Why was France more determined to hold onto its colonial empire after WWII than Britain was?

Feb 2011
13,552
Perambulating in St James' Park
#71
Ego.

The French would rather you speak to them in a language they don't know than to hear you ruin their language.

It seems a very odd attitude to English speakers given how hard so many English speaking nations of this world have done our best to butcher the language
On a slight thread drift I was once expected to order some food in French when I visited Montreal in Quebec, Canada. IIRC the Quebecois French is a bit different from the national French as it still has the ancien regime dialect to it, or something like that.

With regards to Vietnam, the French were encouraged to hold on due to the fear of the domino effect of Communism in SE Asia. This was a complete u-turn by Uncle Sam who had previously been adamant that empires be reduced on behalf of self determination, and the fact that they could get in on the markets no doubt.
 
Likes: Futurist
Apr 2019
13
On my horse.
#72
This was a complete u-turn by Uncle Sam who had previously been adamant that empires be reduced on behalf of self determination, and the fact that they could get in on the markets no doubt.
The US started supporting the French once the Korean War had happened and China became a major problem in their minds.
The markets part is rubbish.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,387
San Antonio, Tx
#73
That does seem sort of cruel, though. :(
I'm not using the biggest stick metric. I'm using "what everyone called it at the time". The 13 colonies were considered part of the UK (by everyone) and now they are not (by everyone), the British losing the AWI played a key part in that. You still haven't answered my question, by which metric do you define which states officially own which land?

The fact is that in 1930 Algeria was just as much part of France as Wales was part of the UK. The main difference is how long they been invaded for. You can't use the fact that Algeria got its independence in the 1960's, to change its legal status in the decades/centuries before.
oh my God!, try to wake up. No one asked the Arabs or the Berbers - the vast majority of the population - if they waned to be part of “Metropolitan France”.
 
Likes: Futurist

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,387
San Antonio, Tx
#74
Well, that's exactly how many French felt about l'Algérie française. They didn't view it as just another colony, but as an integral part of the country, the same way most Americans view Hawaii today. Northern Algeria, the part which bordered the Med, was divided into and administered as various départements français, just like territory in mainland France. It was a totally different situation than the rest of the French colonial empire. Unlike most French overseas territory, it also had a substantial population of native French.
Except for the inconvenient fact that neither the Arabs nor the Berbers had any voice in how this part of “Metropolitan FRance” was administered. Did they ven have a vote? I don’t think so.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,387
San Antonio, Tx
#75
Algerians could vote starting from 1947, but the voting system was still gerrymandered against them. Combined, Muslim Algerians had as much say in the French parliament as the pieds-noirs had even though their numbers were several times greater.
OK, thanks. Didn’t know that. So the Arabs and Berbers had the same voting rights as the native French? OK...
 
Likes: Futurist
Mar 2018
724
UK
#76
Jesus Christ, I'd forgotten about this thread. I said:

I'm not using the biggest stick metric. I'm using "what everyone called it at the time". The 13 colonies were considered part of the UK (by everyone) and now they are not (by everyone), the British losing the AWI played a key part in that. You still haven't answered my question, by which metric do you define which states officially own which land?

The fact is that in 1930 Algeria was just as much part of France as Wales was part of the UK. The main difference is how long they been invaded for. You can't use the fact that Algeria got its independence in the 1960's, to change its legal status in the decades/centuries before.
to which Royal744 replied
oh my God!, try to wake up. No one asked the Arabs or the Berbers - the vast majority of the population - if they waned to be part of “Metropolitan France”.
Which is a complete non-sequitur, completely ignoring what I said and instead stating that the annexation wasn't democratic.

I'm not saying that the Arabs or Berbers where asked what they wanted. I'm not saying that it was a good thing for them, or for the people back in France, or for anyone else. I'm not saying it was the right thing in any moral or political sense.

I'm just saying that Algeria *was* part of Metropolitan France.

There are two criteria to decide if a part of land is ruled by one country:
1) That country has de facto control on the territory in question.
2) Other sovereign states recognise that that country owns the territory in question.
That is it. France in 1930 amply satisfied both those criteria. That people were unhappy about it or that we think it was immoral doesn't change the facts.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jan 2017
1,210
Durham
#77
It means that French people consider their own language to be more cultured than English.
I think France in general considers itself to be more cultured, and to be fair Germany did for a long time. It's a feature of island nations, such as Britain and the United States (not quite an island, I know, but you know what I mean), to look towards commerce as the answer and in a round-about way to be generally anti-intellectual.

In truth, the English language is a mongrel language, and the English people are a mongrel people, with all sorts of mutations and additions down the ages. But, we're a pragmatic people and in the end that is what stands the test of time.

The great irony is that while the French considered it to be their destiny to export their culture, it wasn't really that important to us. And, yet, here we are.
 
Feb 2019
345
California
#79
This comment is a bit off the cuff, but here goes.

My guess is that it has a lot to do with the fact that France got to sit on the sidelines twiddling its little thumbs after having surrendered a mere few weeks after the Germans invaded. Sitting on the sidelines tends to spare a country a lot of money, a lot of blood, and a lot of harsh experience. It may also make a proud humiliated country feel a need to assert itself in any way it can as soon as it is finally freed (by outside forces) from its own self-imposed humiliation. Season to taste.
 
Jan 2017
1,210
Durham
#80
Let's be honest: French language isn't in any way less a mongrel language.
That could well be true. I don't know a great deal about France, with the exception of WW1.

So the French language has a similar history to the English language? Vocabulary derived and borrowed from Latin, German, Norse, French? Including more than one word for pretty much the same meaning which are in the language due to the days when French and Anglo-Saxon/Norse were spoken alongside one another in England, e.g. luck and chance?

I'd assumed French was a more 'pure' language.