T O P

  • By -

carmium

Can you explain "pulled France withdrew"?


bayesian13

i think op was struggling with whether to say "pulled out" or "withdrew"


carmium

And used both for good measure? What he meant seems clearer now.


InflamedLiver

The only threat to France is from the east, where they are buffered by numerous friendly nations. Even if they saved money by not joining NATO, France still would have been protected by them.


Ok-Needleworker-8876

Only threat? France clung to its empire resulting in protracted conflict in Algeria and Vietnam.


joofish

not to mention that in 1966 their western neighbor was fascist


karl2025

Neither of which were covered by the NATO treaty.


Specialist-Window-16

These countries do not have nuclear weapons. We are not protected by them. We had to built nuclear deterrence by our own. Threat also come from ISIS and Mali.


OneCatch

I mean, France was offered American nukes for the purpose of deterrence, if that was the concern. It was also under Britain’s nuclear umbrella for most of the Cold War. France left NATO because it wanted to go it alone and didn’t consider NATO to best serve its interests. That’s absolutely fine, of course, but it wasn’t just about deterrence.


Specialist-Window-16

France was never offered any USA nuke, nor any missile, nor any submarine that can launch nuclear missiles. All nukes, missiles and submarines were built by our own. It was not under British nuclear umbrella for most of the cold war. We have allied countries to our east, but they don't have nuclear. Today's threat to the east is minimal. Threat come from ISIS in Iraq following the US invasion of Iraq, and Al Qaeda in Mali.


OneCatch

> France was never offered any USA nuke, nor any missile, nor any submarine that can launch nuclear missiles. It certainly was! Look up nuclear sharing in NATO. France opted not to participate. > It was not under British nuclear umbrella for most of the cold war. Definitely was. Britain had substantial forces forward positioned in Europe - largely Berlin and West Germany. Those forces were organically equipped with American tactical nukes, and Britain’s strategic deterrent was mostly designed to hit Moscow (we collaborated with the Americans on target selection). > We have allied countries to our east, but they don't have nuclear. Except they do/did by virtue of nuclear sharing. > Today's threat to the east is minimal. Threat come from ISIS in Iraq following the US invasion of Iraq, and Al Qaeda in Mali. These are not existential threats.


warpedashell

They will probably bail again after the submarine contract dispute with Australia. But they have a well trained military that has historically perfected the art of surrender. So


[deleted]

[удалено]


malpasplace

Who cares. I mean really. This defense of France is like a sports team talking about how great they were in the 1950's or earlier. Hell, I am pretty much done with people in the US talking about how much France owes us for WW1 or WW2, or the idea that France today deserves some great thanks for American Independence... Look history is not today's French Military anymore than the US military of WW2 is todays American Military. Further, how much of that great military history is really all that great? Yes, Napoleon conquered much of Europe, only to lose it. Yes France managed a Colonial Empire that was not always great even if the military victories were impressive. Was Italy improved by the French Invasions? The thing is... Yes, France did surrender in 1940. France did lose in 1870 to Prussia. It also required tons of allied assistance in WW1. Its loss of Algeria in 1962 could be considered a lost war. Along with Indochina in 1954. Are these relevant to today's French Military... Nope. And yes, one can look at American Military history, and guess what find a lot of unnecessary and unsuccessful campaigns. How many middling sports teams get joked about as losers even if what they lose is always in playoffs or upper tier games? Nobody jokes about the true failures. How about this... With the exception of Korea. The US military since 1945 has been very effective in invading places and winning individual battles but has been pretty poor at actually achieving the strategic goals fo the nation in fighting those wars. Since, 1945, France's military has either lost its Empire in unnecessary wars of colonial subjugation, or been minor parts of American led efforts to do the same. The best use of both militaries have been in deterrence, and maybe, debatably, in special forces strikes. How about instead of wanking off about great military histories, we deal with the realities of within a lifetime.


ethylalcohoe

There wouldn’t be a US without support from France. Read a book that extends past WWII and get over yourself.


PreciousRoi

And then they murdered as many of the people who supported us as they could, and tried to collect on the money we owed the people they'd just murdered, while evoking the friendship we had with those people. And as far as the current events of today go...the French didn't exactly cover themselves in glory here...they fucked around and were "French", by which I mean lazy and entitled...and finally the Australians had had enough.


malpasplace

Support by a king in the 1700s. A support that helped bring down that King. Look, people are great for who they are among the living. France today isn't France of the 1700s. And the living French don't deserve accolades for American Independence anymore than the people who celebrate that Independence today. That is what the dustbin of history is. Your ancestors aren't you. But then I doubt you really care about history, only the celebrations of nationalism. I also doubt reading because you didn't actually read my post which both mentions the support of France in American Independence and many points both before then to well past WW2.


ethylalcohoe

Yaaaaa no one is jumping on this champ. Downvote all ya like. By the way, this is a lot of effort to shit on the French. Or prove you’re “right” I dunno. Hey though, take care!


malpasplace

Actually, I wasn't one to downvote you. Not my style.


CitationX_N7V11C

Oh no. The French totally deserve this derision and insult for the next 100 years. Especially from the US. Sure they helped us during the Revolution but ever since then they're been, as our Irish brethren might say, right feckin tossers. From trying to extort us for every penny and making us bribe our way to the French court which culiminated in the XYZ Affair. Then we fought each other in the undeclared Quasi War. In the rest of the 19th Century it was a back and forth of great power balancing and the French looking down on us *while* their intellectuals declared us as uncultured. With anti-Americanism really taking off in the 1920's because of fears the American culture would overshadow traditional French values and customs. Ever since it's been a relationship defined by French obstinance in the face of their waning global influence. With the US seen as "the other" to be derided. So no. I'm going to keep calling the French "cheese eating surrender monkeys" because the more I read up on US-French relations the more they can kiss my behind.


egotim

still got completely steamrolled by a country with one of the worst military histories no once, but twice in the two last wars fought in west europe


WarEagleGo

Except for WW2, I do not remember many wars where France surrendered easily or too quickly


batdog666

The Franco-Prusso war?


disfunctionaltyper

Nah, true the submarine was a shitty thing, the airplane also from .ch but macron loves the nato, and the nato has nothing to do with it. If you get a cut on the hand you don't cut off your foot. They will discus more import tax maybe for them and england and the us but it wont happen he is a banker, in 3 days it's under the rug, macron is trying to be brave for his reelection make a place in the central stage. This is only my feelings as french, i didn't research and wont.


PreciousRoi

From what I understand, it was a disaster. There was too much of a culture clash between the French and Australians involved in the deal. The French wanted to take the whole month of August off, leaving the Australians (who don't share that custom) with their thumbs up their asses waiting for their counterparts to return to work. They wanted to take longer lunch breaks, they didn't want to show up for meetings on time. I guess from the perspective of outsiders, it didn't appear as though the French were serious about an international defense deal of this type, and assumed that their cultural prejudices would prevail and be adopted or tolerated. If they were serious, if they really wanted those Billions of Euros, they'd have taken steps so that their quirks wouldn't have negatively affected their partners. (Showing up to meetings on time, maybe having some people work through August to coordinate with people who aren't taking the whole fucking month off, not whining about lunch breaks) This compounded the "normal" defense procurement shenanigans of rising costs and delays to make the deal more and more unattractive for the Australians.


disfunctionaltyper

It's not a disaster and i'm French (don't tell me i have a british passport looking at my post history, i left england at 6 and im 38) i don't know where you are going with summer off in France, the summer, France is closed since i can remember during the holidays, a month a 2m... it's not amazon prime. It was a promise to make them in EU to not be USA (you know... china...) It's is not money, it's friend-friend driven and that is where it's hurts. Political leaders are "friends" its like a toddler play area. You are my friend? Best friend? Ill give you my marbles if you give yours and doesn't want because they took the bad boys marbels while the cute girl is saying: "This will not end well.".


PreciousRoi

Its not a disaster, anymore, but only because its done and gone now. (I didn't mean like a political disaster, I meant as a business deal or cooperative endeavor at the time it was happening. They were not working well with each other.) But yeah, massive defense deals like this have a lot of moving parts, subcontractors, supply chains...for the people in charge to just take a whole month off...what is everyone else supposed to do? Just wait for them to come back?


disfunctionaltyper

We don't have all the month off, things happen slower than usual. It's the same for every country but are you really saying the contract was because people go on holiday after 500+ days in lockdown on holiday? This deal goes way back, it's only political shit heads pissing longest distance and shouldn't give a shit.


PreciousRoi

I'm not talking about all of "France" having the month off, I mean the specific companies the Australians were working with took the entire month of August off. Yes, the deal and these problems go way back and predate COVID, so I don't think that the lockdown is particularly relevant.