Thatcher. :wub: :wub: :wub:
...and I'm surprised by and disappointed in Reagan. Wonder which 'advisor' he yielded to there... Nancy's psychic advisor? :rolleyes:
QuotePapers Show Rare Friction for Thatcher and Reagan
By JOHN F. BURNS
Published: December 28, 2012
LONDON — The bond between Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan, both in office in the 1980s, has become a kind of gold standard, showing what the "special relationship" between Britain and the United States can be when their leaders share a political creed.
But even though the two shared a belief in the virtues of the free market and the need to face down the Soviet Union over Afghanistan and other cold war issues, the Thatcher-Reagan embrace had its thorny passages — perhaps never more so than during the 1982 Falklands war in the South Atlantic.
Just how thorny was revealed on Friday by the publication of British government papers covering the period, under a rule that mandates the release of hitherto secret documents after 30 years. The papers, including records of the Thatcher cabinet and her occasional prickliness toward Reagan, have added spice to what was previously known about rocky patches in their relationship.
A memo written by one Thatcher aide chronicled a midnight telephone call Reagan made to Mrs. Thatcher on May 31, 1982, when British troops were closing in on Port Stanley, capital of the British-ruled Falkland Islands, off the coast of Argentina, and the site of the last undefeated Argentine garrison.
Reagan, yielding to advisers who regarded Britain's insistence on retaining sovereignty over the sparsely populated islands as a colonial anachronism, urged the prime minister to show magnanimity rather than force the invading Argentine troops to surrender, and to reach a cease-fire deal providing for a shared Argentine-British role in the islands' future and a joint American-Brazilian peacekeeping force.
"The best chance for peace was before complete Argentine humiliation," the memo recorded Reagan as saying. "As the U.K. now had the upper hand, it should strike a deal now," rather than act in a way that further hardened Argentine feelings.
But the memo said Mrs. Thatcher rejected the president's appeal for talks three times, becoming more emphatic each time. "Britain had not lost precious lives in battle and sent an enormous task force to hand over the queen's islands to a contact group," Mrs. Thatcher told him, adding a brusque reminder that Britain had been forced to "act alone, with no outside help," in recovering the islands, an oblique reference to the American refusal to be drawn directly into the conflict on the British side.
Speaking before the final toll had been tallied — 255 British and 649 Argentine military personnel dead — the prime minister "asked the president to put himself in her position," the memo said. "She was sure the president would act in the same way if Alaska had similarly been threatened." The memo said the call ended with Mrs. Thatcher saying that the only acceptable outcome was for the Argentines to agree to withdraw without negotiation, which happened a few weeks later.
British newspapers highlighted the Thatcher-Reagan exchanges in their Friday editions, with interest heightened by the fact that Mrs. Thatcher, 87, spent the Christmas holiday in a London hospital after having an operation to remove what her family described as a growth on her bladder. Though she has been increasingly frail in recent years and suffering from dementia, the family said she was recovering well.
The documents also offered new insights into Britain's fractious relationship with France, centering on Mrs. Thatcher's dyspeptic exchanges with President François Mitterrand over French-made Exocet missiles that Argentina used to sink several British naval ships during the Falklands war. At the time, British military leaders were warning that a successful Exocet strike on one of Britain's aircraft carriers could lead to defeat.
But the hardest-edged document was a diplomatic cable from Britain's ambassador in Washington at the time, Sir Nicholas Henderson, fulminating against Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Reagan's United Nations ambassador, who supported Argentina's claim to the Falklands. The cable described Ms. Kirkpatrick, a former Georgetown University professor, as "more fool than fascist" for her support of Argentina's military dictatorship, and added, "She appears to be one of America's most reliable own-goal scorers: tactless, wrong-headed, ineffective and a dubious tribute to the academic profession."
A version of this article appeared in print on December 29, 2012, on page A4 of the New York edition with the headline: Papers Show Rare Friction For Thatcher And Reagan.
She was probably visited by the Apparition of Monroe.
Yeah, Kirkpatrick was the suck.
Americans are little better than Argentinians.
Quote from: The Brain on December 29, 2012, 02:05:59 AM
Americans are little better than Argentinians.
And yet we are both magnitudes above Swedes.
I think the Reagan administration should be cut some slack, as at the time there was a fear the final liberation of Port Stanley could turn into a blood bath, both for the Argentines and civilians in the town. As it was the sudden collapse of resistance after the final three hills were captured saw a quick end to a relatively bloodless war.
Can you image the poisoning effect on both future Argentine-UK relations and those with the rest of S.A. if 2-3,000 conscripts had been killed in mopping up the large garrison.
Quote from: Caliga on December 28, 2012, 10:25:25 PM
...and I'm surprised by and disappointed in Reagan. Wonder which 'advisor' he yielded to there... Nancy's psychic advisor? :rolleyes:
There had already been a substantial investment made in the Argentinian government in both money and good faith early in the Reagan administration to support our anti-Sandinista efforts with the Contras, which just so happened to be the Administration's cornerstone for Latin American anti-Communist policy.
So let's not be too judgmental with our Anglo cocksucking, mmmkay?
Quote from: mongers on December 29, 2012, 04:21:22 PM
Can you image the poisoning effect on both future Argentine-UK relations and those with the rest of S.A. if 2-3,000 conscripts had been killed in mopping up the large garrison.
Meh, you people couldn't stop Maradona anyway.
LOL read that on the Wiki page on the invasion of the Falklands today. It's the telex between the Governor's operator and the Ministry of Defence operative in London. It's almost comically Monty Pythonish. Bet they didn't have the proper facilities to take all these Argentinians prisoner.
QuoteLON (London): HELLO THERE WHAT ARE ALL THESE RUMOURS WE HEAR THIS IS LON
FK (Falklands): WE HAVE LOTS OF NEW FRIENDS
LON: WHAT ABOUT INVASION RUMOURS
FK: THOSE ARE THE FRIENDS I WAS MEANING
LON: THEY HAVE LANDED
FK: ABSOLUTELY
LON: ARE YOU OPEN FOR TRAFFIC IE NORMAL TELEX SERVICE
FK: NO ORDERS ON THAT YET ONE MUST OBEY ORDERS
LON: WHOSE ORDERS
FK: THE NEW GOVERNORS
LON: ARGENTINA
FK: YES
LON: ARE THE ARGENTINIANS IN CONTROL
FK: YES YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH THOUSANDS OF TROOPS PLUS ENORMOUS NAVY SUPPORT WHEN YOU ARE ONLY 1600 STRONG. STAND BY.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Caliga on December 28, 2012, 10:25:25 PM
...and I'm surprised by and disappointed in Reagan. Wonder which 'advisor' he yielded to there... Nancy's psychic advisor? :rolleyes:
Haig, obviously. It was all his fault.
It's been known for a while. I've mentioned before that Thatcher's defence minister said that the best ally Britain had during the Falklands was France. In some ways it sort of proved the Gaullist critique of depending too much on the US.
In addition the British Ambassador to DC, in his memoirs, says that Kirkpatrick was pushing to effectively support the Argentines. Cap Weinberger apparently immediately promised support to the UK but said it would take a while to get there. Al Haig had to do the shuttle diplomacy but was more supportive of the UK privately.
Even after the UK had sent forces and started to fight the Argentines Reagan was pushing Thatcher to support the Brazilian peace plan. I believe they've recently released a transcript of that conversation. He doesn't get to say that much :lol:
Yeah it is not really in our interests to piss off South Americans over a few islands. Despite our emotional support of Great Britain I can see why Reagan did what he did. I hope the Argentines like us more that this came out.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 08:40:07 AM
It's been known for a while. I've mentioned before that Thatcher's defence minister said that the best ally Britain had during the Falklands was France. In some ways it sort of proved the Gaullist critique of depending too much on the US.
If people paid more attention, they'd know that. People should be more grateful to the French for losing Argentina's receipts for those Exocet shipments they were due.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 08:40:07 AM
I've mentioned before that Thatcher's defence minister said that the best ally Britain had during the Falklands was France.
Cheap rhetoric.
QuoteIn some ways it sort of proved the Gaullist critique of depending too much on the US.
What some ways? The UK fought the war using its own resources. More or less US support wouldn't have changed that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 09:08:07 AM
Cheap rhetoric.
Why do you say that?
QuoteWhat some ways? The UK fought the war using its own resources. More or less US support wouldn't have changed that.
America's a global power with global interests and we shouldn't assume that emotion alone will stop them from selling us down the river. So we need to have the resources to fight our own wars, including if the US is unhappy with that. We certainly shouldn't depend on the US (or any other power, however elaborate our alliance relations) for anything essential to sending a task force like we did to the Falklands again.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 09:23:20 AM
We certainly shouldn't depend on the US (or any other power, however elaborate our alliance relations) for anything essential to sending a task force like we did to the Falklands again.
Little late for that, don't you think? The only thing you guys left the Royal Navy to its name is the color.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2013, 09:25:38 AM
Little late for that, don't you think? The only thing you guys left the Royal Navy to its name is the color.
Don't remind me :weep: :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 09:23:20 AM
Why do you say that?
Gives you upside with France and no downside with the US,
QuoteAmerica's a global power with global interests and we shouldn't assume that emotion alone will stop them from selling us down the river. So we need to have the resources to fight our own wars, including if the US is unhappy with that. We certainly shouldn't depend on the US (or any other power, however elaborate our alliance relations) for anything essential to sending a task force like we did to the Falklands again.
The UK didn't request US military assistance in the Falklands. What you describe as selling down the river was a suggestion of a negotiated settlements, not the withdrawal of crucially needed military assets. The so-called Gaullist critique has no traction here.
They should be happy we let them use the fancy new Sidewinders. Airstrip One needs to pipe down.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 09:36:21 AM
Gives you upside with France and no downside with the US,
He said it years later when he was retired - publishing his memoir I think. Thatcher worked hard to ensure that whatever the issues (and that Reagan-Thatcher transcript show there were issues) they were kept quiet and she worked closely with Reagan on other issues.
What makes you think it may not be true?
QuoteThe UK didn't request US military assistance in the Falklands. What you describe as selling down the river was a suggestion of a negotiated settlements, not the withdrawal of crucially needed military assets. The so-called Gaullist critique has no traction here.
I think supporting joint sovereignty - and no withdrawal of Argentine troops - over the UK's territory isn't terrible supportive.
Without the ability to send a taskforce without American support (which we never would've received) the invasion would've succeeded. That's why the Gaullist critique of needing to maintain national ability to act is entirely appropriate here.
Edit: And it's worth pointing out that US support - and the last attempt by Reagan to push the Brazilian peace plan - happened after the recapture of South Georgia.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 09:49:08 AM
What makes you think it may not be true?
Real time satellite intel vs. Exocet blueprints. Which do you think mattered more?
QuoteI think supporting joint sovereignty - and no withdrawal of Argentine troops - over the UK's territory isn't terrible supportive.
"Support" is one of those words that can mean just about anything. What do you mean by it here?
QuoteWithout the ability to send a taskforce without American support (which we never would've received) the invasion would've succeeded.
wut?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 09:57:41 AM
Real time satellite intel vs. Exocet blueprints. Which do you think mattered more?
France provided considerably more than that and as I noted they provided it from the start of the invasion, not just once the UK was already engaged.
But yeah, Weinberger came through in the end and offered total support from the beginning.
Quote"Support" is one of those words that can mean just about anything. What do you mean by it here?
The general colloquial meaning. The UK's sovereign territory had just been invaded, the people who were being fought over overwhelmingly wanted to stay British and stay in a democratic country. That seems to me to be one of the rare occasions when you'd just expect your allies to line behind you in support, even if it's just rhetorical. The US couldn't precisely because she was a global power and because the US government was divided on the rights and wrongs of the issue.
For the next month the US pushed peace plans that would have, as Thatcher, rewarded aggression. Once the UK taskforce was engaged the US supported the UK far more.
Quote
wut?
If Britain didn't have the military capability to reply the Argentine invasion would've succeeded. Either they'd have won or we'd have had to accept a face-saving 'joint sovereignty' plan that did not include the withdrawal of Argentine troops.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 10:06:01 AM
If Britain didn't have the military capability to reply the Argentine invasion would've succeeded.
But it did succeed. It was the occupation that kinda failed. :P
The general colloquial meaning can be anything at all. Do you mean you would have preferred the US to come out with some tub thumping public statement a la McCain about we are all Falklanders today?
If the Gaullist critique boils down to the observation that the US is not going to fight your wars for overseas posessions for you, then the next question is: so?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 10:12:22 AM
The general colloquial meaning can be anything at all. Do you mean you would have preferred the US to come out with some tub thumping public statement a la McCain about we are all Falklanders today?
That would've been nice. I would've preferred the US not to have spent a month acting like the UN when there's a relatively clear issue of invasion.
QuoteIf the Gaullist critique boils down to the observation that the US is not going to fight your wars for overseas posessions for you, then the next question is: so?
So don't depend on the US too much. You need to be able to fight your own wars. There may even be times when your interests collide and you need to be able to act despite US oppositions (short of military opposition, obviously).
More broadly I think the Gaullist critique is therefore a bit cynical about alliances, whether it's NATO or Europe.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 10:26:00 AM
So don't depend on the US too much. You need to be able to fight your own wars. There may even be times when your interests collide and you need to be able to act despite US oppositions (short of military opposition, obviously).
More broadly I think the Gaullist critique is therefore a bit cynical about alliances, whether it's NATO or Europe.
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.
But that seems to go against the post-war history of alliance building, of the UN and the whole idea of the 'international community'. Various countries do expect other countries to fight their wars for them, or to support them in some way (see Rummy) and when they don't it's a problem.
From the perspective of a medium sized country like the UK or France that means always maintaining the capability to act independently, even if that makes you a less useful member of a wider alliance. In terms of NATO for example most European countries adapted their armed forces to do a specific job within the alliance. If they each insisted on maintaining forces that could act alone then the alliance strategy would be less effective because you'd have lots of miniature militaries rather than parts that can naturally slot together.
That's less true now because NATO's changing and isn't about fighting the Soviets anymore. But I still think it's a useful perspective for Euro-countries like the UK or France especially at a time of austerity. Do we choose to specialise in what we're very good at in a broader international context (eg. special forces) or should we risk specialisation for being able to operate independently?
The counter-point to the Gaullist perspective seems that alliances have failed rarely in the post-war world. Generally we have all fought together, so maybe it's more useful being a handy specialist than an irritating generalist.
Wait, were sat images streamed real time in 1980? I thought they still sent film down by capsules.
If you're talking about obligations under the UN charter to come to aid of any country that is invaded, then again that's a criticism that should be leveled against all signatories, not just the US. Nothing to do with the Gaullist critique.
Executive summary: the Gaullist critique as it relates to the Falklands is rubbished. Your preference for a less equivocal statement of condemnation of Argentina's invasion is noted and not dismissed, though as you yourself mentioned, explained by the US' global commitments and interests. Your previous statement about the US selling the UK down the river is judged a clear case of over egging the pudding.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 09:08:07 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2013, 11:08:35 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 10:32:10 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 11:11:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2013, 11:14:45 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 11:27:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2013, 11:45:43 AM
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.
I didn't think the Germans actually used their military in the cold war, and as such their military capability was unknown.
didn't we have a near carbon copy of this discussion re france in the Mali thread?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 02, 2013, 12:21:19 PM
didn't we have a near carbon copy of this discussion re france in the Mali thread?
Different starting point. :contract:
Otherwise identical.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 02, 2013, 11:55:35 AM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2013, 01:56:18 PM
quality of equipment
Except the Starfighters. :bleeding:
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 02, 2013, 12:21:19 PM
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.
Haven't read the whole thread, so perhaps it's been brought up, but didn't the US provide supplies, fuel perhaps? to Ascension?
Quote from: Maximus on April 02, 2013, 02:31:54 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2013, 02:39:18 PM
Quote from: Maximus on April 02, 2013, 02:31:54 PM
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.
I guess it makes the Argie decision to occupy the islands seem slightly less insane. But not much.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2013, 02:43:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2013, 02:39:18 PM
Quote from: Maximus on April 02, 2013, 02:31:54 PM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 02, 2013, 02:53:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 11:49:54 AM
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'.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2013, 11:16:35 AM
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."
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 03:37:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 03:44:09 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on April 02, 2013, 03:43:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 03:50:55 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 03:50:55 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 03:54:59 PM
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? :blink:
It appears Yi is confusing critique and criticism. His reading comprehension seems weak recently.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2013, 03:53:39 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 03:50:55 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 03:59:56 PM
What? :blink:
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.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:03:25 PM
What a lovely bit of de Gaulle worship.
Indeed. Shielbh has a way to just cutting to the truth of a matter.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2013, 04:15:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:03:25 PM
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. -_-
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:16:19 PM
As usual though - I wasn't using lovely in a positive sense. -_-
I found it lovely though :wub:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 04:15:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 04:26:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 04:15:04 PM
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. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:28:39 PM
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. :lol:
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.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2013, 04:32:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:28:39 PM
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. :lol:
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.
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.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:36:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 04:38:45 PM
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...?)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 04:15:04 PMIf 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?
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2013, 04:44:35 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:43:45 PMIt 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 04:48:03 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2013, 04:44:35 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 04:51:58 PM
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.
Not an unrealistic theory; he just happened to arrive at it several years before the Americans actually did. :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2013, 05:11:01 PM
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.
I said misleading, not controversial.
Misleading in my because it's easy to confuse if for the Gaullist belief that the US could not be counted to defend Europe against Soviet invasion (or to defend France against German invasion!). Syt's cruel and baseless post aside, critique does usually carry a negative connotation.
Also misleading because France's did more than merely maintain a couple battalions of Legionaires and a few cargo planes to intervene in post-colonial conflicts; they also removed the French military from the NATO command structure and kicked NATO troops out of French soil.
I said in some ways it sort of proved the Gaullist critique. It didn't demonstrate a need to withdraw from the NATO command structure, but it did demonstrate the need to keep forces capable of independent action because the US won't always have the same interests as a medium European country.
QuoteSyt's cruel and baseless post aside, critique does usually carry a negative connotation.
Nonsense. A critique is an analysis, perhaps with a subjective negative perspective. So you can talk about the Marxist critique and the Catholic critique of a film. That doesn't mean there's something bad about it, or that either's right. You're describing the analysis based on that perspective.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 07:46:28 PM
Nonsense. A critique is an analysis, perhaps with a subjective negative perspective. So you can talk about the Marxist critique and the Catholic critique of a film. That doesn't mean there's something bad about it, or that either's right. You're describing the analysis based on that perspective.
You're all over the place here Shelf.
Please tell me you're not using the Marxist critique as a value-free, nonjudgemental analysis.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 07:52:22 PMPlease tell me you're not using the Marxist critique as a value-free, nonjudgemental analysis.
What? :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 07:53:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 07:52:22 PMPlease tell me you're not using the Marxist critique as a value-free, nonjudgemental analysis.
What? :mellow:
You claim that the word "critique" does not carry a negative connotation. The Marxist critique is offered as an example. Yet the Marxist critique of capitalism is not that it's an OK thing. In fact it's very negative about capitalism. If fact most Marxists critiques of anything are negative.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 08:22:44 PM
The Marxist critique is offered as an example. Yet the Marxist critique of capitalism is not that it's an OK thing. In fact it's very negative about capitalism. If fact most Marxists critiques of anything are negative.
That's all well and good, but he was talking about film critiques.
I said it perhaps carries a subjective negative connotation. A Marxist critique of capitalism is going to be negative, but a Marxist critique of the Battleship Potemkin may be broadly positive. It's an analysis grounded in Marxism.
Outside of some science I don't think there's such a thing as a value-free, nonjudgemental analysis in those terms. It's normally always grounded in some theory or some ideological perspective. I don't think there's a neutral analysis on most things - certainly not capitalism or Eisenstein.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 08:22:44 PMYou claim that the word "critique" does not carry a negative connotation. The Marxist critique is offered as an example. Yet the Marxist critique of capitalism is not that it's an OK thing. In fact it's very negative about capitalism. If fact most Marxists critiques of anything are negative.
That's basically incorrect.
Marxists :rolleyes:
Whaddya know, today was April 2nd, the day of the invasion.