tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33311991.post7245258580613936354..comments2024-01-02T07:48:42.623-05:00Comments on Comics And...Other Imaginary Tales: Mata Hari – A Review of a PreviewJimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00352163584546054887noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33311991.post-62701447330587056812010-09-10T07:49:38.336-04:002010-09-10T07:49:38.336-04:00You know how I like to quibble. The fact that Fra...You know how I like to quibble. The fact that France surrendered in 1940 hasn't changed. Your perception of the motivations behind that surrender is what changed.<br /><br />Motivation is always harder to assess from history, not the least reason being that one person's motivation isn't necessarily the reason something happened. Often there are multiple people with multiple motivations. <br /><br />While the devastation of WWI may have been a factor for some in France, the fact that Germany had already rolled over France made the motivation for surrender more or less moot. It's not like the French had a choice. They had fought and lost. Unlike the British, they couldn't retreat across the Channel to lick their wounds and mount further defense.<br /><br />It's easy to say the French suck at war because their empire rolled up after WWII (and they handed Czechoslovakia over to Germany before the war, but so did the UK), but they didn't just surrender in any of that post war stuff. They fought long, bloody wars in Algeria and Vietnam before deciding it wasn't worth the effort. <br /><br />Their more recent perception problem is that they try to buy their way out of hostage situations and aggression by "rogue" nations. That only encourages more of the same and pisses off your allies, like the US.Thommnoreply@blogger.com