As I write that title it suddenly reminds me of the title to a Pat Buchanan book The End of the West. But the inspiration for this post is actually William L. Shirer's The Collapse of the Third Republic. Shirer, an American journalist, is actually much more famous for his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and Berlin Diaries. I always knew of this book, which concerns what happened to France, among the victorious allies in WWI and considered to both be the strongest military force on the European continent and a bastion of freedom, that it would fold so quickly when war came.
The short answer to the question is a very politically divided society, trust in useless and often cowardly leaders, both political and military. I'm not here to capture the essence of the book, but to go to two short bits that stood out for me, one at the beginning, one at the end.
The first, in the Forward, where he summed up his thesis:
"I lived and worked in France for a good many years, beginning in 1925 when the country was not only the greatest power on the continent of Europe but, to me at least, the most civilized and enlightened. In the ensuing years I watched with increasing apprehension the Third Republic go downhill, it’s strength gradually sapped by dissension and division, by an incomprehensible blindness in foreign, domestic, and military policy, by the ineptness of its leaders, the corruption of its press, and by a feeling of growing confusion, helplessness, and cynicism (Je m’en foutisme) in its people. And though at the beginning of the 1930s I left for assignments elsewhere, I returned frequently to Paris throughout the decade and thus was able to keep in touch with the deterioration one could see—or at least feel—all around."
Towards the end, he shows us the character of the leaders of the Republic self-destructing out of self-gratification and fear. It is impossible to miss the sickness and sadness:
" . . . As for the unhappy President of the Republic, who knew he was on the way out, Baudouin recorded in his journal: 'the president of the Republic says not a word. His silence, his passivity, stupefies me.' the brash young foreign minister does not seem to have been stupefied by his own--or the other ministers' --silence and passivity. If not stupified, LeBrun was at least depressed. But, like everyone else, resigned.
Laval
explains the resolution for revision to be submitted tomorrow to the two
chambers [LeBrun records]. Everyone feels at a debate with the
useless. All know from the events of the past few days that the game is over.
We are submerged in a heavy and mythic atmosphere which annihilates you.
'In
this atmosphere of threats and fears and defeatism and baseness and dupery and
confusion, all but a handful of the politicians, who only 10 months before had
enthusiastically and unanimously voted the credits for war, who all their
political life had thought, almost all of them, that the Third Republic was the
best possible form of government for France and its democracy and freedoms a
cherished blessing, were now intent, with whoops of enthusiasm, to destroy it
and substitute a copy of the barbarian totalitarianism of the Nazi German
conqueror, cutting suddenly loose, as Ambassador Bullitt had reported in his
dispatch of July 1, after talking with the leaders, from all that France had
been and meant and stood for so long.'
How
was it possible? Léon Blum later tried to
account for it, but he succeeded only in describing it.
'The
men whom I had seen the day before and with whom I had talked and shaken hands,
were no longer the same men. They seemed plunged in some horrible mixture, in a
corrupting bath of such power that those who touched it for a moment emerged
poisoned. . . . Within a few hours their thoughts, their words, their faces
even, became practically unreasonable. . . . The poison and one now held be held was fear,
quite simply the panic of fear.'
Fear, he said that if they didn’t follow Laval, the Germans or General Weygand, as Laval warned, would take over.
'The
nature of fear permits no reasoning. If the pitiful victims of Laval had been
capable of a reflection, of a critical examination, this whole structure of
artifice would immediately have crumbled into dust. . . .To escape from the
whirlwind there was only needed a moment in sang-froid, an effort for
reflection. But no one reflected. One let himself be carried away, like a crowd
in panic, by the collective currents of dread and cowardice.'
The
ease with which men can be corrupted counted too.
'Laval
did not so much convince them as infect them. . . . He offered them jobs, as
formerly he promised portfolios. Every revolution produces a scramble for
spoils. Laval offered embassies, prefectures. . . .'
What
hurt Blum most was the baseness with which the French politicians endeavored to
ape Hitler and his totalitarian regime, thinking they could thereby curry his
favor.
'To
be vanquished does not mean that you have to become a vassal. To imagine that
by being obliging to Hitler one could appease his scorn or moderate his hate
was a senseless chimera. . . . well I suppose that if there existed a means of
softening or seducing Hitler, it can only be by baseness?'
. . . .
Paul Boulet, A professor of history and a deputy who supported Badie’s motion,
later described the scene to the Parliamentary Investigating Committee.
'Every time someone wanted to speak, his voice was drowned out by 400 voices against 20 or 30! You have to imagine what it was like in this assembly where there were 400 members who did not want anyone to speak.'"
We can
imagine it easily. Every time a conservative speaker is shut down by threats or
actual violence in America, which happens not infrequently, we see it. We are
seeing it even in law schools, where kids being trained to be lawyers - that
is, to debate - think it is okay to shut down conservative speakers. Why
shouldn't they. The school allowed it. No one was suspended or sent home.
How far away are we from
this? Go back to the third paragraph in the second selection above and read it
again. Ten months in France. Our leaders, often Republicans, are capable of
great fecklessness in order to preserve their own skins.
We saw it after
Charlottesville, when a group of protesters, at least some white supremacists
and as vile as they come, but others who thought there was a value in
maintaining their Southern subculture by preserving confederate statuary, all
with a permit to march, being savaged by a left wing mob - no other word for it
(one attacker had a flame-thrower). One right-winger, described as a neo-Nazi,
apparently angered by the attacks, perhaps to help someone in trouble, perhaps
to flee (I can find no information online on what actually happened, which
makes me very cynical), ran his care into the mob and killed a woman.
Instantly, not only did the left scream white-supremacy and murder loud as they
could, but the Republicans did too, or at least most. Amazingly, Trump
initially did not, saying their were fine people on both sides. So hot was the
heat that he had to walk it back. I was shocked to see political bodies insist
that it the violence was one-sided, to her Republicans say the same. The videos
were there for all to see. The media reaction was certainly one-sided.
I do not understand why there has not been a more forceful response to this long litany of abuses. The left wishes violence in the form of racial violence because they believe they can maintain some type of moral high ground. This will not turn out well for anyone but if the other side does not fight back sooner than later things will only get worse.
ReplyDelete