blasphemy in Egypt
By Eugene Volokh on December 12, 2012 9:51 pm in Atheism, Blasphemy, Religious Freedom
Al Arabiya reports:
An Egyptian Copt arrested on suspicion of posting online an anti-Islam film that ignited Muslim protests around the world was sentenced on Wednesday to three years in prison, a court source said
Computer science graduate Alber Saber, 27, was arrested at his Cairo home on Sept. 13 after neighbours accused him of uploading sections of the film "Innocence of Muslims" and making another movie mocking all religions….
Prosecutors accused Saber of running Facebook pages calling for atheism, insulting Islam and Christianity and questioning religious beliefs….
Thanks to Charles Chapman for the pointer. […]
The Boy Scouts' Other Discriminatory Policy
By Ilya Somin on August 13, 2012 4:16 pm in Atheism, Religion
Over the last decade, a lot of attention has focused on the Boy Scouts' policy banning gays and lesbians from participating as Scouts or working for the organization. Most recently, a group of Eagle Scouts have returned their merit badges in protest of the policy. Unfortunately, very few have protested the Boy Scouts' equally unjustified exclusion of atheists and agnostics.
It would be understandable for the Boy Scouts to exclude atheists if the purpose of the organization was to promote a particular religion, such as Catholicism or Judaism. But in fact that is not their purpose at all. They accept members of any and all religions (including ones with beliefs that most Americans would find highly objectionable) so long as they believe in God. Such an "anyone but atheists and agnostics" policy smacks of bigotry.
The most likely reason for the Boy Scouts' policy is the belief that you can't be a moral person without believing in God. As I explain in this article, such beliefs are widespread (shared by about 50% of Americans), but false. One can be an atheist and yet still have strong ethical commitments. And there is no evidence that atheists or agnostics have higher rates of criminal or unethical behavior than religious believers do.
It's also worth noting that the Girl Scouts have allowed open atheists and agnostics to participate since the early 1990s, allowing members to omit the word "God" from the Girl Scout oath. There is no evidence that this has caused any problems for the organization. The Boy Scouts should follow their example.
Prejudice against atheists is more widespread than hostility towards any other religious or ethnic group, and more common even than homophobia. But the Boy Scouts – and others who aspire to moral leadership – […]
By Ilya Somin on March 11, 2012 11:38 pm in Atheism, Religion
At the Reason website, Kennedy (who apparently has only one name), argues at length that atheism should be considered a religion:
[W]hether you make sense of the world as an atheist and don't require the God postulate to complete your understanding, or you are a theist and your feelings and experiences tell you something greater is there, biologically speaking, that big blob of gray Jell-O in our skulls is like a giant arrow pointing us in the same direction. I believe that is delicious. And religious….
I contend that if your system is about God—or about the non-existence of God—God is still at the center of the argument's "aboutness." In the spirit of that "off is a TV channel" comment above: God is the TV. Religions are the channels. If it is off, maybe he's dead or disengaged, but at least you admit there's a TV….
When atheists rail against theists (as many did on my Facebook page), they are using the same fervor the religious use when making their claims against a secular society. By calling atheism a religion, I am not trying to craft terms or apply them out of convenience. I just see theists and atheists behaving in the same manner, approaching from opposite ends of the runway.
These kinds of claims are often made, but they fall apart under close inspection. Obviously, if you define the term "religion" broadly enough, atheism can qualify. But such a redefinition obfuscates important differences between atheism and religion, and is also contrary to ordinary English usage.
Kennedy argues that atheism is like religion because both atheists and theists 1) try to understand the nature of the world, 2) have beliefs about God, and 3) are often emotional about their beliefs and intolerant of opposing views. All of these points are […]
Continue Reading 147
Atheism, Religion, and Presidential Voting
By Ilya Somin on October 31, 2011 9:51 pm in Atheism, Elections, Public Opinion, Religion
The New York Times Room for Debate Forum has an interesting symposium on the role of religion in presidential elections. In his contribution, polling expert Andrew Kohut cites a 2007 Pew survey showing that atheism is viewed more negatively by voters than virtually any other possible trait of a presidential candidate. A whopping 63% of respondents said they would be "less likely" to vote for a presidential candidate who "doesn't believe in God" (3% said they would be more likely). This easily exceeds the percentages who say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who never held elected office (56), a Muslim (46), a homosexual (46), a person who had "used drugs in the past" (45), or a Mormon (30). Opposition to female, black and Hispanic candidates is several times lower (ranging from 4 to 14 percent, though some racists and sexists probably hid their true attitudes from the pollster). A more recent 2011 version of the same survey gets very similar results when it comes to atheists (61%), though there is less hostility towards gays (33%).
By contrast, 39% in the 2007 survey said they would be more likely to vote for a Christian candidate, compared to only 4% who said they would be less likely. However, many voters apparently don't want a candidate who seems too closely associated with religion. The same poll found that 25% would be less likely to vote for a candidate who has been a minister, while only 15% said they would be more likely to support him. The questions about Christians and ministers were not repeated in the 2011 study.
The data cited by Kohut reinforce other evidence showing that atheists are by far the most widely hated religious or ethnic minority in modern America. The evidence suggests that […]
The Next Round of Leah Libresco's Turing Test for Religion
By Ilya Somin on July 16, 2011 1:48 am in Atheism, Religion
Leah Libresco has now posted many of the questions and answers for the next round of her Turing Test for religion. They are available at her blog. In the previous round, her fifteen test participants (some real atheists, and some Christians) answered four questions about atheism, trying to persuade readers that they are genuine atheists. In this round, the same people answer four questions about Christianity, seeking to persuade readers that they are genuine Christians. The eight questions are available here.
Readers will be able to vote on which respondents are the real Christians and which the fakers. […]
Leah Libresco's Turing Test for Religion
By Ilya Somin on July 9, 2011 12:39 am in Atheism, Religion
Atheist blogger Leah Libresco has now begun to implement her Turing Test for religion, which I previously wrote about here. At her blog, she has recruited fifteen test participants who will first answer four questions about atheism, trying to persuade readers that they are real atheists. They will then answer four questions about Christianity, seeking to persuade readers that they are genuine Christians. The eight questions are available here. Some of the participants are actual atheists and the rest are Christians.
Readers will have the opportunity to see each test participant's answers and then vote on which "atheists" they think are real and which ones fake. Later, they will also vote which answers to the questions about Christianity are given by real Christians and which ones are atheists pretending to be Christian. Leah plans to offer a prize to the atheist who persuades the most readers that he or she is a genuine Christian, as well as to the Christian who most successfully mimics an atheist.
The fifteen sets of answers to questions about atheism are now up at Leah's blog, and you can vote on which ones you think are written by genuine atheists here. […]
A Turing Test For Religion
By Ilya Somin on June 24, 2011 10:45 am in Atheism, Political Ignorance, Religion
Inspired by Bryan Caplan's ideological Turing Test, atheist blogger Leah Libresco proposes a religious Turing test to measure the extent to which Christians and atheists understand the arguments of the other side [HT: Bryan Caplan]:
Just like Caplan, I'd like to put my money where my mouth is and play in an ideological Turing Test against a Christian blogger. We could both answer a selection of questions posed by Christians and atheists or we could each write an argument for and against the side we support and then briefly rebut the two arguments the other one had produced. I'm flexible and open to suggestions.
Debates over religion have many parallels to political debates. Public ignorance about religion is almost as widespread as political ignorance. And most people react in a highly biased way to evidence and arguments that go against their position on either subject.
A religious Turing test, however, poses challenges that a political one does not. Liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism are rough equivalents of each other in as much as all of them are ideologies that try to delineate the appropriate role of political power in society. Atheism on the other hand isn't really an equivalent of Christianity in the same sense. Atheism is just denial of the existence of God; it is not a comprehensive moral system. That's why thinkers as divergent as Ayn Rand and Karl Marx could both be atheists. By contrast, Christianity goes far beyond merely asserting that God exists. It also incorporates many other theological doctrines (e.g. – that Jesus Christ is the son of God), and various ethical commands. The same goes for Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and many other religions. Thus, simulating a Christian who is well-informed about the arguments for his religious views is a tougher challenge […]
Judge Grilling Parent in Child Custody Case About the Parent's Secular Humanism
By Eugene Volokh on March 9, 2011 6:33 pm in Atheism, Child Custody and Constitutional Law, Parental Rights, Religion and the Law
From yesterday's Atchley v. Atchley:
The trial court addressed the following inquiry to the husband.
Q. Now, you said you attend a Morning Star Church?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you donate money to the church?
A. I don't donate money to the church.
Q. Do you—does [husband's girlfriend]?
A. No, she has not yet.
Q. Okay. Do either of you serve in any ministry that the Morning Star Church is involved in, whether some sort of charity work or teaching kids or anything like that?
A. No, not at this time.
Q. Do you have prayer in your home?
A. We pray at the dinner table.
Q. Bible study?
A. Not in the home, no.
Q. You've described yourself as a secular humanist, right?
Q. Okay. How does—how does a secular humanist determine what's right and wrong?
A. I mean, it's a—it's a—that's a very deep question. I mean, I think people innately have an idea about what's right, what's wrong and you have to—you have to look at it from the perspective of not just, you know, what's good for me, but what's good for those around me, am I doing a greater good. I mean, I can have morals and make correct decisions without having a religion per se.
Q. What's the authority though that you submit to?
A. Just my basic philosophy in life which is that I think humans can help each other solve their own problems. I don't think we need to look elsewhere. I think if we work hard at it, then we can make a better society and we can all get along and we can solve problems and we can improve how it is we live, what the human condition is.
Q. But ultimately what you're telling me is
New York Times on the Secular Right Blog
By Ilya Somin on February 20, 2011 11:52 pm in Atheism, Blogosphere, Conservatism, Religion
The New York Times recently ran an interesting article on the Secular Right blog, which I commented on here back when it was first established:
As a child, Razib Khan spent several weeks studying in a Bangladeshi madrasa. Heather Mac Donald once studied literary deconstructionism and clerked for a left-wing judge. In neither case did the education take. They are atheist conservatives — Mr. Khan an apostate to his family's Islamic faith, Ms. Mac Donald to her left-wing education.
They are part of a small faction on the right: conservatives with no use for religion. Since 2008, they have been contributors to the blog Secular Right, where they argue that conservative values like small government, self-reliance and liberty can be defended without recourse to invisible deities or the religions that exalt them….
Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor at National Review, noted that conservatives throughout history have esteemed "mediating institutions" like schools and churches, sources of authority other than the state. "If that's the way you're thinking, concern for the strength of organized religion follows pretty naturally," Mr. Ponnuru said.
I do have a small bone to pick with the article and possibly with Ramesh Ponnuru. There is a difference between being an atheist and having "no use for religion." One can deny the existence of God, while simultaneously recognizing that religious institutions sometimes serve useful purposes. Being an atheist doesn't prevent me from seeing that the Catholic Church runs an excellent system of private schools, for example. It also doesn't prevent anyone from recognizing the value of "mediating institutions," including religious ones.
At the same time, it is also the case that organized religion has often contributed to grave injustices, providing support for slavery, gender inequality, and occasionally (in the case of "Liberation Theology") even communism. Whether a […]
Explaining Group Differences in Knowledge of Religion
By Ilya Somin on September 30, 2010 12:53 am in Atheism, Political Ignorance, Religion
As I noted in a recent post, the Pew Research Center survey of public knowledge of religion found that atheists and agnostics, Jews, and Mormons are the groups with by far the highest knowledge levels in this field. The disparity between these groups and the rest of the population persists even after controlling for education.
What explains the difference between these three groups and the general population? Jamelle Bouie and Matthew Yglesias argue that it is their status as religious minorities. As Bouie puts it:
To me, it's no surprise that the highest scorers — after controlling for everything — were religious minorities: atheists, agnostics, Jews and Mormons. As a matter of simple survival, minorities tend to know more about the dominant group than vice versa. To use a familiar example, blacks — and especially those with middle-class lives — tend to know a lot about whites, by virtue of the fact that they couldn't succeed otherwise; the professional world is dominated by middle-class whites, and to move upward, African Americans must understand their mores and norms. By contrast, whites don't need to know much about African Americans, and so they don't.
Likewise, religious minorities — while not under much threat of persecution — are well-served by a working knowledge of religion, for similar reasons; the United States is culturally Christian, and for religious minorities, getting along means understanding those reference points. That those religious minorities can also answer questions about other religious traditions is a sign of broader religious education that isn't necessary when you're in the majority.
I am skeptical. If Bouie's theory were correct, the disparity between the three highest-scoring groups and the rest would be mainly the result of their strong performance in knowledge of Christianity – the majority religion in the US. Mormons (an […]
Public Ignorance About Religion
By Ilya Somin on September 28, 2010 5:23 pm in Atheism, Political Ignorance, Religion
A Recent Pew Research Center survey of American's knowledge about religion shows widespread ignorance. The study asked 32 mostly relatively basic multiple choice questions about various religions (including a few on religion and public life):
On average, Americans correctly answer 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions on the survey by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life…..
More than four-in-ten Catholics in the United States (45%) do not know that their church teaches that the bread and wine used in Communion do not merely symbolize but actually become the body and blood of Christ. About half of Protestants (53%) cannot correctly identify Martin Luther as the person whose writings and actions inspired the Protestant Reformation, which made their religion a separate branch of Christianity. Roughly four-in-ten Jews (43%) do not recognize that Maimonides, one of the most venerated rabbis in history, was Jewish.
In addition, fewer than half of Americans (47%) know that the Dalai Lama is Buddhist. Fewer than four-in-ten (38%) correctly associate Vishnu and Shiva with Hinduism. And only about a quarter of all Americans (27%) correctly answer that most people in Indonesia – the country with the world's largest Muslim population – are Muslims.
There is also widespread ignorance about constitutional restrictions on the teaching of religion in public schools. Most survey respondents believe that the Supreme Court has banned the teaching of the Bible even as "literature," and most believe that public schools are not allowed to have "comparative religion" classes:
[A]mong the questions most often answered incorrectly is whether public school teachers are permitted to read from the Bible as an example of literature. Fully two-thirds of people surveyed (67%) also say "no" to this question, even though the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the Bible may be taught for
Queensland University Suspends Lawyer for YouTube-Distributed Blasphemy
By Eugene Volokh on September 14, 2010 2:23 pm in "Hate Speech", Atheism, Blasphemy, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Speech at Colleges and Universities, Religion and the Law, Religious Freedom
The Brisbane Times reports that:
A Queensland University of Technology lawyer[,] … Alex Stewart[,] has taken leave from his non-academic position as a QUT [Queensland University of Technology] commercial contracts lawyer after controversy erupted over a YouTube clip in which he smokes self-made cigarettes rolled in pages from the [Koran and the Bible] before rating which "burns better"….
The Daily Telegraph (UK) reports,
[Stewart] on leave following a meeting on Monday and is facing an inquiry.
"The university is obviously extremely, extremely unhappy and disappointed that this sort of incident should occur," vice-chancellor Peter Coaldrake said.
Stewart's point was apparently to argue (among other things) that people shouldn't venerate books to the point of getting upset about others' supposed mistreatment of the books. "Is this profanity? Is it blasphemy? Does it really matter? I guess that's the point with all this, this crip — it's just a [bleeped out] book. Who cares? Who cares?" I quote here a video accompanying the Brisbane Times article, which includes a short excerpt from Stewart's YouTube clip. But I do not know where one can find the full clip; if you can point me to it, or send me a file containing it, I'd be much obliged.
Note that the Brisbane Times video also quotes a police spokesman who is saying that Stewart's actions were likely not a criminal offense. Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.
UPDATE: Just to repeat what the title says, Stewart is a lawyer working for the university, not a professor. […]
Property Rights for Deities?
By Ilya Somin on July 20, 2010 6:14 pm in Atheism, Property Rights, Religion and the Law
Co-blogger Eugene Volokh links to an Indian newspaper article about a ruling concerning the property rights of Hindu gods. According to the article, Hindu deities are allowed to acquire at least some types of property rights under Indian law, though perhaps "only deities of registered public trusts were allowed to acquire property in their names."
It actually makes more sense for deities of polytheistic religions to acquire property than for a monotheistic God to do so. Most adherents of the major monotheistic religions believe in the type of God posited by "classical theism," who is omnipotent and omniscient. An omnipotent God has no need for physical property. Even if he did, he could effortlessly create any property he needed himself, if necessary in unlimited quantity. And of course he would not need human courts to enforce his property rights, being fully capable of doing so himself at no cost in time or effort. Moreover, anyone who wanted to sue him for using his property to commit a tort would be unable to do so because there is no way a court could force an omnipotent being to pay restitution.
By contrast, most of the deities of a polytheistic religion are necessarily not omnipotent. No more than one omnipotent being can exist in the same universe. If God A cannot coerce God B, then A is not omnipotent. If, on the other hand, A can force B to do his bidding, then B isn't omnipotent.
Unlike the God of classical theism, non-omnipotent deities have many potential uses for property rights. They might want some items they can't create for themselves. Even with respect to some objects they could make, they might prefer to pay humans to manufacture them in order to exploit the benefits of comparative advantage. Comparative advantage […]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Welcome to Vintage Show & Tell! Hope you're feeling peaceful and blessed as you prepare to celebrate the most wonderful time of the year!
I've just about got all my Christmas decorations up and am getting ready to work on a couple crafty projects---including a little house scene with a Frozen Charlotte doll in front. I've been having fun with my Pink Christmas things and thought I'd feature some here today.
I started out, a few years ago, just decorating this one hutch with pink things. Now I've got about half the living room decked out in pink!
I love this pretty vintage angel tray I found in a shop north of Seattle a few years ago. I'd love to find some more like it but all the ones I've found so far have been black and gold.
I found this cute little winter girl at a yard sale a few summers ago. I'm also collecting these vintage tree toppers. This blue one looks pretty with my tray.
Do you have a unique Christmas style or do you prefer the traditional red and green? I can't wait to see what you've got to share today at Vintage Show & Tell! Thanks for stopping by!
Sarah!! I LOVE your Pink Christmas display!! I too collect vintage Tree toppers and I have a similar one from my childhood like the one you have in your display!!
Thanks so much for hosting, my friend!!
So beautiful! I love the pink decorating, the angel tray is adorable!
Sarah, I love pink too and have only recently started adding it to some of my decor. LOVE that wonderful tray & your winter girl! Please drop by and link tomorrow at Creating Christmas: A Very Thrifty Christmas--I'm hosting and you can link any thrifted treasure, project or decor related to Christmas! Thank you for the party!
I found a vintage pink tree and have a whole pink theme going on too!


Star Wars Clone Pictures To Print star wars clone pictures to print star wars clone wars coloring pages printable photos of humorous spinosaurus coloring page. star wars clone pictures to print star wars clone wars coloring pages printable photos of humorous princess tutu pictures. star wars clone pictures to print coloriage clone star wars trooper coloring pages lego the a im teddy bear craft kit. star wars clone pictures to print the clone trooper drawing in star wars coloring page download golden eagle mexican flag. star wars clone pictures to print clone coloring pages printable star wars clone coloring pages free princess tutu pictures. star wars clone pictures to print lego star wars clone trooper coloring pages coloriage star wars daniel lion cartoon. star wars clone pictures to print star wars clone troopers coloring page free printable coloring pages iron man 2 coloring pages. star wars clone pictures to print beautiful star wars clone coloring pages 69 with additional line winter tree drawing.
Star Wars Clone Pictures To Print star wars clone pictures to print star wars clone wars coloring pages printable photos of humorous princess tutu pictures. star wars clone pictures to print coloriage clone star wars trooper coloring pages lego the a im teddy bear craft kit. star wars clone pictures to print the clone trooper drawing in star wars coloring page download golden eagle mexican flag. star wars clone pictures to print clone coloring pages printable star wars clone coloring pages free princess tutu pictures. star wars clone pictures to print lego star wars clone trooper coloring pages coloriage star wars daniel lion cartoon. star wars clone pictures to print star wars clone troopers coloring page free printable coloring pages iron man 2 coloring pages. star wars clone pictures to print beautiful star wars clone coloring pages 69 with additional line winter tree drawing.
Find out the most recent images of Star Wars Clone Pictures To Print here, and also you can get the image here simply image posted uploaded by palmiers that saved in our collection.


text:
"use strict";
var platform_browser_dynamic_1 = require("@angular/platform-browser-dynamic");
var index_module_1 = require("./Interface/Index/index.module");
platform_browser_dynamic_1.platformBrowserDynamic().bootstrapModule(index_module_1.IndexModule)
    .then(function (success) { return console.log("Bootstrap success"); })
    .catch(function (error) { return console.log(error); });
//# sourceMappingURL=main.js.map

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


The European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) site is going to be the place where marine energy farm Aquamarine Power is going to become the first Scottish company to test both wave and tidal technologies. Aquamarine Power has reached an agreement with EMEC to place its tidal stream power device known as Neptune at the test site on the Isle of Eday. Neptune is an Edinburgh-based company.
According to an Aquamarine Power insider, contracts for the agreement have been signed with EMEC although Neptune is still in the final design stage. Neptune has been under development since 2004 and it is predicted to arrive at the test location in 2010. The exact place is the Fall of Warness where the company hopes to develop more prototypes.
Neptune has a capacity of 2.4 MW. One of the most powerful tidal stream devises underdevelopment, it is being designed to produce electricity on a commercial scale. It will soon be competing with other energy sources in the UK, according to the company.
Neptune consists of two horizontal axis tidal turbines mounted upon a single monopole to generate energy from incoming and outgoing tides; this electricity will further be supplied to the grid.
When Neptune finally arrives at the EMEC site it will join another tidal power producing device from the company, called Oyster, a hydroelectric wave power converter. Preparations for a full-scale testing of Oyster are already underway at the EMEC Billia Croo site. Oyster's hydroelectric plant will be connected by drilling three pipelines.
The Aquamarine spokeswoman said: "Through the testing of Oyster, we will learn about installation method and seabed connection. We will verify our tank-testing and learn about survivability, reliability and maintainability of the device which will in turn inform the design of future Oyster arrays.
"Oyster has the potential to be more efficient and environmentally friendly than other systems currently under development. A wave farm of just 10 devices powering one onshore hydroelectric plant could provide enough energy to power around 3,000 homes".
The out put is way too small to make it economically feasible. If they can't get it up to 100 MW per unit or more I don't think it will pan out. The maintenance cost alone will kill it because of the harsh environment.
You have the point, Jim. But it needs to be done not for some economical reason. The ecology is a reason. If we will compare everything with money efficiency – we certainly will destroy our planet.
But make it profitable enough so those maintenance men can make a good living. Sea duty of this nature is dangerous. Big energy has many human rights violations, lets not repeat that. Make it bigger and make more money.


text:
Q: Get object associated with selected rows in DataGridView I have a DataGridView bound to an array of objects.
List<Node> nodes = GetNodeList();

m_grid.DataSource = nodes;

I then handle the SelectionChanged event.
In the handler for the SelectionChanged event I want to access the selected objects.
All I seem to be able to do is access the value for each cell in the grid rather than the overall object associated with the row.
void OnSelectionChanged( object sender, EventArgs e )
{
    foreach ( DataViewGridRow row in m_grid.SelectedRows )
    {
        /* Here I want to be able to access the Node object associated with this row*/
    }
}

I'm sure it must be possible but I just can't figure it out. I could get the row index and then look back into the array but that seems a bit hacky.

A: Try this...
DataGridViewSelectedRowCollection rows = MyDataGridView.SelectedRows;
foreach (DataGridViewRow row in rows)
{
   DataRow myRow = (row.DataBoundItem as DataRowView).Row;
   // Do something with your DataRow
}

A: From memory, cell will be  DataGridRowView:
var drv = cell as DataGridRowView;
var row = drv.Row as MyDataRowType;

Anyway, use the debugger to find the Type of cell

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Considerations: Tends to produce suckers, which can be removed if you wish to have a specimen tree. It's dioecious; so make sure you have at least one male plant in the vicinity to produce berries on the females.
Propagation: Naturally clonal, so can transplant from new stems. Seeds of most holly species require 2-3 years of dormancy before they will germinate.
Various bird species eat the fruit and many use the evergreen foliage for cover. Bees and other insects pollinate the flowers.
Native Habitats: Coastal scrub, coastal dunes, coastal flatwoods, river swamps, scrub, secondary woods, pine-oak-hickory woods.
Many cultivars have been developed or found in the wild ranging from weeping forms to little round balls ('Shillings').
To get fruits, both a male and a female are required. Although there are issues with provenance, 'Shillings' is a male and can provide an inconspicuous source of pollen for larger females. The issue (with no scientifically vetted answer) is whether pollen from a natural dwarf could have any affect on wild populations of yaupon holly (the author suspects 'no' as being dwarf is unlikely to provide any selective advantage in the wild.