# Why France?



## silence (Nov 16, 2013)

No offense to France, but why was France included as a fourth power in post-WW2 Europe? Why not Poland? Or Norway? Or Australia?


----------



## meatloaf109 (Nov 16, 2013)

Payment for services rendered in our Revolutionary war perhaps?


----------



## pattle (Nov 16, 2013)

The reason you hear the most frequently is because Winston convinced Roosevelt that including France would mean that the USSR would only get a quarter of Germany rather than a third, I understand Winston used the excuse that France should be included as a fourth power because it was with Britain in 1939 when war was declared. FDR was a shrewd bloke and he liked the idea.


----------



## davebender (Nov 16, 2013)

Poland was part of the Soviet Empire.
Australia was part of the British Empire.
Norway wasn't a major participant in WWII.

Who does that leave as a major participant fighting on the Allied side but not part of Soviet or British Empire?


----------



## meatloaf109 (Nov 16, 2013)

meatloaf109 said:


> Payment for services rendered in our Revolutionary war perhaps?



Actually, Charles de Gaulle was set up to be a "Useful Idiot" (My apologies to our French friends) in American policy. He turned out to be an "Infant terrible" in practice. Major screw-up in FDR's ideal post-war world. He caused no end of problems for American foreign policy. Why we ended up in Viet-Nam is another part of it.


----------



## silence (Nov 16, 2013)

davebender said:


> Poland was part of the Soviet Empire.
> Australia was part of the British Empire.
> Norway wasn't a major participant in WWII.
> 
> Who does that leave as a major participant fighting on the Allied side but not part of Soviet or British Empire?



I'd say France did about as much as Norway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## silence (Nov 16, 2013)

pattle said:


> The reason you hear the most frequently is because Winston convinced Roosevelt that including France would mean that the USSR would only get a quarter of Germany rather than a third, I understand Winston used the excuse that France should be included as a fourth power because it was with Britain in 1939 when war was declared. FDR was a shrewd bloke and he liked the idea.



Sounds reasonable; I'll buy it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2013)

silence said:


> I'd say France did about as much as Norway.


French pilots flew with the VVS and the RAF with distinction and it might be noted that the French resistance was a major thorn in the German's side, tying up a huge amount of manpower and resources.


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2013)

silence said:


> I'd say France did about as much as Norway.



Oh come on !

Every nation did what it could and I would be the last to demean Norway's gallant contribution to the allied effort but there were 1.3 million Free French men fighting the allied cause at the end of the war. They made up the fourth largest allied army fighting in Europe and were therefore, for reasons political_ and military_, recognised as the fourth allied occupying power after the war.
The entire population of Norway in 1940 was around 3 million.

You may love or hate Charles de Gaulle, he was a difficult man to like, but even as an Englishman I have to respect him and what he did for France in her difficult times.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pattle (Nov 17, 2013)

Yes I think that both Winston and Charley had the defiant attitude that was needed at the time, of course both could be irrational at times and both made mistakes. You have to remember that Churchill was never a fan of Communist Russia and was already planning against trouble with them before Germany was defeated.


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 17, 2013)

davebender said:


> Poland was part of the Soviet Empire.
> Australia was part of the British Empire.
> Norway wasn't a major participant in WWII.
> 
> Who does that leave as a major participant fighting on the Allied side but not part of Soviet or British Empire?



Liechtenstein dammit!


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 17, 2013)

pattle said:


> You have to remember that Churchill was never a fan of Communist Russia and was already planning against trouble with them before Germany was defeated.



Yeah, so they "gave" the Soviets the Rolls-Royce Nene.


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2013)

davebender said:


> Australia was part of the British Empire.



You might get a few Aussies going on the technicalities of that 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2013)

gjs238 said:


> Yeah, so they "gave" the Soviets the Rolls-Royce Nene.



No they didn't. This is an often quoted myth. Rolls Royce were given permission to SELL the engines to the USSR at a time when the UK desperately needed foreign currency. It prompted questions in the House of Commons.

From Hansard (official record of parliamentary proceedings) 22nd November 1948.

Mr. Donner asked the Minister of Supply when the decision to sell the Rolls Royce Nene jet engine to the U.S.S.R. was taken; how many such engines have been sold to the U.S.S.R. and, separately, to Czechoslovakia or any other country under Soviet influence; at what price they were sold; and whether it is intended to make any further deliveries to these countries."

There then followed a typically pedantic point of order. Following the speaker's ruling the following exchanges took place.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss) 
Messrs. Rolls Royce were given permission in September, 1946, to sell 10 Nene engines to Russia and in March, 1947, to sell a further 15. None has been sold to Czechoslovakia or to any other country which could be described as under Soviet influence. No further sales are contemplated. The selling price of the engines was fixed under a commercial contract. [details of which the Minister is not obliged to reveal to parliament] 

Mr. Donner 
But does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the sale of this particular engine to Russia saved that country years of research; and how does he justify that sale? 

Mr. Strauss 
As the hon. Member is probably aware, none of these engines was on the secret list. 

Sir Waldron Smithers 
In view of the rising tide of Communism, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that no more munitions of war of any kind will be sold, but all will be kept for defence purposes? Will he give that undertaking? 

Mr. Strauss 
That is a very broad question. As I said in reply to the Question put down, no further sales of this engine are contemplated. 

Sir W. Smithers 
I asked about all munitions of war. 

Mr. Edgar Granville 
Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that these engines were not on the secret list at the time of the sale? 

Mr. Strauss 
Yes, Sir. 

Commander Noble asked the Minister of Supply how many British jet engines have been supplied to the U.S.S.R.; and in which years. 

Mr. G. R. Strauss 
Fifty-five jet engines were supplied to the U.S.S.R. during 1947. 

Commander Noble 
Can the Minister say, in view of his statement that no further sales are contemplated the reason for this change of policy? 

Mr. Strauss 
One of the reasons is that we have not completed our inquiries. 

Mr. Blackburn 
Will my right hon. Friend make it quite plain that, so long as the present cold war continues, we have no intention whatsoever of supplying any kind of warlike materials either to the Soviet Union or to any of her satellites? 

Mr. Speaker 
This Question asks how many engines have been supplied, not about the cold war. 

This is why open democracies keep open records. At least they can refute the BS that is spread like a liberal layer of fertiliser through sources like Wikipedia 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## renegate326 (Nov 17, 2013)

gjs238 said:


> Yeah, so they "gave" the Soviets the Rolls-Royce Nene.



This was probably the worst backstabbing of an ally in last century ,an ally who saved and feeded you throughout your darkest days and when it was over saved you from starvation by granting you a huge loan when no one else was available .. Helping the mortal enemy STALIN to build jet engines so that MIG-15's could attack US bombers and kill scores of Americans in Korea ! The US took revenge years later in Suez which also had an impact on France of course . Just a thought !


----------



## renegate326 (Nov 17, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> French pilots flew with the VVS and the RAF with distinction and it might be noted that the French resistance was a major thorn in the German's side, tying up a huge amount of manpower and resources.



Comparing France with Norway is just ridiculous ...Take a look at German losses in the battle of France ! and of course the damage inflicted on Germans by the resistance.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 17, 2013)

"....the worst backstabbing of an ally in last century ..."

Really .... I didn't know that .... until you pointed it out. Until then I thought it was de Gaulle kicking the Americans and NATO out of France ... followed closely by the Soviets failure to return B-29 bombers that came down in the USSR on missions to Japan.

And of course the Soviets didn't have any spies in Great Britain that could steal the plans for the Nene did they ....?

I feel your pain about this betrayal, renegade326 ..


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2013)

renegate326 said:


> This was probably the worst backstabbing of an ally in last century



Don't be ridiculous. It was a commercial deal with a nation who had been a wartime ally and had made a major contribution to an allied victory in Europe, including incidentally the liberation of France.

Even with a year or so of hind sight it doesn't look like a very smart thing to have done as evidenced by those exchanges in parliament.

A review of the US reaction to the British decision to sell the world's first commercial jet airliner in Eastern Europe might serve as an education. Comet didn't turn out too well in the end anyway!
The US reaction to the world's first supersonic airliner? The US reaction to TSR2 ?

Commercial considerations and airy fairy notions about special relationships and allies don't mix very well. That's the real world for you.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 17, 2013)

renegate326 said:


> This was probably the worst backstabbing of an ally in last century ,an ally who saved and feeded you throughout your darkest days and when it was over saved you from starvation by granting you a huge loan when no one else was available .. Helping the mortal enemy STALIN to build jet engines so that MIG-15's could attack US bombers and kill scores of Americans in Korea ! The US took revenge years later in Suez which also had an impact on France of course . Just a thought !



Really?

What is your agenda here?


----------



## Njaco (Nov 17, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Really?
> 
> What is your agenda here?



That France is the savior of the last 200 years and he is here to prove it! The US and UK pretend to have saved modern civilization but he is here to offer proof that France is the true savior of the Anglo world.

oh and the Spitfire was worse than the Brewster Buffalo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renegate326 (Nov 17, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Really?
> 
> What is your agenda here?



Agenda ? what do you mean?


----------



## renegate326 (Nov 17, 2013)

stona said:


> Don't be ridiculous. It was a commercial deal with a nation who had been a wartime ally and had made a major contribution to an allied victory in Europe, including incidentally the liberation of France.
> 
> Even with a year or so of hind sight it doesn't look like a very smart thing to have done as evidenced by those exchanges in parliament.
> 
> ...



Yes major ally in the war but mortal enemy few years later . The US was against Britains selling the Comet to East Europe because they feared the western technology might be copied and used for building military aircraft and they were right. The Brits however wouldn't listen but the problem was solved when Comets started to fall from sky. The US reaction to TSR-2 ?? what do you mean ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 17, 2013)

renegate326 said:


> Yes major ally in the war but mortal enemy few years later . The US was against Britains selling the Comet to East Europe because they feared the western technology might be copied and used for building military aircraft and they were right. The Brits however wouldn't listen but the problem was solved when Comets started to fall from sky. The US reaction to TSR-2 ?? what do you mean ?



I think more of a backstabbing was France leaving NATO and kicking out her allied friends at the heart of the cold war.


----------



## renegate326 (Nov 17, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> "....the worst backstabbing of an ally in last century ..."
> 
> Really .... I didn't know that .... until you pointed it out. Until then I thought it was de Gaulle kicking the Americans and NATO out of France ... followed closely by the Soviets failure to return B-29 bombers that came down in the USSR on missions to Japan.
> 
> ...



Well one has nothing to do with the other really..First, the withdrawal of France from NATO's central command came as no surprise to anyone ,it was ecpected years before 1966. De Gaulle wanted full independence in foreign and defence policy especially the command over nuclear weapons. France was the only country in Nato with nuclear strike capability with silo based IRBM's ( S2 and S3 ) and they all were aimed at targets in USSR ! so in the end, NATO was not weakened by this move ,on the contarary the organization became a cohesive unit under American leadership without these so called trouble making French . De Gaulles policy had one huge impact on France for which the people are still grateful . France is the only country in the western hemisphere capable of designing and developing its own weapon systems without depending on foreign sources or technology . It cost lot of money yes but the majority of people think,including socialists,it was worth !


----------



## renegate326 (Nov 17, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think more of a backstabbing was France leaving NATO and kicking out her allied friends at the heart of the cold war.



Not as simple as you put ..Americans ,the Johnson administration were delighted to see France leaving NATO so that they could impose their view and policy freely without opposition .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 17, 2013)

renegate326 said:


> Not as simple as you put ..Americans ,the Johnson administration were delighted to see France leaving NATO so that they could impose their view and policy freely without opposition .



Not simple as I put it? One could say the same thing about all your posts you have posted here so far.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 17, 2013)

renegate326 said:


> France is the only country in the western hemisphere capable of designing and developing its own weapon systems without depending on foreign sources or technology .


I'm sure the British, Germans and a few other nations would seriously disagree with that.



renegate326 said:


> Not as simple as you put ..Americans ,the Johnson administration were delighted to see France leaving NATO so that they could impose their view and policy freely without opposition .


Right, Americans have the rest of the world ground under their heel.

The whole idea of having France as a partner in NATO was to have a cohesive and unified approach to countering any Soviet or Warsaw-Pact move of aggression instead of trying to figure out who was going to do what in the event of a crisis.

That is basically called "being on the same page".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 17, 2013)

"...France is the only country in the western hemisphere capable of designing and developing its own weapon systems without depending on foreign sources or technology . It cost lot of money yes but the majority of people think,including socialists,it was worth !..."

Just what the world needs, eh, _another_ fuxxing _arms dealer_ ... with cultural pretensions ...  .... vive Le Francophoni ..!


----------



## silence (Nov 17, 2013)

Njaco said:


> That France is the savior of the last 200 years and he is here to prove it! The US and UK pretend to have saved modern civilization but he is here to offer proof that France is the true savior of the Anglo world.



My brother tells me that this is pretty much the theme of the Musée de L'armée in Paris. He was barely able to keep from laughing out loud.


----------



## silence (Nov 17, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...France is the only country in the western hemisphere capable of designing and developing its own weapon systems without depending on foreign sources or technology . It cost lot of money yes but the majority of people think,including socialists,it was worth !..."



I thought it was because nobody wanted to work with them.


----------



## silence (Nov 17, 2013)

Didn't the USAF loose a bomber or two as a result of crew fatigue brought on by not being allowed to fly over France on their way to strike Qadaffi?


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 17, 2013)

silence said:


> Didn't the USAF loose a bomber or two as a result of crew fatigue brought on by not being allowed to fly over France on their way to strike Qadaffi?


 
One F-111 with 2 men was lost. France, Spain, and Italy permitted no overflights, plus no continential European country would allow the aircraft to take off from any NATO bases on their soil. But you can put all the blame for our loses on France if you want.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 17, 2013)

I'm sitting here having dinner mulling over the earlier comment about native French technology and then I remembered that the jet engines of the Mirage fighter were developed from the WWII era BMW003.

Oops!


----------



## Njaco (Nov 17, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> I'm sitting here having dinner mulling over the earlier comment about native French technology and then I remembered that the jet engines of the Mirage fighter were developed from the WWII era BMW003.
> 
> Oops!



Yup, the Burgundy Motor Works.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## silence (Nov 17, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> One F-111 with 2 men was lost. France, Spain, and Italy permitted no overflights, plus no continential European country would allow the aircraft to take off from any NATO bases on their soil. But you can put all the blame for our loses on France if you want.



Shoulda painted a big FU on the underside and done it anyway.


----------



## stona (Nov 18, 2013)

There is an apocryphal story that when France withdrew from NATO De Gaulle asked that all US Troops leave French territory as soon as possible. 

Secretary of State Dean Rusk supposedly asked _"Does that include the thousands we have buried here?"_

If De Gaulle replied we don't know what he said.

It may not really have happened but it certainly illustrates a point.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## pattle (Nov 18, 2013)

stona said:


> There is an apocryphal story that when France withdrew from NATO De Gaulle asked that all US Troops leave French territory as soon as possible.
> 
> Secretary of State Dean Rusk supposedly asked _"Does that include the thousands we have buried here?"_
> 
> ...



This was a question that just had to be asked.

I remember drinking with a crowd of Germans in Greece some years ago, the British were pretty unpopular at this time because of the post 9-11 invasion of Iraq and the Germans asked me if I agreed with the invasion? I told them no but asked that if one of your friends were to get in a fight wouldn't you still stick up for them even if you were sure they were in the wrong? They agreed that they would and took the point.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 18, 2013)

"..."Does that include the thousands we have buried here?"

In fairness to the French people ...they have done an honorable, faithful, steadfast job of caring for our Canadian dead from 2 WWs ... and we thank them.

Lately, there's been rumors of a little love-making at our Vimy Ridge memorial .... but I can forgive almost anything for _love ._..  

MM


----------



## pbehn (Nov 18, 2013)

France was included because of the threat of Soviet Russia, having a seat at the table gives another vote in the Security council.

The French used to annoy me no end, always saying the British were (are) bad Europeans, we have too many of our young men buried there to warrant that description. In my experience the French despise the Americans British and Germans for WWII and in that order. The USA most for their post war hegemony, the British because after 1000 yrs of conflict they needed our help and the Germans last because they actually occupied France.


----------



## stona (Nov 18, 2013)

pbehn said:


> The French used to annoy me no end, always saying the British were (are) bad Europeans, we have too many of our young men buried there to warrant that description.



I'm not sure that we are very good Europeans. We've never really signed up 100% to the Franco-German project that is the EU. Oddly now the Germans don't want us to leave because of the French and the US doesn't want us to leave......because of the French.

It's a funny old world 

Steve


----------



## renegate326 (Nov 18, 2013)

silence said:


> Didn't the USAF loose a bomber or two as a result of crew fatigue brought on by not being allowed to fly over France on their way to strike Qadaffi?



Yes ,but the US never informs its allies before it takes such actions , suddenly a squadron of F-111's would like to enter the French airspace to bomb Libya .
The French must have asked where the hell they came from ? the answer was clearly NO ...Well done Mitterrand ! if you treat your allies like this that's what you get. And France was not the only country that denied the overflight. Once again, the allies have not been informed about this before. I doubt that a labour government in Britain would have allowed this in 1986 so easily..Thanks to Mrs Thatcher !


----------



## renegate326 (Nov 18, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> I'm sitting here having dinner mulling over the earlier comment about native French technology and then I remembered that the jet engines of the Mirage fighter were developed from the WWII era BMW003.
> 
> Oops!



It was the German Hermann Ostrich who came over to France and worked on the ATAR engine for Mirage III. Yes, but who didn't benefit from German skills after WW2??
You Americans built your first jets in accordance with Whittle design but later switched to German axial flow engines after you captured some M262's .
Remember who sent your country to the moon?? 

But Mirage III was the best fighter of its generation ,the first jet fighter exceeded Mach 2 in Europe. A huge engineering achievement I would say.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 18, 2013)

"...Remember who sent your country to the moon?? "

Jules Vern.


".. the first _*European*_ combat aircraft design capable of exceeding a speed of Mach 2 in horizontal flight."

What about the Mig-21. Several years earlier. Russia isn't part of _Europe_ in your atlas, renegate ...?


----------



## renegate326 (Nov 18, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> I'm sure the British, Germans and a few other nations would seriously disagree with that.


I am not so sure. France developed its own SLBM submarines and the missiles without any foreign technology in early 1970's which was acknowledged even by the Americans as great achievement . Britain received everything served on a golden plate from the US. First nuclear sub reactor for HMS Dreadnought was completely US made by Westinghouse and the missiles along with the nuclear warheads designed and developed in the US and built at Aldermasten under US supervision .

Dassault Aviation's capability in design and development of fighter jets is unique in Europe.. France is second only to US in design and development of nuclear carrier .
The French defence giant THALES is the second largest defence contractor in the UK after BAE Systems ! There is a huge amount of French technology in many of the latest British weapon systems.. Astute class submarines, Challenger 2 tanks and Type 45 destroyers . MBDA , the second largest tactical missile designer in the world after Raytheon was created in France . No country in Europe has this capability. Export transactions for Eurofighter Typhoon outside NATO needs officially US Congressional approval as there is a sizeable US technology in the fighter,computers,software and AMRAAM . The Rafale on the other hand, is 100% French.


----------



## renegate326 (Nov 18, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...Remember who sent your country to the moon?? "
> 
> Jules Vern.
> 
> ...



I don't think any Mig-21 exceeded Mach 2.2 anytime before 1958 .. Not in my atlas anyway.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 18, 2013)

silence said:


> Shoulda painted a big FU on the underside and done it anyway.



If Mexico and Canada declared war against each other, do you honestly think we would allow either to transverse our territory to get at each other ?


----------



## Marcel (Nov 18, 2013)

stona said:


> Oh come on !
> 
> Every nation did what it could and I would be the last to demean Norway's gallant contribution to the allied effort but there were 1.3 million Free French men fighting the allied cause at the end of the w
> Steve


Probably just as many fought on the other side in vichy forces.

Many have a high praise of the French resistance and with reason. But people often forget that resistance in other countries were just as fierce.


----------



## stona (Nov 18, 2013)

Marcel said:


> Probably just as many fought on the other side in vichy forces..



I don't have a figure for the numbers of Vichy forces to hand. However it's worth saying that they didn't do much fighting. Minimal resistance was offered in North Africa, and then only in French colonies. They made a nuisance of themselves in Madagascar for a while too. It didn't amount to a lot. 
They confused things in French Indo-China for the Japanese in early 1945 if I remember correctly. The Japanese effectively had to oust them in a coup. You could argue that this was one of the first steps on the way to first a French colonial and then an American war in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## redcoat (Nov 18, 2013)

Marcel said:


> Many have a high praise of the French resistance and with reason. But people often forget that resistance in other countries were just as fierce.


Thing to remember about the resistance in other countries is that in the West the German occuption forces tended to treat the local population with far less cruelty than in the east.


----------



## stona (Nov 18, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Thing to remember about the resistance in other countries is that in the West the German occuption forces tended to treat the local population with far less cruelty than in the east.



You are on very thin ice there 







Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 18, 2013)

Agree.


----------



## pattle (Nov 18, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Thing to remember about the resistance in other countries is that in the West the German occuption forces tended to treat the local population with far less cruelty than in the east.



Well yes, I think a lot more civilians were killed in the east by the Germans, but that's not to say the same thing couldn't have happened later in north west Europe, and don't forget what happened in Greece.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Nov 19, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Thing to remember about the resistance in other countries is that in the West the German occuption forces tended to treat the local population with far less cruelty than in the east.


Yes, I agree, although occasionally those things happened in the west, too, like murdering a whole village as revenge for the killing of a German. But undoubtedly, the Poles for instance had it even worse.


----------



## silence (Nov 19, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> If Mexico and Canada declared war against each other, do you honestly think we would allow either to transverse our territory to get at each other ?



Who's talking about "allow"?


----------



## silence (Nov 19, 2013)

Marcel said:


> Yes, I agree, although occasionally those things happened in the west, too, like murdering a whole village as revenge for the killing of a German. But undoubtedly, the Poles for instance had it even worse.



This is going to sound really, really cold, but - taking the example of Oradour-sur-Glane - what did the resistance think would happen after they killed an SS officer - especially after Lidice?

And no, I'm not saying the SS retaliation was justified, only that it should have been expected.

And I fully agree about how much more the Poles suffered; only the Jews suffered more.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 19, 2013)

renegate326 said:


> I am not so sure. France developed its own SLBM submarines and the missiles without any foreign technology in early 1970's which was acknowledged even by the Americans as great achievement . Britain received everything served on a golden plate from the US.


The U.S. shared technology and equipment with France until things got nasty...


renegate326 said:


> France is second only to US in design and development of nuclear carrier .


I wouldn't really compare the French Navy's single 42,000 ton carrier to 9 active U.S. carriers each being over 104,000 tons. The USS Midway, a retired WWII vintage carrier is 74,000 tons, so big deal.
And as shocking as this may be to hear, the bulk of the French carrier fleet after WWII were former American carriers.

I could go on, but the bottom line is, we all need to get along and for the most part we do. Around here, British, Germans, Japanese, Americans, Poles, Italians, Brazilians, and everyone else from all corners of the world get together and share common interests and we have a good time doing so...

Why bust through the door with an attitude and stir up a bunch of bullsh!t?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 19, 2013)

The Wermacht, SS and Police units committed atrocities EVERYWHERE.
It's not a pissing contest. 
The rules were different in the East simply because before Barbarossa was even launched the Germans had already planned to allow millions to starve in order to supply themselves. This had already established a lowering of the moral bar, based on the virulent racism and anti bolshevism of Nazi doctrine, before more formal instructions like the various and infamous "Fuhrer Orders".
The fate of a Jew, Communist, Resistant, anyone else deemed undesirable (it's a long list), or even Commando was likely to be the same, East or West. 
The principal of communal responsibility for acts of resistance, that is lining up dozens or hundreds of innocent people and murdering them in an illegal effort to deter further acts of resistance was well established in ALL German occupied territories.
The men and women from occupied countries in the West who were uprooted and shipped as forced labour to Germany might not consider their treatment any less cruel than that meted out to someone from the East suffering the same fate. 
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renegate326 (Nov 19, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> The U.S. shared technology and equipment with France until things got nasty...
> 
> I wouldn't really compare the French Navy's single 42,000 ton carrier to 9 active U.S. carriers each being over 104,000 tons. The USS Midway, a retired WWII vintage carrier is 74,000 tons, so big deal.
> And as shocking as this may be to hear, the bulk of the French carrier fleet after WWII were former American carriers.
> ...



Yes ,the US offered the Polaris SLBM technology to France as well but unlike the Brits, De Gaulle said No thanks, we will develop our own system.
It doesn't mean France never buys US made defence equipment, France bought Grumman Hawkeye Early warning aircraft for the carrier CDG and also in the past the AWACS system because it would be extremely expensive to invest money for few planes. But when it comes to absolutely vital systems for national defence,France goes always domestic.

I didn't compare anything, I simply pointed out that France is the only country that could build a nuclear carrier.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 19, 2013)

renegate326 said:


> I didn't compare anything, I simply pointed out that France is the only country that could build a nuclear carrier.



You are wrong there as well. France is the only one that *chose* to build a nuclear carrier. Most other Westerm Nations have the technology and know how to do so, but choose not to. 

If you believe that England, Germany, Russia or Canada (just to name a few) could not develop and build Nuclear Carriers you are very naive or just thumping your French chest too much.


----------



## stona (Nov 19, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If you believe that England, Germany, Russia or Canada (just to name a few) could not develop and build Nuclear Carriers you are very naive or just thumping your French chest too much.



It's not just the cost either. There are ethical issues involved. These two are the principal reasons why the RN's new Queen Elizabeth class carriers will be conventionally powered.

I hope we can do better on budget and timing than the French managed with Richelieu.......ooops!.... Charles de Gaulle. I wouldn't bet the farm on it though 

Steve


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 19, 2013)

If Britain can produce organic nuclear-powered submarines, then putting a nuke powerplant in a surface vessel can't be too far of a stretch...or am I missing something?


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 19, 2013)

silence said:


> Who's talking about "allow"?


 Sending armed aircraft over another countries territory without getting their approval beforehand is a act of war.


----------



## stona (Nov 19, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> If Britain can produce organic nuclear-powered submarines, then putting a nuke powerplant in a surface vessel can't be too far of a stretch...or am I missing something?



I don't know enough about it. I do know that you'd have to trawl through endless papers (defence reviews etc) to get to the_ real _reason that the Queen Elizabeth class carriers will be conventionally powered, if it's even in the public domain.
I'm going to guess that the reason our submarines are nuclear powered has something to do with reducing noise, or "quietening" as submariners like to call It, as well as all the other obvious advantages.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Angels one-five (Nov 19, 2013)

stona said:


> I don't know enough about it. I do know that you'd have to trawl through endless papers (defence reviews etc) to get to the_ real _reason that the Queen Elizabeth class carriers will be conventionally powered, if it's even in the public domain.
> I'm going to guess that the reason our submarines are nuclear powered has something to do with reducing noise, or "quietening" as submariners like to call It, as well as all the other obvious advantages.
> Cheers
> Steve



I think the non-nuclear choice was primarily driven by cost. I seem to recall a Staff College lecture many moons ago giving the crossover point between the cost of installing a nuclear reactor in a warship against conventional fuel usage. Break even was measured in decades...!


----------



## renegate326 (Nov 19, 2013)

stona said:


> It's not just the cost either. There are ethical issues involved. These two are the principal reasons why the RN's new Queen Elizabeth class carriers will be conventionally powered.
> 
> I hope we can do better on budget and timing than the French managed with Richelieu.......ooops!.... Charles de Gaulle. I wouldn't bet the farm on it though
> 
> Steve



You are already doing better mate oh sorry in your dreams perhaps . Its wake up time ! 

Britain will this week reveal another substantial increase in the cost of building its two new aircraft carriers, declaring that total funding for the programme will rise by another £800m to £6.2bn.


The revised price tag for the 65,000 ton carriers – which will not operate until the end of this decade – will alarm some opposition MPs. When the last Labour government gave the green light to build the ships in 2007, it set the projected cost at £3.5bn. That figure is now close to being doubled.

my god we still have at least 8 years to go so what do you think the final figure would be ? more than a Gerald Ford class ? 

SOURCE: FT 3.11.2013..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 19, 2013)

I am still waiting for a response. Oh wait, I doubt I will get because my post told it like it is.


----------



## renegate326 (Nov 19, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Most other Westerm Nations have the technology and know how to do so, but choose not to.



Really, so maybe you can enlighten me why both Americans and Russians ( TU-144 was a huge failure) have failed to build a Concorde back in 1960's ? lack of technology or know to do so ? they were competing with each other for the moon, but only the tiny little BAC/SUD AVIATION has managed to achieve it and they got it at the first time !! no modification or improvement was needed for the next 27 years ! for many the greatest engineering feat ever ,even Neil Armstrong said that putting Concorde in service was comparable with moon landing in terms of science and engineering achievement .

By the way,the Russians have indeed tried to build nuclear carriers in 1970's similar to the Nimitz class but they failed ! I red a detailed report about that years ago. my opinion is that even if you have the know how you might not be able to build it .. Again, thats me probably I am naive !


----------



## stona (Nov 19, 2013)

renegate326 said:


> The revised price tag for the 65,000 ton carriers – which will not operate until the end of this decade – will alarm some opposition MPs. When the last Labour government gave the green light to build the ships in 2007, it set the projected cost at £3.5bn. That figure is now close to being doubled..



So we'll still hopefully get two larger carriers, each at the price of your one 

I wouldn't shout too loudly about the C de G. I gather that the government is being sued by crew members exposed to radiation!

From a US source.

"The cause of the problems can be traced to the decision to install nuclear reactors designed for French submarines, instead of spending more money and designing reactors specifically for the carrier. Construction started and stopped several times because to cuts to the defense budget and when construction did resume, there was enormous pressure on the builders to get on with it quickly, and cheaply, before the project was killed. The result was a carrier with a lot of expensive problems." 


Cheers

Steve


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 19, 2013)

renegate326 said:


> Really, so maybe you can enlighten me why both Americans and Russians ( TU-144 was a huge failure) have failed to build a Concorde back in 1960's ? lack of technology or know to do so ? they were competing with each other for the moon, but only the tiny little BAC/SUD AVIATION has managed to achieve it and they got it at the first time !! no modification or improvement was needed for the next 27 years ! for many the greatest engineering feat ever ,even Neil Armstrong said that putting Concorde in service was comparable with moon landing in terms of science and engineering achievement .
> 
> By the way,the Russians have indeed tried to build nuclear carriers in 1970's similar to the Nimitz class but they failed ! I red a detailed report about that years ago. my opinion is that even if you have the know how you might not be able to build it .. Again, thats me probably I am naive !



You're not winning any friends here, I'm afraid. Not sure what Concorde has to do with nuclear-powered vessels...

You might want to dial back the aggression and play nice - the mods don't put up with this sort of crap for long.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 19, 2013)

renegate326 said:


> Really, so maybe you can enlighten me why both Americans and Russians ( TU-144 was a huge failure) have failed to build a Concorde back in 1960's ? lack of technology or know to do so ? they were competing with each other for the moon, but only the tiny little BAC/SUD AVIATION has managed to achieve it and they got it at the first time !! no modification or improvement was needed for the next 27 years ! for many the greatest engineering feat ever ,even Neil Armstrong said that putting Concorde in service was comparable with moon landing in terms of science and engineering achievement .
> 
> By the way,the Russians have indeed tried to build nuclear carriers in 1970's similar to the Nimitz class but they failed ! I red a detailed report about that years ago. my opinion is that even if you have the know how you might not be able to build it .. Again, thats me probably I am naive !



Do you really think that a country that has built the fastest aircraft in the world, put men on the moon and leads the world in military technology could not build a concorde type aircraft?

Really?

You really are dellusional. 

Its called priorities my friend.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 19, 2013)

The U.S. chose not to participate in the SST style aircraft because the emissions at that altitude degrades the ozone layer.

Not sure if you've noticed lately, but the Concorde (SSTs) are retired. And if speed and altude in a powered aircraft is a measure of prowess, then let's discuss the Archangel/SR-71...if absolute speed and altitude in an aircraft is to be measured, then let's discuss the Space Shuttle.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 19, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> The U.S. chose not to participate in the SST style aircraft because the emissions at that altitude degrades the ozone layer.
> 
> Not sure if you've noticed lately, but the Concorde (SSTs) are retired. And if speed and altude in a powered aircraft is a measure of prowess, then let's discuss the Archangel/SR-71...if absolute speed and altitude in an aircraft is to be measured, then let's discuss the Space Shuttle.



Is that the real reason the US aviation didn't get behind the SST and develop it.
Or did they see greater potential profit in the big aircraft just a few years away (747), prestige is nice, but the airliners are in business to make MONEY.

Did the Concorde SST ever operate at a profit ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 19, 2013)

The SST was planned to be developed and backed by a congressional motion, but political pressure brought on by eco-whiners in the 60's soon killed that idea.

The 747 was developed for a USAF contract, but the C-5 beat Boeing's bid. The C-5 winning the contract was probably one of the greatest strokes of luck for an aircraft manufacturer ever.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 19, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> The 747 was developed for a USAF contract, but the C-5 beat Boeing's bid. The C-5 winning the contract was probably one of the greatest strokes of luck for an aircraft manufacturer ever.



Never knew that...most interesting!


----------



## stona (Nov 19, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> The 747 was developed for a USAF contract, but the C-5 beat Boeing's bid.



Whilst this is true the passenger version was also being pursued at the same time. Pan Am (remember them!) wanted an aircraft at least twice the size of the 707. We shouldn't confuse timelines here either. The reason that the 747 was, and is, so easily converted to a transport aircraft has nothing to do with the original USAF specification but rather that Boeing expected the passenger version to be rendered redundant by the advent of SSTs. Of course things didn't work out that way and wide bodied passenger aircraft proved to be the way of the future. It is ultimately a question of economics, but I was sad to see Concorde go. It is not often that human kind takes a step backwards in technological terms, but it did when it gave up supersonic passenger travel.

An old friend of mine once took a Concorde flight across the Atlantic, charging the fare to the company he worked for. They didn't buy it and he had to stump up the difference between a Concorde fare and a standard sub-sonic fare. It was a substantial sum but he always reckoned that it was worth it 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FalkeEins (Nov 19, 2013)

renegate326 said:


> Export transactions for Eurofighter Typhoon outside NATO needs officially US Congressional approval as there is a sizeable US technology in the fighter, computers, software and AMRAAM. The Rafale on the other hand, is 100% French.



wow, this thread is way off topic .. but lets just ask renegate326 how many Rafales have been sold world-wide as at time of writing......?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 19, 2013)

"...... but lets just ask renegate326 how many Rafales have been sold world-wide as at time of writing......?"

And while we're at it FalkeEins, lets ask _where they're going to be built _...... hint .... India ... AFAIK


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 19, 2013)

*Why France?*

No offense to France, but why was France included as a fourth power in post-WW2 Europe? Why not Poland? Or Norway? Or Australia?

Why indeed ...?


----------



## DonL (Nov 19, 2013)

I think many reasons, but the main reason was the old Entente from WWI and the mentioned reason to have a fourth power, to brake the russian at it's ambition.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pattle (Nov 19, 2013)

I remember at the time of the last Gulf War there was talk of Macdonald's removing the word French from French Fries, just goes to show the mistake the American's made in calling crisps chips and chips French fries.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 19, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> *Why France?*
> 
> No offense to France, but why was France included as a fourth power in post-WW2 Europe? Why not Poland? Or Norway? Or Australia?
> 
> Why indeed ...?



I don't know, but the latest treaties have determined that if WWIII breaks out the losers are required to keep France.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 19, 2013)

I've never been to France, but my older sister lived there for two and a half years in the mid 60's, right when France left NATO.

She lived off base, and was married to a low ranking enlisted man at the start of his USAF career. "Living on the economy" as it was called, in that era was not easy for enlisted personnel, they were not living in luxury by no means.

My sister was heart broken when US personnel had to leave France. She came home to the US, and her husband finished his tour in Britain.
She loved the French people, they had showed her and her small family ( she had a 1 year old girl when she arrived, and had a son while she was there) every kindness and consideration above and beyond anything she's ever experienced since. To her France was more than just a second home.

So every time I hear people deride France, I recall how well they took care of a member of my own family.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Nov 19, 2013)

I agree Tom and if you check the posts, I think it only came about in this thread when degenerate812 started making obscene and inflammatory claims as to how much other countries contributed to the success of the Allies - especially the small, insignificant contribution by the United Kingdom.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 19, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> I've never been to France, but my older sister lived there for two and a half years in the mid 60's, right when France left NATO.
> 
> She lived off base, and was married to a low ranking enlisted man at the start of his USAF career. "Living on the economy" as it was called, in that era was not easy for enlisted personnel, they were not living in luxury by no means.
> 
> ...



I agree. I am only joking around due to our friends hostility toward everyone not French. 

I have been to France on many occasions (Paris 5 times, Normandy 2 times, Strasbourg countless times, Verdun, Amneville, Marseille to name a few places). I have nothing against the French people, and have never had a bad experience in France.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 20, 2013)

renegate326, as you see here on the forum, France has a bad name in international politics. While I do not claime this is fully justified, it is just the reality. I don't think you can change those views on your own. While I understand that you are proud of your beautiful country I think in this case you'd better accept the status quo and move on. Trying to argue the way you do will bring you nothing but trouble for no gain.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 20, 2013)

"....I don't think you can change those views on your own...."

But I respect you're rights and courage to give it a_ try _..... 

France is a hard country to defend -- _literally_ -- I realized that fact driving from Chas de Gaulle AP to Chartres once. Flat. Armies can/have swept across France. Geography shapes national character (to a degree) more than we might like to admit.

France is a hard country to defend.

MM


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 20, 2013)

So one might say, France is, desirable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (Nov 20, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> "....I don't think you can change those views on your own...."
> 
> But I respect you're rights and courage to give it a_ try _.....
> 
> ...



Hello Michael
I have a different oppinion, having travelled in the Meuse Valley and around Verdun, I'd say that long stretches of French borders are fairly easy to defend.

Juha


----------



## pattle (Nov 20, 2013)

I suppose it depends on which direction you are coming from as to how easy France is to defend, it wasn't easy to get through the bocage and neither would it be easy to come by sea on the Bay of Biscay or through the Pyrenees or Alps, but unfortunately from Germany the only real obstacles are pretty much just rivers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2013)

pattle said:


> I suppose it depends on which direction you are coming from as to how easy France is to defend, it wasn't easy to get through the bocage and neither would it be easy to come by sea on the Bay of Biscay or through the Pyrenees or Alps, but unfortunately from Germany the only real obstacles are pretty much just rivers.



Exactly. If you have ever driven from Germany through France up to the Channel Coast (Normandy for instance) it is just flat land all the way.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 20, 2013)

Can't comment, Juha, as I am unfamiliar with _that_ territory, but the boccage was man-made, IIRC, in the Middle Ages precisely because there was no other defense ....


----------



## silence (Nov 21, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Exactly. If you have ever driven from Germany through France up to the Channel Coast (Normandy for instance) it is just flat land all the way.



Guderian found the Ardennes pretty convenient, too.


----------



## pattle (Nov 21, 2013)

I think the bocage was planted hundreds of years ago as boundaries and that over the years the hedges that the bocage consist of have just grown and grown gaining thicker trunks which have built up banks beneath them. From what I can remember when a Norman farmer died he divided his land between all his sons rather than just the eldest (as in most countries) and this is why the fields are so small in the Normandy bocage, also back in the old days farmers left fields to fallow and so barriers were needed to keep animals off the crops.


----------



## Juha (Nov 21, 2013)

pattle said:


> I think the bocage was planted hundreds of years ago as boundaries and that over the years the hedges that the bocage consist of have just grown and grown gaining thicker trunks which have built up banks beneath them. From what I can remember when a Norman farmer died he divided his land between all his sons rather than just the eldest (as in most countries) and this is why the fields are so small in the Normandy bocage, also back in the old days farmers left fields to fallow and so barriers were needed to keep animals off the crops.



That is how also i remember the development of bocage


----------



## redcoat (Nov 21, 2013)

Marcel said:


> renegate326, as you see here on the forum, France has a bad name in international politics. While I do not claime this is fully justified, it is just the reality. I don't think you can change those views on your own. While I understand that you are proud of your beautiful country I think in this case you'd better accept the status quo and move on. Trying to argue the way you do will bring you nothing but trouble for no gain.


and to add to this. If you are proud of France by all means defend her reputation, but don't try and do it by insulting other nations, its a self defeating tactic.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## renegate326 (Nov 25, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> Is that the real reason the US aviation didn't get behind the SST and develop it.
> Or did they see greater potential profit in the big aircraft just a few years away (747), prestige is nice, but the airliners are in business to make MONEY.
> 
> Did the Concorde SST ever operate at a profit ?



As far as Air France is concerned I don't think so but BA might have made some profits but only few years . The reason for this was the number of business and finance people and celebrities travelling between NY-London was far more than NY-Paris route.


----------



## renegate326 (Nov 25, 2013)

FalkeEins said:


> wow, this thread is way off topic .. but lets just ask renegate326 how many Rafales have been sold world-wide as at time of writing......?



Rafale won in India for 126+63 fighters and will most probably win in UAE for 60 fighters soon . It had been selected as the best fighter in Korea in 2002 but ultimatelythe F-15 won.
Also in Switzerland it was ahead of the competition but the Swiss chose the Swedish SAAB because of price. It also was chosen in Brazil but the new president has postponed the decision. But the Rafale will never be able to repeat the success of Mirage fighters during the cold war that's for sure.


----------



## renegate326 (Nov 25, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> *Why France?*
> 
> No offense to France, but why was France included as a fourth power in post-WW2 Europe? Why not Poland? Or Norway? Or Australia?
> 
> Why indeed ...?



Why not ? Poland,Norway are you serious?

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Angels one-five (Nov 25, 2013)

renegate326 said:


> Why not ? Poland,Norway are you serious?



You know how to make friends don't you Old Boy? Somewhere around one-fifth of the Polish population died during WW2. I don't think your response is helpful nor in keeping with the generally friendly tone of this forum.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Nov 29, 2013)

I have been away so have just seen the thread and read it through from the beginning.

If I can p*ss on the p*ssing contests here: and not to point any fingers but to look at the numbers.

From a population of just over 40 million a similar number of French soldiers died in Europe (about 180,000) as did US soldiers. from a population of about 130 million. Let us remember their joint sacrifice (and not argue over the numbers). Too many whatever the numbers. 

My father fought in the BEF in the BofF while my uncle fought the Italians in the south with the Chasseurs Alpine. My father fought the French in Syria as well as Italians in Africa and Germans in Italy and my uncle fought from Normandy to Germany. My mother was both in the french resistance and a temporary US army master sergeant so I have no agenda.

By 1945 the French army was a significant part of the allied push from the west. Not the biggest by far but it saved the US from calling up more young men to fill divisions in europe and at a time when Britain was running out of troops. Thanks to the US arming the French army as they called up conscripts from the liberated population. As a Briton I might have a whinge that the US had the UK pay for their weapons but not the French (ever wondered why all the UK Sherman tanks and US lend lease aeroplanes vanished from UK service by 1946?) It was a major player in western europe and saved the US and UK from part of the cost of garrisoning Germany. By 1946 it was arguably the largest western continental army in Europe and the higher profile as a top table western ally gave the west an extra UN Security Council seat.

All in all France merited a place in Germany as a major power and the west benefitted from it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Nov 29, 2013)

I don't believe that a majority of the Allies and their citizens had a Napoleon complex...


----------



## pattle (Nov 29, 2013)

yulzari said:


> I have been away so have just seen the thread and read it through from the beginning.
> 
> If I can p*ss on the p*ssing contests here: and not to point any fingers but to look at the numbers.
> 
> ...



I agree that Britain and the USA benefited from France being a fourth power both as an occupying power in Germany and as a UN Security Council seat holder. This is why France was allowed to attain these positions, because it was good for Britain, the USA and the Western cause in general but not as a reward or sign of respect to France. Had France been communist then I feel quite certain that the West would not have welcomed it as a fourth power. This says lots more about my opinion of politicians than it does about my opinion of the French of whom I am open minded about. Personally I think it was very astute of Churchill to get away with installing France as a fourth power, it has paid dividends for years and gives Europe more punch in the world that it deserves


----------

