France Invades Mali

[Ed Anger]

I never cared for French troops in NATO-Warsaw Pact war games. Their divisions were weak, being brigade sized, and by the time you got to play with them the Soviets were getting into the Frankfurt area. Yay! I get reinforcements! Boo! It is too late. 

[Razgovory]

It's not like Britain was much better on this issue.  Nobody was certain how to deal with the French governments.  Fortunately Darlan was murdered, and the Nazis took over Vichy controlled France which clarified the issue quite a bit.  That's one thing you got to give the Germans Credit for, they were good at making politics simpler for their enemies.

Britain was better. The UK always supported de Gaulle and the Free French despite occasional () fights. We helped fund them too. Churchill never tried to 'deal' with another leader however emotional his relationship with de Gaulle got.

It's not just Darlan. The US pushed Giraud who was less of a collaborationist but also less of a leader. That the French resistance in France acknowledged only de Gaulle as their leader helped clarify issues too. I mean right up until the end Roosevelt wanted to deal with other French leaders. Like the resistance Ike told de Gaulle that as far as he was concerned he was the leader of the French and would always treat him as such, regardless of Roosevelt.

That's untrue.  Churchill tried to deal with the French government after the armistice, in particular he requested they move their fleet to Britain.  When they refused he order the fleet sunk and the French severed relations with him. I believe Britain kept a backdoor with Vichy through Canada.  Giraud was engaged in Casablanca conference with Churchill.  That sounds like "dealing" to me.

[PDH]

I never cared for French troops in NATO-Warsaw Pact war games. Their divisions were weak, being brigade sized, and by the time you got to play with them the Soviets were getting into the Frankfurt area. Yay! I get reinforcements! Boo! It is too late. 

In Victory Games Nato, the French armor just all stacked up into a nice stack and took the line somewhere in the center.

edit - maybe that was the Third World War games...

[Sheilbh]

That's untrue.  Churchill tried to deal with the French government after the armistice, in particular he requested they move their fleet to Britain.  When they refused he order the fleet sunk and the French severed relations with him.

That was a matter of weeks after the armistice, during which time de Gaulle was already in London and recording - though you're right there was some initial ambivalence, the first appeal was delayed while the British tried to get the French fleet. De Gaulle supported the British position on Mesr el-Kebir. But as I say we're talking weeks after which British support for de Gaulle was constant - Roosevelt was equally constant in undermining de Gaulle.

Giraud was engaged in Casablanca conference with Churchill.  That sounds like "dealing" to me.

By that measure de Gaulle was dealing with Giraud. All of that was organised by and for Roosevelt. One of Churchill's biggest rows with de Gaulle was trying to convince him to meet Giraud, in front of Roosevelt and Churchill, to please FDR. FDR also insisted that Giraud was appointed as a joint President of the Free French with de Gaulle. The British never pushed that and only dealt with de Gaulle, who was successful in building up his own power and isolating Giraud so that within a year even FDR had to admit that he wasn't really a co-President.

De Gaulle and the British acquiesced to FDR on Giraud because he had the money and the troops and they both viewed it as a tactical withdrawal.

[Razgovory]

What was the burden of subordinating yourself to NATO command?

You gonna answer that one?

It's pretty obvious, Raz.  If you don't subordinate yourself to NATO command, you have a lot more freedom in how you run your armed forces.

So you have to do everything yourself?  That seems more burdensome not less.  Besides, NATO wasn't the Warsaw Pact.  Every member ran it's own military.  As the French built their own nuclear force instead of being content to sit under the American nuclear umbrella it seems like they were taking on more of a burden not less.

[Sheilbh]

So you have to do everything yourself?  That seems more burdensome not less.  Besides, NATO wasn't the Warsaw Pact.  Every member ran it's own military.  As the French built their own nuclear force instead of being content to sit under the American nuclear umbrella it seems like they were taking on more of a burden not less.

Every member ran its own military but they all served purposes within the NATO structure. So each country sort-of specialised to some extent, to fulfil their role within NATO. Which was part of what de Gaulle objected to, he believed a French government should be able to devise their own defence policy and build an armed forces for their own needs rather than as part of a greater whole.

[Ed Anger]

I never cared for French troops in NATO-Warsaw Pact war games. Their divisions were weak, being brigade sized, and by the time you got to play with them the Soviets were getting into the Frankfurt area. Yay! I get reinforcements! Boo! It is too late. 

In Victory Games Nato, the French armor just all stacked up into a nice stack and took the line somewhere in the center.

edit - maybe that was the Third World War games...

they have all merged in my mind also. 

[derspiess]

So you have to do everything yourself?  That seems more burdensome not less. 

I don't see flexibility & independence as a burden, but I think that speaks to some deep differences between you & me.

[Eddie Teach]

And France is a country that pulls its own weight and you all are bitching about it.

I'd like to direct your attention to the poll results at the top of the thread.

[mongers]

Back on topic, I get the impression political preparations are under-way for British boots on the ground.

Perhaps it'll only be special forces a la pink panthers, but if that happens, it'll be alluded to, rather than not comment on, so we can be seen to be doing out bit and in response to/retaliation for the attack on the Algerian gas field.

[Ed Anger]

I want some hot 10th SFG action.

[Razgovory]

So you have to do everything yourself?  That seems more burdensome not less. 

I don't see flexibility & independence as a burden, but I think that speaks to some deep differences between you & me.

Except when it's an illusion and you have to pay money to maintain that illusion.  But paying money for illusions is sort of conservative thing isn't it?

[CountDeMoney]

I never cared for French troops in NATO-Warsaw Pact war games. Their divisions were weak, being brigade sized, and by the time you got to play with them the Soviets were getting into the Frankfurt area. Yay! I get reinforcements! Boo! It is too late. 

In Victory Games Nato, the French armor just all stacked up into a nice stack and took the line somewhere in the center.

edit - maybe that was the Third World War games...

they have all merged in my mind also. 

No stacking issues with French units in VG's NATO;  their entry is simply variable and staggered by turn.

 

[Ed Anger]

I'm 41 damn years old. I can barely remember which pony my kids like.

[Admiral Yi]

I wasn't talking about a hypothetical. I'm asking what damage de Gaulle's withdrawal from the NATO command structure actually did.

There was very detailed agreements to reintegrate France within a single command structure in the event of hostilities. The French didn't withdraw a single troop from their zone of Germany. They also developed an independent nuclear force that, by necessity, was based on a different policy than that of the US and one that I think was actually an extra useful deterrent on the Russians.

You said it was the opposite of pulling their weight. So how was it the opposite of pulling their weight. I think, like Gaullists, you're placing too much emphasis on the symbolic here.

I think I've said I all I can usefully say on the topic.

Now how about you elaborate on how we get pissed off *when* they pull their weight.