Falklands: Papers Show Rare Friction for Thatcher and Reagan

[derspiess]

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

If we did, we obviously weren't enthusiastic enough about it.

[Valmy]

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

If we did, we obviously weren't enthusiastic enough about it.

Eh why should we have supported the Brits?  I think the best we could have offered them was neutrality.  We are not going to forsake South America for a few islands.

[MadImmortalMan]

I guess it makes the Argie decision to occupy the islands seem slightly less insane. But not much.

[derspiess]

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

If we did, we obviously weren't enthusiastic enough about it.

Eh why should we have supported the Brits?  I think the best we could have offered them was neutrality.  We are not going to forsake South America for a few islands.

Missed my point.  I was being sarcastic.

[Sheilbh]

I guess it makes the Argie decision to occupy the islands seem slightly less insane. But not much.

I don't think the Argies were that mad. I think chances are any other post-war PM would've accepted the fait accompli. Maggie was told by most of her military advisers that an invasion wasn't feasible; the Foreign Office supported negotiation with the goal of joint sovereignty; the US and the wets in her cabinet supported a few peace plans that were presented. Given all of that I think most PMs would have tried to look for a face-saving way out of conflict.

It was Maggie's brilliant madness that led to the British response.

[Sheilbh]

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.

Germany's a bad example because they don't have overseas interests and, even if they did, they probably wouldn't respond militarily given their history.

But if you look at Germany, their entire defence policy was based on Germany playing a specific role in a NATO-led conflict. It was never meant to be capable of operating independently which is precisely what de Gaulle wanted for France and Britain needed in the Falklands. If Germany needed to take action somewhere in the post-war era she wouldn't have been able without NATO support.

Valmy is right. Your argument is more Gaullist than de Gaulle. The entire post-war West assumed they'd be fighting each other's wars and integrating their forces. For the US they will always need a military that's capable of intervening anywhere at any given time. For Europe, given our budgets, it's a choice of do we have forces to play a specific allied role or a more national force that can act anywhere. The US and most European nations always argued for more specialisation so that our forces fit together - but practically couldn't act alone. De Gaulle's policy was shown in those two famous remarks that 'men have friends, statesmen can't' and that 'there's no international reality, only national realities'.

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?

He was a nationalist, not an imperialist- his priority was to save France. It's one of those interesting contradictions of de Gaulle. Just like that he was a devout Catholic who institutionalised the secular Republic. A conservative officer from a monarchist family who made the Republican tradition right-wing. A great nationalist who withdrew from empire and helped build Europe.

[grumbler]

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.

The problem with the Gaullist Critique is that it applies as much to Britain depending on France as it does "Europe" depending on the US.  It is a simple restatement of the idea that no country can rely on another country to act against its own self-interest.  Not much of a "critique."

[Admiral Yi]

But if you look at Germany, their entire defence policy was based on Germany playing a specific role in a NATO-led conflict. It was never meant to be capable of operating independently which is precisely what de Gaulle wanted for France and Britain needed in the Falklands.

No argument so far.  Now show me how this leads to "the Gaullist critique," then how the Gaullist critique applies to the Falklands.

[Sheilbh]

No argument so far.  Now show me how this leads to "the Gaullist critique," then how the Gaullist critique applies to the Falklands.

We're not going to agree. Your view is that Gaullism is a bitter act of pique by a vainglorious man. Mine is that it was a realist policy based on nation-states, in opposition to the general internationalist and idealist mood in the west during the post-war.

[Valmy]

The problem with the Gaullist Critique is that it applies as much to Britain depending on France as it does "Europe" depending on the US.  It is a simple restatement of the idea that no country can rely on another country to act against its own self-interest.  Not much of a "critique."

Yes.  And why is that a problem with it?  Nobody said it was a complicated idea.

[Valmy]

He was a nationalist, not an imperialist- his priority was to save France. It's one of those interesting contradictions of de Gaulle. Just like that he was a devout Catholic who institutionalised the secular Republic. A conservative officer from a monarchist family who made the Republican tradition right-wing. A great nationalist who withdrew from empire and helped build Europe.

Yep.

[Admiral Yi]

We're not going to agree. Your view is that Gaullism is a bitter act of pique by a vainglorious man. Mine is that it was a realist policy based on nation-states, in opposition to the general internationalist and idealist mood in the west during the post-war.

If it was just a realist policy, why the critique in Gaullist critique?  It's not a value-free word you know.  It suggests a failing.

[Sheilbh]

If it was just a realist policy, why the critique in Gaullist critique?  It's not a value-free word you know.  It suggests a failing.

What?

[Syt]

It appears Yi is confusing critique and criticism. His reading comprehension seems weak recently.

[garbon]

He was a nationalist, not an imperialist- his priority was to save France. It's one of those interesting contradictions of de Gaulle. Just like that he was a devout Catholic who institutionalised the secular Republic. A conservative officer from a monarchist family who made the Republican tradition right-wing. A great nationalist who withdrew from empire and helped build Europe.

Yep.

What a lovely bit of de Gaulle worship.