Falklands: Papers Show Rare Friction for Thatcher and Reagan

[Valmy]

What some ways?  The UK fought the war using its own resources.  More or less US support wouldn't have changed that.

Um...the fact the UK fought the war using its own resources.  That is what the Gaullists would have liked, not relying on the US.

[Admiral Yi]

Um...the fact the UK fought the war using its own resources.  That is what the Gaullists would have liked, not relying on the US.

No normal country relies on the US to fight its own wars.  The Gaullist critique is based on the belief that the US won't live up to its obligations.  Otherwise it's just a meaningless description of the state of nature.

[Valmy]

My point is the Gaullist critique is not particularly specific to de Gaulle, France, or the US.  Nobody is expected to fight other people's wars for them.  And nobody should be disappointed or surprised when they don't.

It sounds like you are a Gaullist then.  He was worried the Europeans were relying too much on the US for their defense and his critique of doing so was the that the US had our own interests and would not be in Europe forever...or might even sacrifice Europe if we felt the trade off was worth it.  Now that may not be some radical crazy thing to say but I do not see why it has to be.

[Valmy]

No normal country relies on the US to fight its own wars.  The Gaullist critique is based on the belief that the US won't live up to its obligations.  Otherwise it's just a meaningless description of the state of nature.

The Gaullist critique is based on the idea we should be relied upon to live up to our obligations so Europe should try to take care of itself.  Just because it is obvious and good sense that they should do this does not make it meaningless.  And many countries rely on the US, or others, to fight their own wars and have for centuries so I do not understand that part.

[Admiral Yi]

It sounds like you are a Gaullist then.  He was worried the Europeans were relying too much on the US for their defense and his critique of doing so was the that the US had our own interests and would not be in Europe forever...or might even sacrifice Europe if we felt the trade off was worth it.  Now that may not be some radical crazy thing to say but I do not see why it has to be.

A person concerned about the reliability of an ally does not respond by weakening the alliance that country belongs to.

The Gaullist critique was simply an extension of his resentment over being treated like the 3rd rate leader of a nonexistent army during WWII.  It was the elevation of gesture politics, of poking the bear with a stick to prove one's own worth and significance.

[Valmy]

A person concerned about the reliability of an ally does not respond by weakening the alliance that country belongs to.

The Gaullist critique was simply an extension of his resentment over being treated like the 3rd rate leader of a nonexistent army during WWII.  It was the elevation of gesture politics, of poking the bear with a stick to prove one's own worth and significance.

Heh.  Now who is being bitter?  Needless to say I disagree with your assesment.  Gaullist policies have had real positive results in how France's military capabilities have evolved, not just poking bears.  I also disagree that NATO was appreciably weakened.  In fact I think having a wild card (or...ok a wilder card) with nuclear weapons right there made the prospect of invading even more worrying to the Soviets.

And it very much fit ideas De Gaulle had always had, it was the reason he dismantled the French Empire, not just something he cooked up because he was butthurt over something.

[Admiral Yi]

Heh.  Now who is being bitter?  Needless to say I disagree with your assesment.  Gaullist policies have had real results in how France's military capabilities have evolved, not just poking bears.

I give up.  Who is being bitter?

Yes, France took its military much more seriously than the average NATO member.  But compare the size and quality of the French military with that of Germany before the collapse of the Warsaw Pact.  Germany shows that strutting and posturing are not prerequisites to military capability.

[Razgovory]

I didn't think the Germans actually used their military in the cold war, and as such their military capability was unknown.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

didn't we have a near carbon copy of this discussion re france in the Mali thread?

[Admiral Yi]

didn't we have a near carbon copy of this discussion re france in the Mali thread?

Different starting point.

Otherwise identical.

[derspiess]

I didn't think the Germans actually used their military in the cold war, and as such their military capability was unknown.

True.  But their level of training, morale, and quality of equipment was well-regarded.  IIRC up to US standards, if not higher in some areas.

[Admiral Yi]

quality of equipment

Except the Starfighters.

[derspiess]

quality of equipment

Except the Starfighters.

It did Mach 2.  What else ya want??

[Valmy]

didn't we have a near carbon copy of this discussion re france in the Mali thread?

I have yet to hear why De Gaulle, if he was reacting out of some sort of desire to prove his country's might, did he release the empire en masse?  Why did he basically risk his life to do that?  It was all part of the same nationalistic mumbo jumbo.  Empires are transient but the nation is forever and the nation must look after itself...sorta old fashioned really.  Also some mysticism about the eternal nature of nationalities and because the US had rejected Europe before they would again...blah blah.

[Maximus]

Haven't read the whole thread, so perhaps it's been brought up, but didn't the US provide supplies, fuel perhaps? to Ascension?