France seeks to Rejoin NATO Military Force

[ORAC]

The only answer to this is NON! Hopefully the USA will veto it again. Revenge is, after all, a dish best eaten cold......

France may rejoin military wing of Nato (http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2956419.ece)

President Nicolas Sarkozy, a self-proclaimed Gaullist, may be ready to reverse one of the most celebrated actions sanctioned by Charles de Gaulle – France's abrupt exit from the military wing of Nato in 1966.

After a hint dropped by M. Sarkozy last month, the country's Defence Minister, Hervé Morin, has raised the possibility of France rejoining the integrated, military structure of the alliance. In return, he suggested, France would want the US to lift its objections to the development of a European Union defence policy linked to Nato. Paris would also want Nato to rethink its overall strategy and structures.

The idea, put forward by M. Morin during a defence summer school at the University of Toulouse, is part of a drive by the President to repair relations between France and the US. It is also a recognition that the European Union defence policy, launched by President Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair at St Malo in December 1998, cannot go far without Washington's blessing.

Since 1966, France has been a member of the Nato alliance but not part of its military high command. Senior French officers have long complained this is an impossible situation. France finds itself taking part on the fringes of Nato operations, without the ability to influence decisions. This, said one diplomat, reduced French forces to the role of harkis – the name given to Algerians who served as auxiliaries with the French army during the Algerian War of Independence from 1954 to 1962.

President Chirac sought to rejoin Nato's military command in 1997 but the US rejected the conditions demanded by France.

[BEagle]

Why should the answer be <<Non!>>

There is less support in many areas for US influence in European affairs than hitherto - the French proposal sounds pretty reasonable.

The childish 'Freedom Fries' mindset is more deserving of change.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Aren't you being a little unfair their ORAC?

Whilst the French have butted heads with the US and other NATO countries in the past over many issues perhaps now is the time to play the big man and let then back into the military wing of NATO unconditionally.

Yes of course the only reason they want to get back in is for purely nationalistic reasons, a want of a 'slice of the action' so to speak to counter the increasing marginalisation of France as it subsequently becomes an irrelevance on the world stage but they have a useful armed forces who would be an asset in a NATO force, after all what other country has a white flag waving and lackadaisical force projection capability like theirs (surely the cornerstone of modern NATO ops if the attitudes of many non-US/UK NATO military forces are taken into account)? Perhaps they could team up with the German military for a more effective 'stay somewhere safe and let the UK/US take casualties' approach to the war in Afghanistan?
;)

[ORAC]

They don't need to be in the military structure to deploy anywhere - they're in Afghanistan. We got through the Cold War without them. I don't see the benefit in having them in now.

[nigegilb]

Didn't stop the French leaking secrets to the enemy during the various Balkans campaigns. They also insisted on being the first in to Pristina during the Kosovo campaign, even though they contributed little if anything in the run up, whilst we lost a Herc.

the development of a European Union defence policy linked to Nato.

I assume this defence policy involves using British infantry to do all the fighting, and rows of new French forces will cope with the thousands of volunteers for cushty tax free peace keeping duties.

Welcome on board, come and join the fun.

The slightly less cynical side in me suggests that Sarkozy is very different to those who have been before. Might be a genuine offer.

[dakkg651]

I think they must be serious about this proposal.

I've just heard that their top brass are discussing surrender terms already!

[Pontius Navigator]

THS said let them back into the military wing of NATO unconditionally

However ORAC's original quote included

In return, he suggested, France would want the US to lift its objections to the development of a European Union defence policy linked to Nato. Paris would also want Nato to rethink its overall strategy and structures.

Nothing unconditional there THS.

Goose and Gander spring to mind.

[ZH875]

Let them back in.....





...We have shedloads of white flags that need a new home.

[Caspian237]

Just wondering if there will be a secret agreement to commit the French forces to a more active role in Afghanistan if they are allowed back in? Or perhaps this is something the French authorities hope may be in the considerations of NATO HQ?

By the way. I just returned home to Scotland from Paris today :} I took some time to visit the fantastic military museum "Les Invalides." France has a proud military history like us and I don't think it does us any justice to constantly poo poo them in the manner of a tabloid newspaper. :=

[Oggin Aviator]

and I don't think it does us any justice to constantly poo poo them in the manner of a tabloid newspaper.


The Helpful Stacker: Well, he pooh-poohed the French here and said that he'd never find the reason.

Caspian: Is this true? Did ORAC commit a pooh-pooh?

ORAC: Well, perhaps a little.

Caspian: Well then, damn it all, how much more evidence do you need? The pooh-poohing alone is a court-martial offence!

ORAC: I can assure you, sir, that the pooh-poohing was purely circumstantial.

Caspian: Well, I hope so, ORAC. You know, if there's one thing I've learned from being in the Air Force, it's never ignore a pooh-pooh. I knew a Sqn Ldr: got pooh-poohed; made the mistake of ignoring the pooh-pooh -- he pooh-poohed it. Fatal error, because it turned out all along that the airman who pooh-poohed him had been pooh-poohing a lot of other officers, who pooh-poohed their pooh-poohs. In the end, we had to disband the Squadron -- morale totally destroyed ... by pooh-pooh!

:)

[Caspian237]

Oh, yeah. I see what you did there. A rather unfortunate use of language by myself, cunningly manipulated to make me look foolish. :* I can see I'll have to watch my step.

I wasn't specifically targetting anyone out as an ..er.. Arch pooh-pooher de la Francais (thanks for the spelling correction) or suggesting that, god forbid, anyone should be disciplined for it! I was only expressing my opinion which of course I know means jack-pooh.

Seriously though, I hope countries like France do take a more active role in Afghanistan so that countries like Britain do not have to take the full brunt of the casualties. If allowing the French back into the military structure of NATO can achieve this then I am all for it. Of course if they are not prepared to negotiate on the issue and seek only to further their own ambitions then they should be denied.

[Oggin Aviator]

Mate, not trying to make anyone look foolish, it was a bit of jape :)

Its always struck me a bit bizarre why the French havent been part of Nato militarily - they are a potent force - for example their Navy is very good and their Carrier SOPs, for instance, are very, very good. Very swept up. Cant comment on their Air Force or Army however a bit more Coalition integration cant be a bad thing, as long as they learn to flush their loos :eek: (long story ........ :yuk: )

Oggin

[Caspian237]

Thanks Oggin, I am a fairly new poster on this forum and was just thinking, "Jesus! This is a tough neighbourhood." :)

I really think the French/NATO thing is a lot more complex than them being white flag waving surrender-monkeys. I think there is a real paranoia in France about the destruction of their culture and indentity. They see the overbearing influence of the USA in everything from movies to military. I think this makes them prickly. I guess they wanted to retain their own military identity.

Perhaps in the UK we don't understand this because our culture has to some extent been consumed by that of the US. We aren't divided by the language barrier (which is collapsing in France if my holiday experience is anything to go by) and our children worship American movie heroes and music stars. We think nothing of buying off the shelf US military hardware often to the detriment of our own industry etc etc.

Heck, I'm way out of my depth here. I'm just a simple Scot. I hope you understand the point I am getting at and how this relates to the French military and NATO

[Glass Half Empty]

Got to be kiddin...

The French marginally less trustworthy than the .......................US.

Quick to sell missiles to the argies and leak info to the iraqis.

Tell them to bugg*r off.

[Pontius Navigator]

Actually I thought we bought all the spare Exocet although I understand the French technicians remained in place. Maybe they remembers Toulouse and Orange and Trafalgar, and St Vincent, a Abu Kebir :}

There is an active exchange with the AWACS. Remember the Jaguar was the AF(non)VG.

Even though they left the military structure they retained 'observer' status on the SIOP planners.

[Charlie Luncher]

At Least we would have someone to cover the rear:ooh:
Charlie sends

[Razor61]

They better start thinking of speaking English on the radio first. Even German pilots speak English to their own ops etc in Germany, yet the only country who can't be arsed and gets in a pissy about one of their cabinet talking in English is the French.

[Union Jack]

I can't quite believe I'm daring to correct PN :eek: but for "Toulouse and Orange and Trafalgar, and St Vincent, a Abu Kebir" try "Toulon and Oran and Trafalgar, and St Vincent, Mers el Kebir"!

Toulouse and Orange were a bit far inland even for our then big guns and, if I recall correctly, the FS STRASBOURG at least made it back to Toulon and into Vichy French hands.

No quibble with Trafalgar and St Vincent!

Jack

[Airborne Aircrew]

Throw away comment:-

They're French. For the most part they have been stabbing us in the back since before 1066...

We haven't needed them. We don't need them now. They want something - perfect time to tell them to fcuk off and giggle about their loss.

[Caspian237]

Razor, I think you highlight the point I was trying to make in my previous post. This is a direct result of their fear over the errosion of French culture. They want to protect their language from being replaced by "Americanese."

Obviously this has serious implications to joint operations, but it is not a sign that they are lazy or are just being obstinate. At worst this stems from their own feelings of inadequacy in a world that is no longer controlled by European Great powers.

[Airborne Aircrew]

They want to protect their language from being replaced by "Americanese."

Rubbish... They embrace "football" and a whole slew of other "anglicized" words... They aren't protecting anything... They're being typically French.

[Caspian237]

Well of course there will be sharing of language. Many english words are derived from french also. That is not the point. Of course the word football in the sense we are talking about can hardly be described as Americanese. *What I really mean here is that America is now the motivational force behind the English language in the world for obvious reasons.*

I'm sure the french military understand the possible benefits of clear and concise radio communications with their allies. I would have thought that there must be some better reason for them not to take this advantage other than, that they are just being french.

[Airborne Aircrew]

In terms of NATO they really don't have "allies".

The French have, clearly, chosen to go their own route for their own reasons for a few decades now. Their "route" has been proven to be a route that has conflicted with many of NATO's initiatives. Now, all of a sudden, they want to play...

If Europeans chose to "accept them back into the fold" I believe you will see exactly why the "Freedom Fries" attitude came to be.

The French are the _most_ cynical bunch of weiners in Europe. They "opt out" of NATO, (thus saving themselves billions of francs in "contributions"), while being surrounded, (and therefore protected by), NATO countries. They wouldn't have done that had they bordered a Warsaw Pact country in the first place.

They have lived off NATO for decades, protected by us, at no cost. When they carry the burden of NATO, in it's entirety for five years, (men, equipment and money), and do it effectively without intervention by the rest of us then they should be considered for entry to NATO.... Until then I believe NATO should grant free passage to France for anyone who choses to attack them... That's not unreasonable... They can't be allowed to hide behind us... But they could pay us to not allow that "free passage".

I have $1000 says they would run if given that "deal"... and it is a good deal for the protection they have had!!!

[Caspian237]

Airborne, you make a fantastic point that I had not considered. Was this a concerted effort by the French to save money and get defense on the cheap or was it just a quirk of geography?

I understood from earlier posts that they did not completely withdraw from the NATO alliance but from the upper command structure and that they would have been involved in NATO's defense of Europe if the worst came to the worst. I bow to your knowledge on how much they would have saved because I frankly know nothing on this topic.

Please don't dismiss my arguement about french fears over their identity though. There have been many initiatives in France from the military/business language restrictions to limiting the amount of foreign movies that appear in French cinemas etc.

[Archimedes]

The French do go to great lengths to protect the lingo, via L’Académie Française. This august body is officially responsible for deliberating on language use, and they get terribly miffed at the creeping anglicisation of day-to-day speech.

When the Sony Walkman became popular, in response to the fact that the nation talked about 'Le Walkman', L’Académie Française, bless 'em, dug through the dictionary of long-obsolete words and imposed an official word upon the nation from this list (IIRC, it was 'Baladeur' which was a wandering minstrel, which seemed vaguely relevant).

They've also tried to prevent the government from using the term 'La Ministre' to refer to female government ministers, since the correct gender for 'Ministre' is masculine, and if you start on the slippery slope of fiddling about with word genders, you'll be speaking Americanised English before you know it.

Of course, being French, the populace usually takes note of the fact that there's a new official word they're to use and promptly ignore it.

[discus2]

Man !
You guys don t like these french now do you ?...:ouch:
Still love their language though, and I am not sure English is the international official language yet...

[Caspian237]

Hi, discus2. I like the French and think they are ..erm.. misunderstood. I think Archimedes was able to express in more eloquent terms something that I've been rolling around all night.

I also admire their bravery and nerve after personally witnessing Parisian driving this week!! I think they must get one lesson only. The instuctions are: This is your horn and these are your bumpers, now go, aller, aller, vite, vite. :)

[Robert Cooper]

They opted out in the first place, and they should now stay out. They have nothing, bring nothing, and we don't need them.

Can't trust them anyway. Seem to remember that they were providing technical support to Argentina for the Exocet while we were busy fighting a war. Nothing surprising there.

Bob C

[Sammie_nl]

They have nothing, bring nothing, and we don't need them.

Hey at least they got a carier and aircraft to fly of them







runs for cover

[Robert Cooper]

So do we. Difference is....we use them :cool:

Bob C

[Pontius Navigator]

Well of course there will be sharing of language. Many english words are derived from french also. .


While this may be true in many cases it is apparently not true of even seeming French words.

I have it on good authority that what is wrong with the French, according to George Dubya, is that they do not have a word for entrepreneur.:}

[Gainesy]

What do the Rosbeefs that have done exchange postings with the Frogs think? Could they easily integrate? Are their procedures much different, (if at all) from NATO?

[stbd beam]

Seen many a time on French ebay:

'For Sale - my rifle. A1 condition, never used, dropped only once.'

Wouldn't trust one or all of them as far as .........

[Razor61]

They have vetoed against pretty much all of our actions in the past and then in some, joined us (Balkans) to a lesser extent.
They have helped out many countries we have been in conflict with (Okay so have we :oh: )
They refuse the US bombers to fly over their airspace making them fly from the UK around Portugal and then up the Med Sea...
They refuse to talk English on the radio and when they do talk English because they are in British airspace, they cannot be understood because they are not used to speaking it.

But, even though they are not in NATO, they still train their pilots with NATO every week with TLP and in larger exercises such as Neptune Warrior (JMC). I'm surprised they even go as far as doing FOST courses in the UK...

They have capable forces in regards to equipment but are afraid to use it. They only conduct operations with the UN of which are not offensive and so why do they need all these flashy new equipment they are buying?

[chuks]

The following has been touch-typed on a French keyboard....

I think the ideq of the French re!joining NQTO is q good one even though there ,ight be so,e prqcticql objections: Not leqst thew do see, to stick to French zhen using English ,ight be the better; sqfer option:

I q, presentlw eqring q crust qs q pilot in q ,ixed Frqncophone/English environ,ent: One is often reduced to guessing zhqt thqt other qircrqft is up to zhen he is co,,unicqting zith the Tozer in French: Self!preservqtion hqs led ,e to leqrn q bit of bqsic French but even so::::

That aside they do seem to have a fair number of completely mad bastards who should prove useful in a scrap. Why not be big about this, ignore past politics and welcome them back into NATO? Just an idea, there....

[ORAC]

The French have very effective forces and they have been, and are still being, deployed operationally. They have an extensive record of operations in various Francophone regions of Africa. They exercise frequently with NATO forces and are the lead country in major projects such as NATO ACCS.

However.

They have their own agenda. They wanted an integrated EU military force, and undoubtedly still do. I have no doubts they would insist on several of the higher ranking NATO posts and would campaign to make it a more European force and to supplant the USA as the lead nation on many projects and technology programmes.

I see no need to upset the applecart. I can see no major problems within NATO or with the current means of coordinating their forces which would require their entry, whilst I can see many potential problems subsequent to their entry.

If it ain't broke - don't fix it.

[knowitall]

"Whilst the French have butted heads with the US and other NATO countries in the past over many issues perhaps now is the time to play the big man and let then back into the military wing of NATO unconditionally."

i suspect the U.S. wouldn't object to that

but why should they accede to a list of demands, when the french aren't needed in the miltary wing of Nato?

They've asked the same question they did in 1997 and i suspect they'll get the same answer

[Green Flash]

Chuks said

That aside they do seem to have a fair number of completely mad bastards

Well, I might not say that to the Legions face, but give them a crack at Helmand for 6 months and then maybe review their application?

[Pontius Navigator]

They have capable forces in regards to equipment but are afraid to use it. They only conduct operations with the UN of which are not offensive and so why do they need all these flashy new equipment they are buying?

Actually there was a time when they had been involved in more, and more intense, conflicts since WW2 than ourselves or the Americans.

[Airborne Aircrew]

In fairness to the French, (and you have no idea how much I hate to be fair to the bastiges... :sad: ), with regard to the Exocet issue during the FI they had actually already given the Argies the training they needed and when the British Task Force were in range they began to give us data on how to evade the Exocets... So they don't get credit, but they shouldn't be castigated for it either.

When all is said and done there are three issues that need "attention".

1. The question of "why now?" needs to be satisfactorily answered. IMO, the French are not above having some kind of deal with Iran that requires them to "call off the dogs" in return for X. If they get any kind of say in NATO policy they can affect decisions that might benefit Iran. (That's just an off the wall example to make a point...).

2. Who benefits? NATO, clearly hasn't needed the French at any time to be an effective deterrent so what are the French bringing to the table today that we need? Nothing of any great import I would suggest since the need for NATO in it's classic sense is significantly reduced, (unless and until China starts rattling it's swords). Thus, it has to be the French benefiting which goes back to the "Why now?" question above.

3. Lastly, there's a considerable trust issue. We have witnessed the French on the UN security council seemingly gratuitously blocking actions that many of the NATO nations wish to take only to find out later that they were dealing, (heavily), with the "enemy". I don't trust them and many people I know don't either... and sensible people do not fight alongside a person they don't trust...

Caspian:

Please don't dismiss my arguement about french fears over their identity though.Point taken... But boy, have they dug themselves a huge hole with their immigration policies of the last twenty years... ;)

[ORAC]

Actually there was a time when they had been involved in more, and more intense, conflicts since WW2 than ourselves or the Americans.

I doubt that greatly. They might have had Algeria and Indo-China, but we had Korea, Malaysia, Kenya, Aden etc.

British Small Wars 1945-2002. (http://www.britains-smallwars.com/)

[Sammie_nl]

"why now"

If thats the question, national politics is the answer. Zakorsky, that new fellow they elected as president is quite fond of the US. I believe in first 100 days in office he spend more time in the USA then Chirac did in his 10 years in the same position. Secondly there is the new Foreign Minister, Kouchner, that supported the invasion of Iraq and wants to establish a "moral" French foreign policy in Africa. Hell, they even talked about bombing Iran to prevent them from getting nukes, I wonder why that didn't make headlines in the US.

[Caspian237]

I've just checked up on the reasons ofr France leaving NATO (or its upper command at least.) Charles De Gaulle was the leader at the time. There were two sticking points in 1958.

1. The french feared there was some kind of special relationship between the UK and the USA which was marginalizing France. (maybe they have some justification given that UK politicians have been talking about special relationships for decades.)

2. De Gaulle wanted NATOs operational boundaries to be expanded to cover French Algeria and to help France with the insurgency in that country. Of course NATO would rightly never be a tool used to keep the French Empire together.

Although the Wiki article says nothing, I would guess that the French authorities would still be sore with America over the Suez Crisis of 1956. It may also be true that these were just excuses so that France could be covered by NATO without the related expense, but who can say for sure?

Today we are not in a WWIII sitution so I don't think the French are looking for (or need) extra protection. However given that NATO and Anglo-Saxondom are involved in counter insurgency/low level conflicts perhaps it is us who need more boots on the ground? I really hope the trust can be rebuilt so that French forces do take a more active role so that we can get these wretched wars over with as quickly as possible.

As for the French trying to negotiate a larger european defense community. Well, it is often said that they only want to be a part of something if they can be the leaders. In the US and UK we don't see that the French have any god given right to be great but they are trying to reclaim a measure of their past glory. All nations have alterior motives though and even Britain's special relationship is in part motivated by the same nationalistic desire to be an important player in the world, riding the coat tails of our bigger cousin.

[Pontius Navigator]

ORAC, trust me, or at least my fading memory <g>. The figures were something like 26 to the French, 24 to us and around 20 to the US.

The 26 do not include the raid in Auckland harbour either :}

[ericferret]

I have no problem with the french rejoining NATO provided that the British government renames Londons railway stations with the exception of Waterloo.

Euston.................. Agincourt
Charing Cross..........Blenheim
St Pancras..............Talavera
Victoria..................Salamanca
Kings Cross..............Crecy

Maybe we could get the French president to attend the renaming ceremony!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Helpful Stacker]

Being an ex-RGJ can I suggest Victoria is renamed Talavera rather than St Pancras? There is a war memorial to RGJ's just around the corner from Victoria station and I believe it'd be more fitting.

[AdanaKebab]

Worked in the sandy CAOC last summer and the French were very forward leaning. Especially with AAR. Can't praise them enough for that, especially when the boys on the ground needed support.

As for fully rejoining NATO, (let's face it they are virtually all in anyway) it's not such a large step, but I doubt they will get anywhere making demands! :rolleyes:

[Airborne Aircrew]

"why now"

If thats the question, national politics is the answer. Zakorsky, that new fellow they elected as president is quite fond of the US. I believe in first 100 days in office he spend more time in the USA then Chirac did in his 10 years in the same position. Secondly there is the new Foreign Minister, Kouchner, that supported the invasion of Iraq and wants to establish a "moral" French foreign policy in Africa. Hell, they even talked about bombing Iran to prevent them from getting nukes, I wonder why that didn't make headlines in the US.

Erm... Sarkozy is his name... :rolleyes: and he doesn't have the political capital yet to make such a move unilaterally. Someone, outside his political appointments with significant clout both politically and financially would have to be behind this if it is a real request... Which I doubt. This is a "pose". He's positioning, but he knows he can't pull it off.

Sarkozy is a move for the better... Unfortunately, he is there at the whim of the electorate. If that was a predictable thing I'd be happier. As it is, his election could just be a backlash to other social ills they are facing and, if they are not addressed quickly and effectively, then he will be out on his arse and it'll be "France as usual".

As it stands, there is no compelling reason to start patting France on the back and bezzering with them right now... They have a lot of work to do...

[themightyimp]

The French. Always there when they need you. How many men have died protecting them? How many French have died protecting others. Think of Eurovision "Nil point".




A bunch of stnuc; or as Groundskeeper Willie says "'cheese-eatin' surrender monkeys!". FCUK them.

Why does the Champs-Élysées have trees either side? So the Germans can march in the shade................

[themightyimp]

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html


"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage."



I rest my case........................................................ ..................

[F34NZ]

As Adanakebab pointed out, working with the French can be an impressive experience. As for the politics, Chirac had been a politician since the early seventies (imagine Ted Heath leaving office this year) and his anti-Americanism wasn't unique; lots of European politicos are stupidly nationalistic and just as willing to screw over allies if they think it's in their interests. If France was less than successful in confronting the postwar world it's down to several factors, only one of which was institutional myopia.

The stance on Iraq was probably principled, certainly shrewd. It kept French forces out of a situation that would've inflamed French moslems and former colonies in the Maghreb, whose governments and Intelligence agencies are useful allies. If they had thought it wise to pitch in, a few thousand quality troops would have made some small difference, but those troops were elsewhere and the Elysee/Quai d'Orsay are heavy with Arabists who would've thrown a track at idiocies like the disbandment of the Iraqi army. Fundamentally we had pragmatists refusing to bow to zealots and kudos to them. What did the world gain from turning its attention from Afghanistan ?

Should they rejoin NATO ? We certainly need a united front against Russia and Iran and Sarkozy currently has the appetite and the mandate to play a hefty role, sort-of in step with Europe and the US. Time to start talking like adults and bring them back into the tent.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Should they rejoin NATO ? We certainly need a united front against Russia and Iran and Sarkozy currently has the appetite and the mandate to play a hefty role, sort-of in step with Europe and the US. Time to start talking like adults and bring them back into the tent.And when , bearing in mind, Sarkozy may be a "flash in the pan", do we start to trust them? A "united front against Russia and Iran" is about as likely as me making passionate love to Keira Knightly, nightly... at my age it won't happen... and in real life the "united front" won't happen either... The French have proven on numerous occasions to be... errr... less than our best allies... but you'll just slip up alongside and be best buddies because they said they're going to be nice now?

Good luck... Please, don't become Prime Minister soon... I'd have to take my chances with American citizenship... and it's not a route I want to take...



Having reread what I wrote I haven't changed anything I wrote initially but I'll add that it wasn't meant as a personal attack...

[GreenKnight121]

The French objection of:
1. The French feared there was some kind of special relationship between the UK and the USA which was marginalizing France. (maybe they have some justification given that UK politicians have been talking about special relationships for decades.)


Well, lets go back to the events that led up to 1966, and see:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/4105

A 1964 memorandum by Llewellyn E. Thompson reveals that France was interested in a tentative American offer of the Skipjack class nuclear-powered submarine but De Gaulle's blocking of the British application to enter the European Economic Community in January 1963 "also slammed the door on the Skipjack sale" to quote the original text.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xii/2219.htm
41. Memorandum From the Acting Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Thompson) to the President's Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy)/1/
Washington, December 29, 1964.
/1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, S/S Files: Lot 70 D 217, Bundy. Secret. Drafted by George and cleared by Kitchen.
SUBJECT
Denials of U.S. Nuclear Weapons and Delivery Vehicle Assistance to France
This memorandum has been prepared in response to your recent request for detailed information on denials under our policy of not assisting France in her nuclear weapons effort, and on French probing of that policy.
In addressing the subject of U.S.-French nuclear relationships, it is important to recall that neither General de Gaulle nor any other high-level French official has ever specifically asked for U.S. Government cooperation with France in achieving a nuclear weapons capability. This is not to say that General de Gaulle is opposed to such cooperation and would reject it if offered; it is only to say that there has been no U.S.-French dialogue at any high political level which could reasonably be termed a French request for help met with U.S. denial.


Submarines
French interest in nuclear propulsion for submarines antedates de Gaulle's return to power and stems in part from a U.S. offer of general assistance in this field made in the context of the 1957 NATO Heads of Government meeting, and thereafter repeated specifically to France. Nothing came of this, for reasons of both a policy and security nature, and the 1959 agreement under which we undertook to furnish fuel for a land-based prototype reactor was a "consolation prize" to the French, inasmuch as no U.S. technology is involved, and the French are entirely on their own in developing the reactor.
In late 1961, the French indicated to AEC Chairman Dr. Seaborg an interest in acquiring fuel for an operating submarine. Preliminary consideration was given this matter within the U.S. Government and a decision was reached in early 1962 that while it would be necessary to know more of French plans before seriously addressing the subject, it would be undesirable to engage in any detailed discussion with the French unless and until we were prepared to imply that we might be willing to supply fuel under some circumstances. This we were not willing to do, and this particular French probe was therefore turned off with a "no-response" tantamount to denial.
In 1962 an Administration spokesman indicated to the French that it might be possible to sell them a nuclear submarine of the Skipjack (hunter-killer) class, indicating at the same time that it would be necessary to secure approval of the Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. The French were definitely interested, and preliminary discussions with JCAE had been held when the de Gaulle press conference of January 14, 1963 took place,/4/ slamming the door on U.K. entry into EEC. This also slammed the door on the Skipjack sale, and in answer to a French inquiry a few months later, they were told that the events of January made it impracticable to pursue the matter.
/4/For extracts, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1963, pp. 378-380.

[Lazer-Hound]

AIUI, to be aircrew in the French military you have to be able to speak English. Also, French Navy fighter pilots do a lot of their training in the USA. France also uses a reasonable amount of US kit - E2, E3, C130, MLRS.

[Utrinque Apparatus]

I don't care, the Scotland 1-0 result still stands and if they really wan't to join NATO, charge them the last 50 years missed subscriptions:}

[normally right blank]

I doubt very much France saved money, as hinted, by leaving the "military" NATO: "Force de Frappe" (can't spell the "PC" name!) with Mirage IV's, IRBM's, SLBM's and appropriate nuclear weapons didn't come cheap. (Third largest nuclear force in the world).
By all means have good fun bashing the French and their politics.
But from personal experience nowadays the French Air Force is perfectly able to work in an English speaking NATO environment.

[doubledolphins]

Well I've worked with them on exercise and they sent all their signals in english. Some of their daily summaries were written with a fantastic sense of humour. Difficult to do in a language other than one's own. The spelling was better than mine too!

PS, they even pretended to be Septics in "Crimson Tide".


"We are here to defend democracy not practice it." (That film in case you forgot.)

[Pontius Navigator]

Great guys on the E3F too. The difference between NE3A and E3F? Just the flying suits :)

Every morning on entering the office every one shook every one elses hands.

Our biggest problem with the French is the way the politicos go hot and cold. On the ground rarely a problem.

[Pontius Navigator]

I've just checked up on the reasons ofr France leaving NATO (or its upper command at least.) Charles De Gaulle was the leader at the time. There were two sticking points in 1958.
1. The french feared there was some kind of special relationship between the UK and the USA which was marginalizing France. (maybe they have some justification given that UK politicians have been talking about special relationships for decades.)
2. De Gaulle wanted NATOs operational boundaries to be expanded to cover French Algeria and to help France with the insurgency in that country. Of course NATO would rightly never be a tool used to keep the French Empire together.
Not sure of the relevance of 1958. IIRC the withdrawal and notice to quit Fontainbleau was 1966. I was visiting SAC at the time and the French had just gone from members of the SIOP planning team to observers.
This meant that instead of sitting in and seeing which targets were being covered by whom and covering any gaps they sat in and seeing which targets were being covered by whom and covering any gaps :}
In 1970, as members of Cento, they exercised their right to deploy to a Cento base. The first we knew was when a couple of Mirage IV lobbed in followed half an hour later by two KC135F. From the ad hoc reception committee they went straight to the Officers Mess, collected their bottles and 200, refuelled and p:mad:d off.:)
About this time a Mirage IV had an engine failure and lobbed into the Naval Air Station at Lossiemouth. A Transaal with engine and engine change team arrived and the aircraft was out of Lossie before the MOD found out. They were furious. The boffins wanted a shot at crawling all over the Mirage.
Then in 1974 a team visited the facilities at RAF Wittering. Wonderful visit. Our brief was to play the 3 wise monkeys. Their brief seemed to be to show us that they knew everything we were not allowed to tell them.
Remember, this is the same team that worked on the AFVG, Martel, Jaguar etc.

[themightyimp]

France is a wonderful country. It's just the French I don't like....................

[PingDit]

Historically, we've been enemies of France for decades. Suits me fine. They've been protected by the umbrella of NATO free, for many years now and want to 'rejoin'? No way. I've been on many exercises with the French Air Force and I've liked every man without exception. Very Professional. However, politically, when crunch time comes, if it's not good for France, they won't contribute - as always. Further to that, I've still not forgiven them for the continuing supply of Exocet's DURING the Falklands conflict.
:}

On another note, I understand that the only 2 accepted languages for RT procedures are English & French?

How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?
Don't know - it's never been tried. :ouch:

[Airborne Aircrew]

I doubt very much France saved money, as hinted, by leaving the "military" NATO: "Force de Frappe" (can't spell the "PC" name!) with Mirage IV's, IRBM's, SLBM's and appropriate nuclear weapons didn't come cheap. (Third largest nuclear force in the world).Without meaning to be offensive, that's a very naive and simplistic view. Had they had to fulfill their responsibility to NATO would they have had the money for all that? Of course not!

Historically, we've been enemies of France for decades.Ermm... I've been enemies with France for decades. "We've" been enemies of France for centuries... and we shouldn't let the election of one President get in the way of that... :p

Of late it seems that the conversation revolves around the fact that they can fly and speak English at the same time... I hardly feel like that is a good basis for a new world order... Maybe it's just me... ;)

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

I read with with interest, however was it not Genaral MacArthur that once said:

"I would rather a German division in front of me, than a French one behind me"

Interesting!:hmm:

[Airborne Aircrew]

I have a simple question that I have never had a satisfactory and honest answer to:-

Who, as a nation, (other than the French), really like the French?

Not "tolerate", "do business with" or any other form of "acceptance". I mean "Like", as in "go bezzering with", "would introduce your sister to" type of like...

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

Who, as a nation, (other than the French), really like the French?


I wonder if the French, just like an insecure child may have an imaginary friend, have imaginary friendly nations....Just a thought ?

[PingDit]

Airborne Crew: Enemies for decades....
I was addressing my comments to the living....however,
They're still a bunch of mealy mouthed politicians who can't be trusted militarily, unless there's something in it for them.

[Kovy]

I thought PPruNe was a serious forum where you could discuss with other aerospace professionals.

Didn't know It was the WC of fvckfrance.com :yuk:

[Airborne Aircrew]

I wonder if the French, just like an insecure child may have an imaginary friend, have imaginary friendly nations....Just a thought ?Now that's a well thought out and perfectly presented point that I have never considered before. You're right, it's quite possible that the French _think_ they have friends, when they don't, thus making them imaginary... and, since they function at a national level they may think they have nations as friends...

Clear Right:

You, Sir, are a genius... Well done... Take two weeks leave, (if you can) :D

I thought PPruNe was a serious forum where you could discuss with other aerospace professionals.

Didn't know It was the WC of fvckfrance.comFrench huh? ;)

[Kovy]

Now that's a well thought out and perfectly presented point that I have never considered before. You're right, it's quite possible that the French _think_ they have friends, when they don't, thus making them imaginary... and, since they function at a national level they may think they have nations as friends...

Clear Right:

You, Sir, are a genius... Well done... Take two weeks leave, (if you can)


Could you quote one friend of the USA other than France ? (beware, there is a trap) :E

[ericferret]

I seem to remember that thet esteemed organ of the British tabloid press "The Sun" conducted a survey in Paris to get the French view of themselves.

The answer perhaps not surprisingly was that the French didn't actually like the French.

Worth remembering that they suffered 6,000 casualties at Gallipoli.

[Ivan Rogov]

PingDit quote-
"I've still not forgiven them for the continuing supply of Exocet's DURING the Falklands conflict"

I thought they actually helped the UK prevent anymore going south during the war?

[Report Line]

If the French did become full military members - does that mean we could shift SHAPE out of Belgium and back to Paris. What a NATO posting - brilliant!

[Pontius Navigator]

:1.4G, must be good stuff you had there last night. Enabled a well typed monolgue of scribble. What was your point?

PingDit quote-
"I've still not forgiven them for the continuing supply of Exocet's DURING the Falklands conflict"

I thought they actually helped the UK prevent anymore going south during the war?

I belive there was an incontrovertible report, from reliable jounralistic sources, that French technicians were serving with the Argentines.

OTOH it could have been disingenuous b*****t and propaganda, but jounrnalists would never get it wrong, would they?

Who, as a nation, (other than the French), really like the French?

Anyone got a mirror around?

The Finns hate the Russians, the Russians hate the Germans, the Danes hate the Germans etc etc

Only the British don't care that no one loves us. Why should they? We know they all look up on us in admiration. :)

As I recall, the Fontainebleau HQ was temporary seco huts anyway and there might have been a row over who got the new building contracts as well. Commercial interests interfering> Never.:}

[Airborne Aircrew]

Could you quote one friend of the USA other than France ? (beware, there is a trap)Being "friends" is a two way street thus, whether France like America or not is irrelevant, the Yanks can't stand the Frogs!!!

I'll put forward Taiwan as a friend of the USA, (and that took no thought whatsoever), Japan are pretty keen too... :p

As to "what the French did in the Falklands, Sir John Nott, (the defense Secretary at the time), said in his book:-

"In so many ways Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies," Sir John says. As soon as the conflict began, France made available to Britain Super-Etendard and Mirage aircraft - which it had supplied to Argentina - so Harrier pilots could train against them.

The French gave Britain information on the Exocet - which sank the Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor - showing how to tamper with it.Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F03%2F13%2Fnot13.xml)

Does that make me "all warm and fuzzy" about the French? Not at all, they knew darned well that if they didn't help us deal with the threat posed by weapons they had sold to an unstable government then they would suffer in the future in dealings in Europe. IOW, it wasn't a magnanimous gesture from the heart, they were still looking at cold, hard cash.

[Green Flash]

Could you quote one friend of the USA other than France ? (beware, there is a trap)

Tony Blair

(beware, there is a trap .....)

[Pontius Navigator]

1.4G, not bad. No exactly what was it you were on last night?:)

[Vortex what...ouch!]

France has always done what's in Frances best interests. Nothing wrong with that I hear you say. But here's the rub, they have a will screw over their so called allies each and every time they see some advantage. :ugh:


The clue is in the article, so the US will approve a pan European force. One in which they pull the strings. This is an exercise in trying to sideline the US in Europe. If you think this is anything other than an French attempt to further their agenda I have second hand Ford Escort for sale, perfect working order and only 10,000 miles on the clock. :rolleyes:


They bring nothing new to the table and are only interested in what's in it for them. Non!!!

[glad rag]

Wow, random.

[normally right blank]

A.A.that's a very naive and simplistic view. Had they had to fulfill their responsibility to NATO would they have had the money for all that? Of course not!

Maybe, but de Gaulle made it very clear where all those expensive "nukes" were pointing. (i.e. "East").
How many NATO countries "fulfilled" their obligations during those years? Denmark certainly didn't, freewheling on interesting basing options, hoping that U.S., British, Dutch and Belgian aircraft would get here in time.
...they can fly and speak English at the same time...
Somebody said the French couldn't/wouldn't. Just correcting that.

[CYPR]

I have been following this thread with some mirth especially the comments about the 'politico's'.

Here in Canada it is a continuous issue by a few provincial politicians that Quebec is a 'Nation' within or without Canada I'm not to sure. A poor waste of money; how many more years we will have to put up with this is an unknown. Just imagine what will happen if France rejoins the military wing of NATO!!!!!

Good luck.

[Exrigger]

Why now, maybe this might have something to do with it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6997935.stm

[Kovy]

Tony Blair

(beware, there is a trap .....)


i think you are confusing friend with valet.

anyway.
So much errors in this thread ...

1- About the Falklands, France helped UK as soon as the war was declared by providing very sensible data (and trainig) about the missiles and planes sold to argentina. BTW, argentina only get someting like 8 AM-39 because the deliveries and support were stop immediatly.
Besides, the Argies were also using US skyhawk+bombs to strike the british fleet.

2- about France and NATO now.

France is a member since the begining (1949) but leaved the military wing in 1966 (but has always been a full member of the political wing).

The main reasons, were that France wanted its own deterence force and a full control over its muilitary forces.

Nevertheless, French forces and NATO military wing are working very closely especially since 1995. As a consequence, a lot of french troops are deployed under NATO command.

Weather, you like it or not, today, France is the 2nd contributor to NATO forces, with more than 4000 men

Despite the fact it is not in te integreted command, France still pay 13.85% of the NATO military budget. period.

[brickhistory]

The main reasons, were that France wanted its own deterence force and a full control over its muilitary forces.

Two questions related to this statement particularly the "full control of its military forces", if I may:


1. What's changed now to alter that desire?

2. How well did you do the last time you 'had full control of your military forces?' :}

[Al R]

Caspian237 said:

By the way. I just returned home to Scotland from Paris today I took some time to visit the fantastic military museum "Les Invalides." France has a proud military history like us and I don't think it does us any justice to constantly poo poo them in the manner of a tabloid newspaper. :=

Well said. :D

If someone came out with the old 'Why do the French plant trees at the side of the road?' gag, I'd be sorely dissapointed with the quality of debate here. Surely, we've moved on a bit and the time to recognise the French military as more than shiny, pampered, over rated wine sipping dilettantes must be getting closer.

('To allow the Germans to march in the shade' by the way).

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Well it's not really about the French military as such its about the French attitude to others. They are selfish, self serving back stabbing liars. I mean how can you trust a so called civilised nation that hijack lorry loads of sheep and burn them in the middle of the road.:hmm:

[ORAC]

The reason their last attempt foundered was their insistence on having a European (read French, because of the French fleet) commander of AFSOUTH (http://www.iht.com/articles/1996/12/06/edfred.t.php), which the USA would not countenance because they would not allow anyone but an American in charge of the 6th Fleet.

Perhaps they have changed their minds, or think the Americans have, but if the same condition applies, I cannot see it progressing.

[ericferret]

I seem to remember that the Belgians one of our staunch NATO allies refused to sell us ammunition at the time of the Falklands war.

Mind you as half of the population is French that might explain it.

[Modern Elmo]

Weather, you like it or not, today, France is the 2nd contributor to NATO forces, with more than 4000 men

Doing what? How many Muslims have French forces killed lately?

[Kovy]

Weather, you like it or not, today, France is the 2nd contributor to NATO forces, with more than 4000 men

Doing what? How many Muslims have French forces killed lately?


:bored: Am i the only one here, chocked by that kind of ...stupidity
I hope not :uhoh:

[ARINC]

Would someone please delete that comment by Elmo...

[Airborne Aircrew]

Would someone please delete that comment by Elmo...

Why? One could equally well transpose the nationality and the religion and ask the same question. It's equally fair... Despite being irrelevant...

Let's look at this in a slightly different light.

You have four financial advisers that manage your money. You used to have five but one of them consistently gave you financial advice that, only half the time, benefited him more than it benefited you. In an eighth of those circumstances the advice benefited him and was detrimental to you. After a stiff talking to he withdrew as an adviser. He now wants to be one of your advisers again. Do you?

As Goldfinger said to James Bond:-

Once is happenstance,
Twice is coincidence,
Three times is an act of war.

More than once the French have benefited themselves at the cost of their "allies"...

[maxdrypower]

Ive just seen their SOP'S for deployment abroad , they want to include it in JSP'S http://aircraftgrouping.com/forum/gallery/16_20_09_07_9_14_00.jpg

[Airborne Aircrew]

Ive just seen their SOP'S for deployment abroadThey won't be for deployment to Germany then... Just for withdrawal to Britain...Hence the inclusion in our documentation... :}

[Melchett01]

Weather, you like it or not, today, France is the 2nd contributor to NATO forces, with more than 4000 men

Well, of the 35000 or so in Afghanistan, probably just over 20000 are American and the UK has just under 8000 there. Maths never was my strong point, but .........

[BEagle]

Well, at least you won't see any Frenchman kissing Bush's arse like that simpering poodle Tony somebody-or-other who was once prime minister of the UK....

Kissing eachother, perhaps....

During WW2, long before Uncle Spam joined in, some Free French pilots were serving in the RAF. At some stage, there was a parade for medals various to be presented. The Sqn Cdr knew that the visiting wheel hated the French habit of kissing on the cheek....and realised that the Frog with a twinkle in his eye about to be presented with a medal knew it as well. Powerless to intercede, the Sqn Cdr watched in horror as, having been presented with his medal, the Frenchman took a half step forward, barked out "Merci, mon General!", then grabbed the visiting wheel and kissed him firmly.....on the lips!

Churchill, when told once that he should be more friendly towards De Gaulle, is reputed to have said "I shall, if necessary, kiss him on the cheeks. All four, if needed!"

Allez la France!

[ORAC]

Well, at least you won't see any Frenchman kissing Bush's arse like that simpering poodle Tony somebody-or-other who was once prime minister of the UK....

Really? I thought that was exactly what President Sarkozy and his Foreign Secretary Bernard Kouchner were doing.......

[BEagle]

Perhaps, but no tongues.....

[ORAC]

DefenseNews: France: Debate Still Open on NATO Integration (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3063358&C=europe)

France is preparing for a possible return to the integrated military command of NATO, but discussions remain at a preliminary stage and no decision has yet been taken, a senior defense official said September 25. He was speaking after President Nicolas Sarkozy gave the clearest sign yet of French intentions, telling the New York Times of two conditions for reintegration — a boosted European Union defense body and a guarantee of senior French posts inside NATO’s top command structures.

“Without progress on these two prerequisites, there will be no reintegration. Once we make progress on these, we can talk about the opportuneness of reintegration,” Sarkozy said in an interview ahead of his visit to the UN General Assembly in New York.

“These issues have not yet been decided on,” the official said, indicating that detailed negotiations with both U.S. and British officials are now in the planning stages. A new white paper spelling out French defense thinking has also been commissioned by Sarkozy and is due in March. “The central question is finding a proper coordination between the European Union — a political and economic organization whose military arm is the common security and defense policy — and NATO, which is a military organization with an ever-greater political profile,” the official said. On the question of senior posts, these should include “divisional and headquarters command positions,” he said.

A founding member of NATO, France left the bloc’s integrated military command in 1966 when Charles de Gaulle decided to assert sovereign control over the armed forces. Since the early 1990s, there has been a gradual rapprochement and France has taken part in NATO missions, but it still cultivates an awkward semi-autonomous position inside the organization. Sarkozy’s initiative is a further sign of a reappraisal of French foreign policy since his accession in May, with a dramatic improvement of relations with the United States at its center.

Last month, Sarkozy told an annual meeting of French ambassadors that the nation wished to “resume its full place” at the heart of NATO, and Defense Minister Herve Morin two weeks ago linked the future of EU defense with French reintegration in the alliance. “My belief is that European defense will only advance if we change our political behavior inside NATO. Too often we are the ones who bicker ... as if to give the impression that we do not want NATO to change,” he said.

In his New York Times interview, Sarkozy said, “We have to stop presenting NATO as some kind of bogeyman. Regardless of NATO’s importance, Europe must be able to defend itself effectively and independently. Europe cannot be an economic power without ensuring its own security. So I would make progress on European defense a condition for moving into the integrated command, and I am asking our American friends to understand that,” he said.

Critics accuse Sarkozy of swinging uncritically into the U.S. camp, and warn that French influence in the world will be diminished if it loses an independent voice.

[ORAC]

Independent: France moves closer to rejoining Nato

France has taken a step towards rejoining the Nato military alliance with a series of proposals for closer relations between the organisation and the European Union.

In recent weeks both President Nicolas Sarkozy and his Defence Minister, Hervé Morin, have spoken about the possibility of ending four decades of French isolation from the US-dominated military command of the western alliance. In what is seen as the first concrete step in that direction, the French government has sent a document to the alliance's political headquarters in Brussels proposing four ways of sharing information and strategic thinking between Nato and the EU foreign and defence policies.

In its written proposals to Nato, Paris suggests that the EU high representative for foreign affairs should regularly brief the Nato Atlantic Council. The secretary general of Nato should also be invited to appear before EU foreign ministers. France is also calling for regular working contacts between the Nato and EU bodies which consider arms procurement. It also wants new procedures for the exchange of information between the Nato and EU crisis and disaster co-ordination agencies. France is to present its ideas to a meeting of the EU political and security committee on Friday.

All of these ideas may seem merely technical but they represent almost a U-turn from previous French hostility to EU-Nato links. It is a radical shift from the approach of President Jacques Chirac, and previous French leaders, who objected to closer links between the two Brussels-based organisations since President Charles de Gaulle abruptly pulled France out of Nato in 1966 and ejected the Nato military headquarters from French soil.

In the past decade, France, with on-off support from Britain, has sought to build an EU defence and security policy in parallel with Nato. Paris is now saying that the two organisations should work hand in hand.

De Gaulle's decision positioned France as a western-aligned, but not slavishly pro-American, nation. This has been the bedrock of French foreign policy ever since and is unlikely to change completely, even if France rejoins Nato. President Sarkozy has suggested that he will re- position French foreign policy to be neither systematically pro-American nor knee-jerk anti- American. Washington and other Nato countries, including Britain, have broadly welcomed the French moves but some suspicion remains.

Washington officials are said to fear that M. Sarkozy is trying to build up EU defence policy as a cuckoo within the Nato nest, rather than a rival outside it.

President Chirac made tentative overtures to rejoin the military wing of the alliance in 1997. These foundered because the US objected to a demand from France for a senior military command covering the Mediterranean. President Sarkozy is likely to make a similar demand.

The French military has been favourable to rejoining the military part of the western alliance for years. Army chiefs in particular say that France has suffered by its exclusion from Nato strategic thinking and the development of military command systems.