synarchy movement of empire book ii - Pierre Beaudry's Galactic ...

have the physical support of the United States by every possible military and
naval assistance we could bring to bear." (Langer, Op. Cit., p.210)
Langer concluded on the whole affair by saying: "Ostensibly de
Gaulle had scored a resounding success, but he had forgotten the old
diplomatic adage that it is dangerous to play little tricks on great powers.
Prior to the St. Pierre-Miquelon affair, our government had had little to do
with de Gaulle and the Free French movement and had shown little interest
in it." (Langer, Op. Cit., p.221) Then after playing down the popularity of de
Gaulle inside of France, as well as playing down public opinion in the U.S.,
Langer comes to the conclusion, which is also the conclusion of his entire
book:
"There was no convincing evidence that de Gaulle and his followers
had many adherents in France, and even if there had been, we were bound to
regulate our attitude toward the Free French in accordance with our policy
toward Vichy. This government was convinced that the national interest
would be best served by maintaining good relations with Petain's
government. Once that is recognized, it is easy enough to understand that we
could not cultivate de Gaulle. After the St. Pierre-Miquelon affair, relations
naturally became worse. It was perfectly obvious that de Gaulle personally
had been chiefly responsible for what looked like a cheap parlor trick. He
had put the United States in a most embarrassing position, and had thereby
built up resentment in official circles that it was almost impossible to
overcome. " (Langer, Op. Cit., p. 221)
Though there is a resonance of naiveté in Langer's reasoning, his
position is basically sound, and was credible enough to last the entire
duration of the war. Again, the lesson to be learned is another case of
{involuntary deception} which permits the U.S. to continue playing its role
of {diplomatic resistance} until the right time had come to back up the Free
France of de Gaulle. An exceptionally clear view of that reality was
expressed by Anne O'Hare McCormick of the {New York Times} of January
7, 1942, who, while applauding the action of Charles de Gaulle, presented
the truth of the matter, in an exceptionally knowledgeable way. She wrote:
"Whether our policy toward France has been wise will be proved by
events. It is a considered policy, however, patiently followed in the face of
opposition, and fully understood by the Free French as well as the British. It
may be argued that our entry into the war changes our relation to the 'United
127