World

Partly Sunny with Showers 10° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

How the Cold War was won... by the French

When a KGB colonel decided to pass on secrets that would devastate the Soviet Union he turned to Paris, a new film reveals

By John Lichfield

Emir Kusturica, left, plays Serguei Grigoriev, the character based on the Russian mole Colonel Vetrov, while Guillaume Canet, right, is Pierre Froment, his French handler in L'Affaire Farewell

Emir Kusturica, left, plays Serguei Grigoriev, the character based on the Russian mole Colonel Vetrov, while Guillaume Canet, right, is Pierre Froment, his French handler in L'Affaire Farewell

James Bond and George Smiley can eat their hearts out. Who really won the Cold War for the democratic world? The French, naturellement. This rather startling claim is made by the publicity for a brooding, brilliant, French spy movie which reaches cinemas next week. Although somewhat far-fetched, the boast that French intelligence "changed the world" does have some basis in fact.

The story of L'Affaire Farewell, how a French mole in the KGB leaked information so devastating that it hastened the implosion of the Soviet Union, is comparatively little known in Britain or even in France.

Due credit is given to the French, the once-reviled "surrender monkeys", by, of all sources, the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA's official website still carries a compelling essay, written soon after the affair was declassified in 1996, by Gus Weiss, the American official who ran the Washington end of the case. He concludes: "[The] Farewell dossier... led to the collapse of a crucial [KGB spying] programme at just the time the Soviet military needed it... Along with the US defence build-up and an already floundering Soviet economy, the USSR could no longer compete."

The official version of events shows that the French taupe, or mole, was Colonel Vladimir Vetrov of Directorate T, the industrial spying arm of the KGB. In 1981-82, he gave French intelligence more than 3,000 pages of documents and the names of more than 400 Soviet agents posted abroad. The information, shared by Paris with its Nato allies, was deeply alarming but also hugely encouraging.

Colonel Vetrov, codenamed Farewell by the French, laid bare the successful Soviet strategies for acquiring, legally and illegally, advanced technology from the West. He also exposed the abject failure of the Communist system to match rapid Western advances in electronic micro-technology.

The case directly influenced President Ronald Reagan's decision to launch the "Star Wars" programme in 1983: a hi-tech bluff which would drag the USSR into an unaffordable, and calamitous, attempt to keep up with the democratic world.

Raymond Nart, the French intelligence officer who handled the case from Paris, reported that Colonel Vetrov approached the French because he had once been stationed in Paris and loved the French language. His original contact was a French businessman in Moscow and then a French military attaché and his wife. He passed on secrets by exchanging shopping baskets with the wife in a Moscow market.

The Russian never asked for money or for a new life in the West. He was an "uncontrollable man, who oscillated between euphoria and over-excitement", said Mr Nart. He appears to have been motivated by frustration with the Soviet system and, maybe, a personal grudge. He was eventually caught, and executed, after stabbing his mistress and killing a policeman in a Moscow park in February 1982. The case remains deeply sensitive, and mysterious, in Russia and France. The democratic Russia of Vladimir Putin (ex-KGB) and Dimitry Medvedev brought pressure on a celebrated Russian actor, Sergei Makovetsky, to withdraw from the French film, L'Affaire Farewell, which premieres at the Toronto film festival this week. A request to film in Russia was refused.

Former French intelligence officers came forward to try to sidetrack the film's director, Christian Carion (who made the Oscar-nominated Joyeux Noel about the fraternisation in the trenches in December 1914). The ex-agents told him that the Farewell case was not what it seemed. The whole affair, they said, had been concocted by the CIA to test the loyalty to the West of the Socialist president, François Mitterrand, after he was elected in May 1981.

Even Mitterrand came to believe this version of events, and fired a senior French intelligence chief in 1985. These allegations, officially denied in Washington and Paris, are almost certainly driven by jealousy among competing French spy services. Farewell was "run" – at the mole's own insistence – by a relatively small, French counter-espionage agency, the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire (DST), which was not supposed to operate abroad.

The former French foreign minister, Hubert Védrine, a diplomatic adviser to President Mitterrand at the time, is in no doubt that Farewell existed. "It was one of the most important spy cases of the 20th century," he said. "At no other time since 1945 was the Soviet system exposed to the light of day so completely."

Mr Védrine rejects the implication – in the publicity surrounding the film rather than the film itself – that the Farewell case caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. But he, like the senior US official, Mr Weiss, argues that the information provided by the KGB mole was one of the catalysts for the demise of the USSR, nine years later. By making it even harder for the Soviets to compete with the West, the affair magnified doubts and tensions within the Communist hierarchy and assisted the rise – but also undermined the work – of the would-be reformer, Mikhail Gorbachev.

The film, L'Affaire Farewell, made in Russian, French and English, stars the Bosnian actor, Emir Kusturica, as the KGB mole and Willem Dafoe as the head of the CIA. To allow the researcher-scriptwriter, Eric Raynaud, cinematic licence with the story, Colonel Vetrov has been renamed, Serguei Grigoriev. The French agents are telescoped into one man, a reluctant businessman-turned-spy called Pierre Froment, played by Guillaume Canet.

The film, which has received glowing advance reviews, is far from being a James Bond car-chase thriller. It is more like a Gallic John Le Carré: part historical essay, part psycho-drama about the relationship between professional Russian spy and amateur French agent. The director, Carion, admits that he has guillotined parts of the story. He left out the professional French agent and his wife and he left out Farewell's attempt to stab his mistress as "too confusing". The effect is to downplay Colonel Vetrov's murky side and make the story one of anguished heroism, on both sides.

Russia's refusal to co-operate in the making of the movie is easily explained, Carion says. In 1983, 47 Soviet diplomats and journalists, identified as spies by Farewell, were expelled from Paris. Among them was a young diplomat called Alexander Avdeev. When the film was being planned, Mr Avdeev was back in Paris as the Russian ambassador. He has since returned to Moscow as Minister of Culture.

How significant was the Farewell affair? In the essay on the CIA web-site, Mr Weiss, a member of Ronald Reagan's National Security Council in 1981, gives a lengthy account of its importance to the US. Mr Weiss, who was put in charge of the US response to the Farewell leaks, was an intelligence officer for almost half a century. His words need to be treated with caution but he suggests that Farewell played a pivotal role in the winning of the Cold War.

"Reading the material caused my worst nightmares to come true," he said. The Soviet Union, under the cover of detente had extracted so many technical secrets from the West, openly and illegally, that in the 1970s "our science was supporting their national defence".

At the same time, the Farewell File revealed that the USSR was much further behind the West in computer technology than the CIA had believed possible. The US used the information to turn the tables, Mr Weiss said, "and conduct economic warfare of our own".

Sabotaged pieces of technology were leaked to Moscow "designed so that... they would appear genuine but would later fail"; "contrived [unreliable] computer chips found their way into Soviet military equipment, flawed turbines were installed on a gas pipeline (which later exploded) and defective plans disrupted the output of chemical plants and a tractor factory".

The former French foreign minister, Mr Vedrine, believes that the Soviet empire was already close to collapse in the early 1980s. Its economic model was no longer working. The Afghan war and military expenditure had crippled state finances. The value of oil exports had plummeted. Farewell, he says, did not cause the end of the USSR but it did "hasten the system towards its end".

Gus Weiss reaches the same conclusion. Unlike Mr Védrine, he will never see the cinematic version of events. He died in November 2003 in mysterious circumstances, officially classified as suicide. Mr Weiss, who had split with the Bush administration over Iraq, fell from the windows of his apartment in Washington. The apartment was in the Watergate building.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

seek and you shall find
[info]freedommonger wrote:
Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 06:35 am (UTC)
how you long to find something, anything, to give France the honour it so utterly lacks.

but what is known this story? It seems to me virtually nothing save for some hearsay from people who you yourselves say again and again are probably lying.

This article and this film is just platform shoes for the whole country.

What killed the Soviet Union was low oil prices and Ronald Reagan. As always the simpering selfish cowards of the world had nothing to do with it. Just like it was a British Sub that captured the enigma this sort of revisionist intellectual masturbation is poison for the minds of the masses, as it is intended to be.

Well done France for running a significant agent. One day we may know if it was good for us and how much. Not today though.

In the meantime France can remain the geopolitical Bagpuss, you love them anyway, whatever, unconditionally. Unlike the US of A which etc etc etc

p.s. as I heard about France's F1 team cheating and risking life to win for Alonso I couldn't help imagining Alonso's interview after he had left McLaren for selling out his own team. In BlackAdder it went...

"Never have I encountered such foul, mindless perversity. Have you considered a career in the church?"

for Alonso, well, probably quite similar. Why can no one see the rotten nature of the republic when it is daily thrust in your face?
Re: seek and you shall find
[info]mountainhop wrote:
Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 10:54 am (UTC)
What utterly ridiculous remarks. You, Sir, are a fool; what is it they say about empty vessels making the most noise? I have no idea of your Nationality (and frankly couldn't care less) but you're obviously a disgrace to whatever Country you call home. Undoubtedly your Country has an impeccable, unimpeachable past filled with nothing but honourable deeds.

When you accuse the French of being "simpering selfish cowards" maybe you should look a little bit at your history books; you can read I assume? Maybe you should look at what they sacrificed in the last couple of World Wars for starters.
Re: seek and you shall find
[info]lkdamo wrote:
Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 11:01 am (UTC)
Of course he is a fool just look at his name.
He comes here to wind people up.
Re: seek and you shall find
[info]freedommonger wrote:
Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 11:33 am (UTC)
I come hear to be an iconoclast in the near monoculture of the Indy comments section

Will you defend France? I doubt it, it would require you to state things that can be verified, measured and challenged.

What has France got to be proud of? Why is running one perhaps significant agent a reason to laud them when France has been the friend of Soviet Communists throughout the "cold" war?

Maybe the acid test is for you to re-read the article but as an English agent lauding England. I bet you would be unable to without feeling repulsed. Not enough rich French sauce is there?!
Re: seek and you shall find
[info]freedommonger wrote:
Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 11:25 am (UTC)
quite, vichy.

and lets not dwell on 1 million dead Rwandans (while French military were embedded at all levels of the genocidal Hutu army), or Algeria where France deemed Algerians should speak French and wrote the modern book of torture, or Clearstream, or the TotalFinaElf Luna refinery scandal that bankrolled Kohls election campaign, or Mai Lai, or the entire FrancAfrique policy or..... (this list can be as long as you require to face reality)

No, these inconvenient truths are to be studiously ignored (and removed from history as Euros do) to allow full time demonisation of the USA for any fault, however small and however unintended. Yanks must be perfect, and France is Bagpuss, no matter how shabby, you will blindly love them.

Tell me, what is it that you think France has to be proud of? (please exclude things they do purely for themselves)

p.s. First World War was a good show. Unlike some's view of the USA I dont believe anyone is all bad, not even the 5th republic. I do believe it is pretty awful however, in intent.
Re: seek and you shall find
[info]mountainhop wrote:
Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 12:08 pm (UTC)
"I come hear[sic] to be an iconoclast in the near monoculture of the Indy comments section"

Really? A pompous airhead more like. What has France to be proud of? Just to pee you off; their cuisine. Look, you called them "cowards"; I suggested you look a bit deeper. Seems to me you have nothing much to offer except criticism of anything, anyone and everything. Did a French girlfriend of yours jilt you for someone else in your past? We could argue over Rwanda I'm sure but I haven't got the will power to waste energy and I'm sure Mai Lai was an entirely U.S. venture.

Your request to tell you things that France has to be proud of is specious given your request to leave out things "they do for themselves"; all Nations have vested interests in what they do. Grow up.

No-one believes (unless they're an airhead?) that any of the "developed" Countries have no skeletons in their closets. Could you send us a postcard from Utopia so the rest of us can drool over how wonderful your Nation is?
Re: seek and you shall find
[info]freedommonger wrote:
Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 12:14 pm (UTC)
when you put a relative statement to a child that they do not emotionally want to acknowledge the infant mind often turns a relative statement into an absolute thus facilitating some facade of a defense to be paraded.

Oh dear. I said no one was perfect and no one is all bad. Did you not read that bit?

I make a relative statement that the reality is that France is as bad or worse (IMHO) than the USA.

yet in the media and crippled minds France can do no wrong and must be praised as the saviour (France "won" the cold war, LOL) when they patently did not. Ronald Reagan won the cold war by being strong and standing up for a principle. he was helped by the oil price crash on top of an economy already crippled by decades of communist cretinous policy.

Yet the USA is in the media and crippled minds always to blame and the worst unless they achieve some infantile idea of perfection designed to be unattainable.

Do you dissent from the proposition that the treatment of France vs the USA is a stark (I think shameful) contrast?
Re: seek and you shall find
[info]mountainhop wrote:
Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 02:21 pm (UTC)
"when you put a relative statement to a child that they do not emotionally want to acknowledge the infant mind often turns a relative statement into an absolute thus facilitating some facade of a defense to be paraded."

Pots and kettles come to mind.

I don't dissent from the media coverage concerning the USA; never said I did. The article talks about a single event involving an agent; you seem to want to interpret that as "France won the Cold War" because you have issues with the French State. If it keeps you happy I suppose.

I think all Nation States have plenty of dirty laundry they don't want washed in public. A lot of it is realpolitik and "of it's time"; people like you often seem to look at incidents out of the historical context of their time and think that makes sense. I'm only glad it's not me who has to make some of the decisions that are made.

Come to think of it, in general I dislike a lot of Nation States but find myself enjoying the company of pretty much all inhabitants as individuals within those States. What does that tell you?
France?!
[info]mark1961 wrote:
Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 01:16 pm (UTC)
In a word...Vichy. OTOH individually they're OK but as a country "they'll always let you down in the end" to quote Macmillan. The first guy goes a bit too far I must admit.

If you keep them at arms length, take everything they say with a pinch of salt, and treat whatever they do with the same suspicion as you would if you were about to pick up a bar of soap in a prison shower then the UK and France bump along quite nicely.
Re: France?!
[info]mountainhop wrote:
Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 02:30 pm (UTC)
Another credulous wally I see who probably reads the Mail for their Foreign Affairs news. As for Vichy, why don't you find out a little of the context surrounding it before talking bollards.

As for Macmillan and his quote. Big deal...I wonder why we're often referred to as Perfidious Albion??
Re: seek and you shall find
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 03:34 pm (UTC)
My guess is that freedommonger is an American. His acquaintance with "Blackadder" implies at least some vestigial knowledge of this sceptred isle, ("sceptered" if I'm wrong!), but then I see he spells defence as "defense", which probably clinches it.

In the immediate aftermath of the Twin Towers, as the full implication of the tragedy became clear to New Yorkers, the cameras caught one women screaming hysterically "Why do they hate us so much?"

Freedommonger encapsulates the answer to her question. While I'm sure he's by no means representative of all his fellow citizens, he seems to be typical of a very significant number of them; arrogant, complacent, aggressive and abusive men and women, contemptuous and contemptible, who think they can dominate and exploit the world on their own terms and for their own benefit. To a considerable degree, indeed they've proved that they can do so, and, in consequence, there's no shortage of political quislings in other countries, this one included, who do their bidding.

But the price these people pay, and also inflict on their nicer and wiser fellow-citizens, is a return of contempt for contempt and loathing for loathing. I doubt this matters to freedommonger (his very choice of nickname speaks volumes - read "freedom as we define it, and whether you want it or not"), or to his ilk, secure in their own righteousness and, in their own eyes, loftily beyond contradiction or accountability. After all, the U S of A bestraddles the world in economic and military power, and in that (certainly not in God!) they trust - so why should they care?

And, to a point, they're right. At present, which outraged nation can successfully wage war on the US?!
But, though the US is richer and stronger, it isn't more numerous. And the very influence of freedommonger and his fellow travellers guarantees a retaliation; the USA, at some time, will experience another Twin Towers. As an IRA spokesman once chilling said here: "You have to succeed every time; we only have to succeed once".

By the way, can't SOMEBODY de-bark John Bolton? He was on the radio here at lunchtime. I doubt he'd be happy to be silenced, but one hell of a lot of people elsewhere in the world would be happier to be spared his all-too-utterly-predictable pronouncements. Freedommonger would miss him, of course, but we should consider the greater good ...
[info]gustav_crumb wrote:
Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 07:25 am (UTC)
did Freedommonger get served a bad French meal one time?
or several
[info]maroule wrote:
Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 11:58 am (UTC)
methink he was badly dumped by a French woman, and never quite recovered
Re: or several
[info]freedommonger wrote:
Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 12:16 pm (UTC)
yes, clearly "think" is beyond you whereas ad hominem abuse comes naturally. Are you French? What do you claim for your gloire?
CIA's long tentacles, lies, bluffing and more lies
[info]corporeal_v002 wrote:
Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 11:49 am (UTC)

The CIA is a global meddling machine.
Who pays for their mischief?
Lots of civilians in illegal invasions because there may be WMDs or there may be a group call al-queda in that region (incidentlly, a name created by the CIA).

The bigger question is who are the masters of the CIA?
The Americans or the Zionists or a combination of the two?
Reagan's buildup got credit anyway... ;^)
[info]reg373 wrote:
Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 11:15 pm (UTC)
But if a free West can't manage it's financial house any better than it has this decade, additional governments may find their way onto the scrapheap of history. We're better off without Stalinism, and without Reagan/Bush laissez-faire ignorance as well...

-- john_b_ellis wrote:
While I'm sure he's by no means representative of all his fellow citizens, he seems to be typical of a very significant number of them; arrogant, complacent, aggressive and abusive men and women, contemptuous and contemptible, who think they can dominate and exploit the world on their own terms and for their own benefit. --


Those are Republicans talking, John. They got tossed on the scrapheap in the last 2 election cycles. Bush finished his presidency with an approval rating under 30%. Don't write America off yet... ;^)

-- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
Re: Reagan's buildup got credit anyway... ;^)
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 11:39 pm (UTC)
reg, I'm encouraged!
So which is it, did "communism fail" or did "we" wage a 40-year war on the USSR and destroy it?
[info]fin_d_empire wrote:
Friday, 18 September 2009 at 06:41 am (UTC)
This article digs up an old and important story that of course goes far over the heads of our esteemed commentariat. It tells us that a scientist called Gus Weiss who was a top-level Cold War adviser to four US presidents devised a program of economic sabotage against the USSR, notably causing a 3-kiloton explosion in a Siberian gas pipeline to disrupt Soviet gas supplies to Europe.

The Yanks thus compounded their technological embargo of the USSR - the Soviets were denied access to the free market for a huge range of technologies available to the rest of the world - with technological sabotage of products that the Soviets were permitted to buy, such as gas pipeline management software (it was the Canadian software that was loaded with a Trojan, not the turbines).

How do the Yanks justify this covert warfare? They claim that the Soviets "undermined the spirit of détente" by acquiring advanced Western technology. Who exactly undermined détente by putting an embargo on that technology in the first place?

The justification of the Cold War itself - which the Yanks declared on the Soviets in 1945 at Potsdam when Truman told Molotov that "the United States expected to get what it wanted in 85% of all important world affairs" and exploded an A-bomb in the Nevada desert, shortly followed by two on Japan to drive the point home - was based on the lie (as are all Yank wars) that the Soviets were preparing to invade Western Europe.

How was this lie concocted? Much like the lie of Saddam's WMD's, concocted by the international swindler and Iranian/neocon double agent Ahmad Chalabi and "stovepiped" to Rumsfeld's Pentagon bypassing the CIA, the lie of the Soviet strategy of world conquest was concocted by the Gehlen organization, a spy network of Nazi war criminals set up by the US in Germany and headed by a Nazi general. 100% of all US "intelligence" on Soviet intentions came from Nazis, who of course exaggerated and fabricated to their hearts' content, knowing that their bosses were looking for an excuse to start a new war anyway.

Truman and his hawkish entourage wanted to increase US military spending 300% after WWII. He wanted to set up the CIA and prosecute the war against the USSR in total secrecy and outside of Congressional oversight, behind the closed doors of the National Security Council. The "senator from Boeing" Vandenberg told him that he would need to "scare the hell out of the American people" to achieve those expensive and anti-democratic warlike aims. The "Soviet threat" was invented for precisely that purpose and duly engendered the military-industrial complex, the danger of which Truman's successor Eisenhower warned the US public, to no avail.

Therefore it was clearly America's overt and covert belligerence, funded by the imperial hegemon's ability to print almost limitless amounts of money while inflicting the inflationary consequences on others - that's what being a reserve currency means - that destroyed the USSR, forced to wage a ruinous war against the Yanks and their vassals on top of the death and devastation inflicted by Hitler. It is a testimony to the strength of the Soviet system that it achieved so much and resisted as long as it did despite the siege laid to it by the West.
France as bad as the US? Mais oui. Ou plutôt oui mais... - I
[info]fin_d_empire wrote:
Friday, 18 September 2009 at 09:07 am (UTC)
Freedommangler is of course right when he says that France's behavior as an imperialist state is in principle every bit as reprehensible as that of the US. Assassins, invaders, and torturers can be found in both countries and both countries act with equal cynicism and deceit while riding on their moral high horses.

However, France's great crimes in Indochina, Algeria, and Egypt are now past history and of a considerably lesser scale than the US's countless acts of barbarism starting in its own Latin American back yard and extending through hundreds of invaded, regime-changed, tortured, genocided, "bombed into the stone age" countries, totaling tens of millions of victims.

The tribunal of history would certainly sentence both countries to the maximum punishment, but while France would get the noose or the guillotine, justice would require that the Yanks be meted out the most medievally agonizing execution possible.

It's not just the mind-boggling magnitude of Yank crimes that make freedommangler's France-bashing so galling. It's that freedommangler's nation of warmongering semiliterate blubbery shopaholics that blights the planet owes its very accursed existence to France. When the slaveowning, indian-genociding turncoat British colonel George Washington, as militarily incompetent as he was treasonous, was stuck up the proverbial creek at Valley Forge, his sorry excuse for an army falling apart, it was a Prussian general dispatched by France who saved the Yanks' bacon, turning the moping bunch of misfits into a something resembling a real army.

To show their gratitude to France for winning their treasonous rebellion against British taxes and British laws against trading with the enemy (i.e. France), the Yanks made the French an offer they couldn't refuse for Louisiana.

Come June 1944, the Yanks dispatched an army of "civil administrators" to govern France - many of whose cities they had bombed to rubble for no military reason - as an occupied territory exactly like Germany, issuing millions of fake dollar-lookalike occupation francs to undermine French currency and sovereignty. The Yank "civilian administrators" ignored De Gaulle's Free French Forces and kept the Nazi collaborators of the Vich regime in place. Without the unrelenting efforts of De Gaulle, the Yanks would have occupied France for a few years and set up the Vichy fascists as their stooges just as they did in Germany.
France as bad as the US? Mais oui. Ou plutôt oui mais... - II
[info]fin_d_empire wrote:
Friday, 18 September 2009 at 09:09 am (UTC)
There lay the main reason for De Gaulle's profound distrust of Yanks, and vice-versa. After Indochina was liberated and France moved in to recolonize it, the Yanks helped Ho Chi Minh set up the Viet Minh. When the French were finall encircled at Dien Bien Phu, the Yanks just sat back and chuckled. As soon as the French were defeated, they moved in to conquer the place themselves, wreaking death and destruction of such unimaginable evil and magnitude that Vietnam still hasn't recovered from it.

Algeria was for France what Hawaii or Texas is to the us: A stolen land that the thieves considered to be their rightful property and an integral part of their homeland. When Algeria rebelled, the Yanks did everything possible to make sure that the French lost that territory, even using NATO for that purpose. Considering that the Algerian rebels were attacking what was legally French territory from bases in Tunisia, France was entitled to invoke Chapter 5 and call her NATO allies to assist her. Instead, the Yanks showed what NATO was really for: To make sure that the US called all the shots.

So when France relinquished Algeria despite a highly successful (and brutal) counterinsurgency war, it had been defeated by the USA and its vassals, not by the rebels. Accordingly, DeGaulle withdrew French forces from NATO as soon as he returned to power.

After De Gaulle, French governments hastened to become Yank lackeys, debasing themselves to the point of training the Argentinian colonels in the brutal techniques they had used in Algeria. French torture techniques were incorporated into CIA manuals. Mitterrand the phony socialist took the cake when he gave the Yanks the tools (the Vetrov files) to wage all-out technological warfare on the USSR, telling them just what the technological weaknesses of the Soviets were so that the Yanks could hit them where it hurt the most.

So by all means, send France to the guillotine but make sure you hang the US by the balls with its eyes poked out and its guts hanging out first.
Tongue in cheek
[info]tocquevil wrote:
Friday, 18 September 2009 at 03:32 pm (UTC)
Even a Frenchman like me -aren't we supposed to be unable to understand English humour?- can notice the not-so-subtle irony in the title of this piece. Why some redneck will take this as a knee-jerk defense of evil France is beyond me. Or it is?
How the Cold War was won by the French
[info]frenchtraitor wrote:
Saturday, 19 September 2009 at 04:57 pm (UTC)
As a Frenchman, doesn't surprise me one bit.
We always wanted (and got) the best of both worlds, back then (with General De Gaulle pandering
to the Soviet Block) and now (with his successor Sarkozy reintegrating France in NATO's unified command, which would have old De Gaulle spinning in his grave).
But I think the USA and Britain have also a responsibility in that they consistently underestimated our
power of nuisance.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date