NationStates Jolt Archive

If you're french, lived in France, truely understand France, please answer my kind question.

A friend named ChocolateMouse told me that in france, the more american-resembling politicians are the "left" side of french politics, while the socialists are the "right". Is that accurate ?

I wouldnt exactly say that. When I lived there (Im Canadian) what I gathered from the politics is that the political system is shifted a few places to the left (ie. the socialists are more socialist and the conservatives are closer to centre). But then there are anti -immegrationist and they just plain suck.
To answer your question, though, I would have to say that maybe that wasnt false, but I really doubt that is the full truth; they use the right/left system far less than the Americans, to them a party is a party based on thier stance on issues, but Ive never heard of the switch.
For more details consult your local THE ECONOMIST, or LA MONDE. Those two resources seem to have a pretty good idea of how France is run.
-Chris

I was in France for over a month this spring, and that did not at all seem to be the case. I asked my (French) mum anyways, and she said that that is not true.

Thanks and appreciation to Kanaquua and Owxana. I wish I knew more about the question. Chocolatemouse said that during a discussion of American politics. I think it was to contrast France with America.

i'm British, but i think its safe to say (and generalise) that most european political opinions are shifted to the left of americans... even except britain (though not by much, comparitively)

but i'm only basing that on NSers, the media in the uk, and conjecture...

I don't know, the American resembling people would be the right wingers. The whole concept of left and right comes from the French parliament after the revolution anyway...

If you're french, lived in France, truely understand France, please answer my kind question.

A friend named ChocolateMouse told me that in france, the more american-resembling politicians are the "left" side of french politics, while the socialists are the "right". Is that accurate ?

Do you really have a friend named ChocolateMouse? That's so adorable! :)

That's delightful to see a thread containing the word "french" and no insult!

No, it's not the case. The french politicians that present most similarities with the mainstream american ones are on the right, though there are still many differences, both ideological and formal (for example, a phrase like "God bless you all" would be unthinkable in the mouth of a french politician, right or left wing). The socialist party is on the left; it's not really "socialist" (in the sense of collectivist), rather what other countries would call social-democrat. And the distinction between right and left is indeed very much in use, though number of issues cause divises within both left and right wings.

Okay. so it looks like the french concepts of left and right are similar to what I know from America.. indeed perhaps the American concept of right and left comes from France?

Yes, her internet name is ChocolateMouse. She has a collection of commonly used lines like "nose kisses" to further her mouse persona.

hmm. People have different meanings for the words conservative and liberal, but that's NOT what I want in this thread. I just know they're not the same as preserve and change.

indeed perhaps the American concept of right and left comes from France?

Actually yes, originally.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Left_Right-politics#Historical_origin_of_the_terms
The terms Left and Right to refer to political affiliation originated early in the French Revolutionary era, and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.

Maybe it's the multiparty system that makes you wonder things like this..? I'm not 100% sure how it is in France, but here the Social Democrats are in the government with the Centrist party, while the major Rightist party is in opposition with the Far left and the greens (and few other parties). Before this, it used to be the right wing with the social democrats and greens in the gov't.

There are many possible coalitions, so that may confuse somebody who is used to two party system. I seem to remember the communists were siding with the right against the socialists/center in the recent french elections (don't quote me on that). Could things like these be behind your question..?

Communists are against the right-side (formed by conservatives like Chirac and economic liberalists (? how do you call them in English ?) like Sarkozy)

But then there are anti -immegrationist and they just plain suck.

And why do they suck?

My question to the french.
A bunch of US cadets attempted to simulate the opening days of world war two.
Basically, they made a microcosm of the invasion of France.

Now, after many many trials, the US cadets couldn't figure out how France lost.

France had better tanks, more infantry (aprox. 200,000 vs 100,000), better airplanes, better everything.

My question is the same as the US cadets. How did you lose?

I've heard that some of the french generals during that era were more nationalists than patriots ("croix de feu"). So they didn't view the nazi invasion as a bad thing, and didn't resist that much. Soldiers were only following the orders to retreat.

Germans invaded by the Ardennes, which is a really difficult place to move with an army. The majority of french tacticians were old-fashioned (see the maginot line example) and never thought that an invasion from there was possible.

French people were surprised by the quickness of the invasion, and the country wasn't in a fighting mood (for france ww1 shoud have been "la der des der", the last war ; because of the ravage the country had seen).

that's three possible reasons. I've also heard that french military equipment was not as modern as the german's (more cavalry than tanks, that kind of things.)

Actually yes, originally.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Left_Right-politics#Historical_origin_of_the_terms
The terms Left and Right to refer to political affiliation originated early in the French Revolutionary era, and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.
My understanding is that the king sat in the middle, and the friends of the king sat to the right (being the traditional place for trusted friends) and the enemies of the king sat to the left.

My question to the french.
A bunch of US cadets attempted to simulate the opening days of world war two.
Basically, they made a microcosm of the invasion of France. My question is the same as the US cadets. How did you lose?

According to the pre-war simulations, the invasion of Iraq should have happened in half the time with 1/10 of soldiers killed. That's the difference between a simulation and reality.

In answer to your question: The German army had the far more modern equipment, superior tactics (Blitzkrieg, or as the US call it nowadays: Shock and Awe ) and the element of surprise.

My question to the french.
A bunch of US cadets attempted to simulate the opening days of world war two.
Basically, they made a microcosm of the invasion of France.

Now, after many many trials, the US cadets couldn't figure out how France lost.

France had better tanks

But didn't use them right. They spread out half of thier tank force in pennypackets to support thier infantry units. The rest they did organize into Armoured divisions, however the halving of the tank force gave the Germans a better concentration of tanks in effective formations. Further, the French donctrines on tank warfare were not quite up to par, they never concentrated thier armor force for one counterstrike, except with a not yet organized division led by De Gualle, which stuttered out without support.

more infantry (aprox. 200,000 vs 100,000)

I'm not sure where you get your infantry figures from. The Germans had about as many infantry divisions as France. If you are counting solely infantry fighting soldiers, then that is a bad way to run a simulation, since you are ignoring the other factors that gave German divisions in advantage. Further, a huge number of the French infantry were without transport, and stuck in thier fortifications along the Maginot Line. Thier only real solid infantry they had were deployed in Belgium and cutoff by Sickle Stroke.

better airplanes

Except for the DW.520, almost every French aircraft was no where near on par with thier German counterparts. The DW.520 was not built in large enough numbers thanks in large part to political lobbying, and the the VG.33 was not in production. The frontline fighter was the MS.409, an aircraft that was outclassed by the German fighters.

better everything.

They were significanly behind in artillery if that means anything, and the Germans had far better organization in terms of communications and coordination. I think the reason these cadets could not understand why France fell is because they apparently did not look at the tactics used by either side. France sent its mobile and best troops into Belgium to halt any German advance, as not to repeat WWI. Unfortunately between the two great bastions that the Germans would have had a difficult time getting through, the Maginot and the French Northern Army Groups was a patchwork of heavily wooded area considered (mostly rightly) unpassable by large motorized formations.

It was lightly defended by two Cavalry Divisions (Coraps Ninth Army), and once the Germans broke through there, there simply wasn't any forces to stand between them and the English Channel. Once the cream of the French forces was cutoff, all that could be gathered to stand between the Germans and Paris was a collection of infantry units, lacking in equipment (the best had been lost in Belgium) to counter the Germans. After Sickle Stroke, it was impossible for France to win, though had the French forces not been lost in Belgium, the Weygand Line probably would've halted the German onslaught.

According to the pre-war simulations, the invasion of Iraq should have happened in half the time with 1/10 of soldiers killed. That's the difference between a simulation and reality.

In answer to your question: The German army had the far more modern equipment, superior tactics (Blitzkrieg, or as the US call it nowadays: Shock and Awe ) and the element of surprise.


Two of the most irrelevant posts I've seen today. I'm the Thread Creator, I had my question answered and this thread has gone rotten. Somebody close it please. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, GET A LIFE !

Two of the most irrelevant posts I've seen today. I'm the Thread Creator, I had my question answered and this thread has gone rotten. Somebody close it please. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, GET A LIFE !
My, my aren't we a bit touchy. No need to get excited. :confused:

In comparision to the US, French politics are shifted to the Left as it is in most of Europe. If you look at the Political Compass site's analysis page http://www.politicalcompass.org/ , it places Jacques Chirac to the left of Tony Blair, who is pretty close ideologically to the American Democrats. President Chirac is in the UMP (Union for a Popular Movement), which is the centre-right party. The Socialist Party are even further to the Left of the UMP, therefore someone in either party probably would not vote for the Republicans because they would too far to the Right for them.
There are many parties in France other than the Socialists and the UMP that have a considerable political influence. In the last presidental election in addition to the UMP (well, it was Rally for the Republic, then two parties merged after the first round of the presdental election) and the Socialists, FN (National Front, far-right), UDF (Union for the French Democracy, centrist party), Lutte Ouvrière (Worker's Struggle/Fight, Trotiskites), Pôle Républicain (Republican Pole, sovereignist social-democratic party, bit to the left of the main stream Socialist Party but more nationalistic) and Les Verts (The Greens, ecologistists), each had more than 5% of the vote. In the National Assembly in addition to the UMP and the Socialists, the UDF, Les Verts, PCF (French Communist Party), PRG (Left Radical Party, Social liberal party), MPF (Movement for France, Right-wing Catholic Party), and RPF (Rally for France, sovereignist Right-Wing Party) have seats. So there are many more parties in France than in the US or in the UK that can get to the point of some political influence so it is not as easy to make comparisions.