Falklands: Papers Show Rare Friction for Thatcher and Reagan

[Admiral Yi]

What?

If by Gaullist Critique you mean simply the observation that any country that wants to fight its own wars must maintain an independent armed force, then we have no disagreement and can close the chapter.

I assumed that you introduced the term into the discussion because you thought it had some significance.

[Valmy]

What a lovely bit of de Gaulle worship.

Indeed. Shielbh has a way to just cutting to the truth of a matter.

[garbon]

What a lovely bit of de Gaulle worship.

Indeed. Shielbh has a way to just cutting to the truth of a matter.

As usual though - I wasn't using lovely in a positive sense.

[Valmy]

As usual though - I wasn't using lovely in a positive sense.

I found it lovely though

[Sheilbh]

If by Gaullist Critique you mean simply the observation that any country that wants to fight its own wars must maintain an independent armed force, then we have no disagreement and can close the chapter.

I assumed that you introduced the term into the discussion because you thought it had some significance.

It does. Because it's not been the standard approach in post-war European policy which has been Atlanticist in defence policy and vaguely Federalist in European politics. De Gaulle rejected that and the Falklands was a moment which demonstrated the validity of his point.

If everyone had been Gaullist from 1945 then I don't think his policy would've formed a critique or been interesting, the opposite was true. He seemed like a 19th century throwback.

[garbon]

If by Gaullist Critique you mean simply the observation that any country that wants to fight its own wars must maintain an independent armed force, then we have no disagreement and can close the chapter.

I assumed that you introduced the term into the discussion because you thought it had some significance.

It does. Because it's not been the standard approach in post-war European policy which has been Atlanticist in defence policy and vaguely Federalist in European politics. De Gaulle rejected that and the Falklands was a moment which demonstrated the validity of his point.

If everyone had been Gaullist from 1945 then I don't think his policy would've formed a critique or been interesting, the opposite was true. He seemed like a 19th century throwback.

I guess the confusing piece for me - is there pressure from the US for European countries to have such stunted defense policies? I don't think American citizens are all that gung-ho about playing security guard for Europe.

[Valmy]

I guess the confusing piece for me - is there pressure from the US for European countries to have such stunted defense policies? I don't think American citizens are all that gung-ho about playing security guard for Europe.

Frankly De Gaulle had no idea what the US was about or what we wanted.  He never got us at all...and did not really show much interest actually.  So it was not in response to anything the US did so much as a statement about what France, and other Euros, should be doing.

[garbon]

I guess the confusing piece for me - is there pressure from the US for European countries to have such stunted defense policies? I don't think American citizens are all that gung-ho about playing security guard for Europe.

Frankly De Gaulle had no idea what the US was about or what we wanted.  He never got us at all...and did not really show much interest actually.  So it was not in response to anything the US did so much as a statement about what France, and other Euros, should be doing.

Umm, now that seems really odd given that Europe wasn't operating in a vacuum but rather in a space where you had two large power blocs - US v. Soviet.

[Sheilbh]

Well I mean that's far more of a post-Cold War issue. During the Cold War most European countries did have far more significant forces but they were generally designed to play a role within the NATO alliance not to operate independently.

For example in the 60s British governments considered entirely getting rid of carriers because they didn't envision going to war without their allies. The Royal Navy's part in NATO was to be a predominately anti-submarine force, it was a time of pressure on budgets and there was a view that we should solely focus on our NATO role. They ultimately decided against it.

As I say I think Yi's view is very American. It doesn't gel with the European policy choices that were made in the post-war, or the environment in which they were made.

Edit: In fact in the UK during that 60s defence review they didn't think it would be possible that the UK would enter a war without the US or the rest of NATO.

[Valmy]

Umm, now that seems really odd given that Europe wasn't operating in a vacuum but rather in a space where you had two large power blocs - US v. Soviet.

Yes indeed it was.

[garbon]

As I say I think Yi's view is very American. It doesn't gel with the European policy choices that were made in the post-war, or the environment in which they were made.

It seems very odd that European nations didn't take into account American thoughts or was the thought simply that America would show up for every conflict a European nation might find itself embroiled in? (/was America vouching at that time that it would...?)

[Jacob]

If by Gaullist Critique you mean simply the observation that any country that wants to fight its own wars must maintain an independent armed force, then we have no disagreement and can close the chapter.

I assumed that you introduced the term into the discussion because you thought it had some significance.

So basically, you agree with the Gaullist critique, as long as it's called something else?

[Admiral Yi]

So basically, you agree with the Gaullist critique, as long as it's called something else?

Yes.  I think it's a misleading term the way Shelf uses it.

[Sheilbh]

It seems very odd that European nations didn't take into account American thoughts or was the thought simply that America would show up for every conflict a European nation might find itself embroiled in? (/was America vouching at that time that it would...?)

Not really. Most European countries don't have interests outside of Europe so they assumed if there was a war they were involved in that would be a European one. The entire cornerstone of European defence policies was that America would be there. And America had spent a lot of time and money (and troops) trying to convince Europeans that they were committed for the long-term, unlike the interwar/League of Nations experience. So the official American thought was that they were entirely committed to the defence of Western European nations.

De Gaulle was a man of the inter-war years. He genuinely doubted that America would be there for Europe if it came to it. France needed an independent force to defend her interests outside of Europe and needed a nuclear force because he didn't believe America would risk the world to stop a Soviet invasion of Europe.

[Jacob]

So basically, you agree with the Gaullist critique, as long as it's called something else?

Yes.  I think it's a misleading term the way Shelf uses it.

I'm honestly surprised that it's controversial to you. I thought it was pretty widely agreed that post-war European defence and military policy was very much framed as a collective, American-led enterprise; and that that view was shared on both sides of the Atlantic. The championing of "the national interest" as separate from thing the interests of NATO and the West was not really a thing, except for deGaulle; hence the Gaullist critique.

I mean, things have changed since then, but "everyone together to support the US in taking care of everyone's interests as the West" vs "we all have our national interests" was definitely a thing for quite a while IMO.