France lobbying against UK for NATO Second-in-command position
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
France lobbying against UK for NATO Second-in-command position
A French military mission has been actively lobbying in Washington recently, that NATO Deputy Commander position should be manned by their country, instead of United Kingdom as it has been the case since WWII. All that linked to incoming Brexit and future position of UK in Europe, of course.
An article in the Times yesterday was quite elaborate in convincing the (British) readers that it shouldn't happen, and that UK was still the leading military power in Europe (despite the lack of nuclear bombers, independent nuclear forces, maritime patrol aircraft, aircraft carriers, overseas bases..)
The French by contrast were pointing their own capabilities, and especially the ones missing above, their African operations throughout the continent, overseas territories, and general international commitments for the past 40 years. Be sure that our Parliament voting against military action Syria (August 30th, 2013) didn't improve our perception as a reliable ally by the US, to the contrary of France (BTW, the French found themselves suddenly isolated with their bombers ready to go, as B. Obama also decided to back-pedal ...)
Syria: John Kerry slaps Britain in face as he calls France 'oldest allies' - Telegraph
Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (NATO) has been French five-stars General Denis Mercier since March 2015.
An article in the Times yesterday was quite elaborate in convincing the (British) readers that it shouldn't happen, and that UK was still the leading military power in Europe (despite the lack of nuclear bombers, independent nuclear forces, maritime patrol aircraft, aircraft carriers, overseas bases..)
The French by contrast were pointing their own capabilities, and especially the ones missing above, their African operations throughout the continent, overseas territories, and general international commitments for the past 40 years. Be sure that our Parliament voting against military action Syria (August 30th, 2013) didn't improve our perception as a reliable ally by the US, to the contrary of France (BTW, the French found themselves suddenly isolated with their bombers ready to go, as B. Obama also decided to back-pedal ...)
Syria: John Kerry slaps Britain in face as he calls France 'oldest allies' - Telegraph
Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (NATO) has been French five-stars General Denis Mercier since March 2015.
The link in the article dates to 2013 and is technically correct. I believe that France sided with the anti colonial sentiments of the settlers in what became the USA when they waged war against the UK. The fact that the UK was also engaged in a war against the colonial aspirations of a French Emperor is not coincidental.
Sounds as though we are being sent to the back of the queue by the Obama administration. Oh, wait!...
Some people have very short memories, so here is one I remember and found again on the web:
"In 1966 upon being told that President Charles DeGaulle had taken France out of NATO and that all U.S. troops must be evacuated off of French soil President Lyndon Johnson mentioned to Secretary of State Dean Rusk that he should ask DeGaulle about the Americans buried in France. Dean implied in his answer that that DeGaulle should not really be asked that in the meeting at which point President Johnson then told Secretary of State Dean Rusk:
"Ask him about the cemeteries Dean!"
That made it into a Presidential Order so he had to ask President DeGaulle.
So at end of the meeting Dean did ask DeGaulle if his order to remove all U.S. troops from French soil also included the 60,000+ soldiers buried in France from World War I and World War II.
DeGaulle, embarrassed, got up and left and never answered.”
Great Allies indeed. IMHOP the French have done more to undermine NATO than any other member country.
"In 1966 upon being told that President Charles DeGaulle had taken France out of NATO and that all U.S. troops must be evacuated off of French soil President Lyndon Johnson mentioned to Secretary of State Dean Rusk that he should ask DeGaulle about the Americans buried in France. Dean implied in his answer that that DeGaulle should not really be asked that in the meeting at which point President Johnson then told Secretary of State Dean Rusk:
"Ask him about the cemeteries Dean!"
That made it into a Presidential Order so he had to ask President DeGaulle.
So at end of the meeting Dean did ask DeGaulle if his order to remove all U.S. troops from French soil also included the 60,000+ soldiers buried in France from World War I and World War II.
DeGaulle, embarrassed, got up and left and never answered.”
Great Allies indeed. IMHOP the French have done more to undermine NATO than any other member country.
Last edited by MACH2NUMBER; 11th Jan 2017 at 18:13.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Two things come to mind.
Firstly, France does not spend the recommended 2% of GDP on defence.
Secondly, if the EU Army ever comes into existence, will France have a conflict of interest?
Firstly, France does not spend the recommended 2% of GDP on defence.
Secondly, if the EU Army ever comes into existence, will France have a conflict of interest?
Gentleman Aviator
As ever, one recalls the wisdom of Sir Humphrey Appleby. When asked by Jim Hacker what was the purpose of NATO, he replied:
"It's threefold Prime Minister: to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the French down!"
"It's threefold Prime Minister: to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the French down!"
Secretary Kerry seems to have forgotten the quasi war with France in the late 1700's, after the French King (Louis XVI, who helped us to spite the Brits) was gone and the French Republic decided to start commandeering American merchant vessels on the high seas. He may also have forgotten the French decision to step out of the NATO integrated military command structure in the 1960's -- DeGaulle in one of his lovelyl Gaulist moments -- staying out for 40ish years, and only recently (under Sarkozy) coming back into NATO as "in but in" rather than "in but out." Truth moment: I was and am glad that they are back in.
It's not hard to see France as "our oldest ally" when its convenient for them to be, eh? (OK, maybe that's overly cynical). At least they drive on the correct side of the road.
I am glad that we are working together on stuff with the French, since we are allies.
Secretary Kerry making light of our special relationship with the Brits is right out of Obama's playbook. Gee, there's a shocker.
It's not hard to see France as "our oldest ally" when its convenient for them to be, eh? (OK, maybe that's overly cynical). At least they drive on the correct side of the road.
I am glad that we are working together on stuff with the French, since we are allies.
Secretary Kerry making light of our special relationship with the Brits is right out of Obama's playbook. Gee, there's a shocker.
Should (or once) the EU gets its operational military HQ, the 'Berlin arrangement' (whereby DSACEUR uses NATO structures as part of an EU-led operation) becomes a little overtaken.
NATO-EU cooperation is moving forward under other frameworks.
If true though (the story in Times put up by the OP), then the saying 'one can rely on ones enemies; it's friends that need watching' springs to mind.
Batco
NATO-EU cooperation is moving forward under other frameworks.
If true though (the story in Times put up by the OP), then the saying 'one can rely on ones enemies; it's friends that need watching' springs to mind.
Batco
"It's threefold Prime Minister: to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the French down!"
Maybe, but he also said the the UK needed a strategic nuclear deterent to guard us against the French who (he pointed out) we had been at war with more than any other nation over the preceding 500 years.
I'm not convinced that the Foreign Office has yet changed this view...
PDR
I'm not convinced that the Foreign Office has yet changed this view...
PDR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sidevalve
Admittedly, the UK does have some capability shortfalls in the short term. However, it has other capabilities that are highly valued by the US
For those who still figure there is a "special" relationship (albeit a little bit one-way) :
Syria crisis: 'Britain is no longer a world power' - Telegraph (Senator Mac Cain at his best)
Obama Administration Backs Argentina Over U.K. on Falkland Dispute | Fox News
Originally Posted by mach2number
So at end of the meeting Dean did ask DeGaulle if his order to remove all U.S. troops from French soil also included the 60,000+ soldiers buried in France from World War I and World War II. DeGaulle, embarrassed, got up and left and never answered.”
60 000 soldiers buried in France ? Sure - but now balance that with 70 000 French civilians killed by US and UK bombers during WWII with whole cities being wiped out, like Calais, Royan, St Lô, Rouen, Le Havre without justification, then 20 000 French servicemen who lost their lives from US/British action in Syria/Morocco/ Mers-el-Kebir/Madagascar, not forgetting the French troops fighting the Japanese in Laos, for which US General Chennault in Yunnan had orders from US President not to supply them with anything (Roosevelt was against French presence in Indochina)
Who said "great allies " ?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Well, DeGaulle always said that one of the things he admired most about the British was having the sense to always fight their wars in someone else's country.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming it's true, why would we be upset? A far bigger problem is member states showing no interest in leadership (or followership) in any aspect of membership...most notably including, for many years, France!
Last edited by ShotOne; 12th Jan 2017 at 15:00. Reason: To agree with subsequent post
Come now Recceguy, you are a bit out of your own context here. A total body count of all wars proves nothing and Dean only refers to US dead. My point remains the French not only booted NATO out of France, but for many, many years did not actively participate in NATO. Surely this is more pertinent to the thread that you started.
Was it not written outside the RN base in Singapore, 'Enemies of the Royal Navy, first the French second The War Department and third, enemy of the day.
As to Operation Torch, your precious Vichy French leadership chose to take that stand. At that point, fight's on. Yeah, war sucks on a lot of levels. This kind of back biting is so pointless, non?