France seeks to Rejoin NATO Military Force
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Actually there was a time when they had been involved in more, and more intense, conflicts since WW2 than ourselves or the Americans.
British Small Wars 1945-2002.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: the wrong place
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Caspian237; 14th Sep 2007 at 12:48. Reason: spelling
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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
The 26 do not include the raid in Auckland harbour either
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!!!!!!!!!!!
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!!!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Awaiting Redundancies
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
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...
Join Date: May 2007
Location: themightyimp
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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................
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................
Join Date: May 2007
Location: themightyimp
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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........................................................ ..................
"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........................................................ ..................
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: where the streets have no IEDs. Yet.
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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...
[Edit]
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...
[/Edit]
Last edited by Airborne Aircrew; 15th Sep 2007 at 01:15.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/jo...b/xii/2219.htm
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/jo...b/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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
French Military Aircrew
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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Karup, Denmark
Age: 70
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.)
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.)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
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
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.
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 15th Sep 2007 at 21:46.