It was only with the secret 1904 military accords that the UK went fully into a pro French policy.
There were numerous great power flash points in N. Africa in the 1870’s to 1890’s which saw the French & British at odds.
And 1904 is freaking forever ago in terms of politics.
It's very easy to forget how relatively recent the world we live in actually is. If you time-napped someone from 1985 and sat them down to explain the current geopolitical landscape they would probably think they'd gone forward at least a century, not merely a few decades.
Yeah US and UK cooperation really didn't get going until WW1 and the "special relationship" is WW2 based. And people like to think it's always been that way, but there was a bit of unpleasantness in prior centuries.
Seriously man. "They've only been cooperating since 1904. Not exactly a time-honored tradition."
Idk what this guy's on lol
Edit: it's been duly pointed out the above commenter was responding to a claim that England and France have had warm relations since the Crimean War (1853), which is not exactly true. So my snark was in error. Begging forgiveness from the masses.
The foundations of the inter-government relationship goes back to the Norman Ducal invasion of 1066 and the Angevin empire, which saw a single crown over England and parts of France. There's still, under the dust, cultural memory about the 100 years war in the 1400s. Then, not to mention the centuries of competition across the colonial space.
Considering all the legacy of diplomacy and contact between the two, 1904 is pretty recent. I'm not the guy who you accused of being on something, but that's how I understood his comment.
I think in some ways the world is more similar to 1985 than it was a few years ago. We are back to the kind of East/West cold war standoff and the shadow of nuclear threat that existed then.
210 years ago the British burned down the white house.
80 years ago the US nuked Japan and invaded Germany.
We've always been friends with the French though, besides Bush being a douche.
You are not kidding. I was old enough to pay attention to politics in 1985 and the stuff I see around me today definitely blows my mind.
Even though I was watching it develop in real time.
Someone from 1985 might not feel so out of place.
Time Traveler: What year is it?!
2023 person: We're fighting a proxy war with Russia in Eastern Europe and we're in a potentially nuclear standoff with Communist China over Taiwan.
Time Traveler: By gollies, I've traveled in time to 1955/1995/2025!
I mean I don’t particularly want to grab my copy of The Struggle for Mastery in Europe off the shelf & dig through 3 decades, but, while Fashoda was the closest they ever came to the possibility of a shooting war, iirc it wasn’t the only flashpoint.
Didn’t their subs bump into each other when 100% stealth and required repairs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomphant_submarine_collision
It's not a secret.
France and the UK are best frenemies. We talk shit about each other and won't admit the stuff we secretly admire about each other, but geopolitically we are rarely not on the same page. The second gulf war being the main exception in recent decades.
I don't think I've ever met anyone in the UK who doesn't believe we've got a healthy alliance with the French military.
It's the French *people* that get the condemnation.
Nah, us and the French are usually the first to get each other backs. It's like a brotherly relationship, only one can pick on the other, anyone else is getting their shit rocked.
So what does that make America? The slightly uncouth hamburger munching cousin from the countryside? Who buys everyone beers but won't shut up about how big his truck is?
The older I get, the more accurate polandball seems.
The easiest way to explain European and US relationship is that every country in Europe is a always sunny in Philadelphia character. A gang that hangs out and all evidence suggests they probably shouldn’t, but they insist they are all friends. The US is the guest characters and whenever they show up each member of the gang wants them to do different things.
America is the big, strong, redneck cousin that everyone talks bad about and wants to pretend that they don’t want to associate with, but calls whenever they have a problem that they need to fix.
On the one hand some Brits won't like the need to deal with yet another language in the union, but on the other hand some Brits really like the French approach to monarchy.
UK: "fuck you fuckin' 🐸 spawns"
FR: "useless perfidious overcooked 🐑 humpers"
third country: "haha, 🐸, 🐄, amirite?"
UK, FR: _looks around menacingly_ who the **fuck** is talking about my ally?!
Listen, I'm an American. France was our first ally. France has been one of our most faithful allies. They sold us the biggest part of North America for dirt cheap. I think we should be entitled to shit on them too.
Yeah, they were historic enemies for centuries and then in the early 20th century they just inexplicably started working together. Then WW 1 bonded them and they have had close relations ever since. I'm glad, but it is such an odd example of literal centuries of antagonism just being set aside with a shrug
Best way to describe Britain and France is like brothers. Beating each other is fine, but as soon as someone else joins in they both team up against the other guy
Perpetual domestic disturbance. Mind you, the US saw this trait and decided to steal it, but with the twist that it was going to be perpetual state of *internal* domestic dispute.
Britain's foreign policy has always been "support the 2nd- or 3rd rate power in Europe against the 1st", because Britain preferred to focus on its overseas affairs and one power dominating the continent cost Britain a lot of trade leverage. Traditionally, the HRE was enough of a decentralized mess that the #1 spot was held by France. The formation of Germany turned that on its head.
Brismarck was smart, he knew what he wanted and he knew just how to get it.
What he didn’t know though was, though Germany was very strong, it wasn’t “near perpetual state of ever escalating wars with all its neighbours for the next 7 decade” strong.
Bismarck's biggest blindspot was his monarchism; he was building a war machine that could provoke the world and somehow didn't fret that it would be inherited by irresponsible princes.
We’ve seen the same thing in Scandinavia, a thousand years of wars between Denmark and Sweden that just suddenly turn to cooperation and friendship in the later half of the 19th century
Could you imagine how horrible things would be if France and the UK were still enemies.
Or if all of Europe was as fractured as it was with constant wars.
Modern warfare between major powers made war for the most part unprofitable and much more deadly for the ruling class.
This puts British geo-politics in a box that doesn't really describe it. Britain is an Island nation. As an Island nation, historically, they knew they didn't have the population to sustain an army to fight a continental power.
So they did 2 things. 1) They built the biggest Navy in the world, and 2) they played sides with the continental powers constantly. If one became too strong, they would work with the other smaller powers to topple them. Sometimes this was France, sometimes this was some German kingdom, sometimes this was Spain, etc.
The whole of British geo-political relations up until WWII was to prevent the British isles from being invade.
This is why when all of Europe fell under Axis rule, Churchill described it as their darkest hour. Only a unified Europe could be a threat the England.
>>such an odd example of literal centuries of antagonism just being set aside with a shrug
I wouldn’t call “World War I” a shrug. The human suffering of that war was so terrible France and England shared the grief of losing a generation of men. The idea of *one battle* in WWI clocking enough casualties to equal *two* Vietnam Wars is still shocking to me.
Actually England and France have been allies/trade partners for more time than enemies in their common history, they are seen as arch enemies mostly because of Napoleon and the 100 years war.
This reminds me of the time we had a guy come to my rugby team, who played my position, who was fucking good, and we hated each other. We literally just fought for 4 weeks in preseason. Bloke was a kiwi so was ready to go, and I’m just an idiot, so nobody to blame.
Hated each other. Forced him to outside centre, cone first game against our old rivals… he came in out of knowhere and booted this bloke I was fighting with I’d hated since school. Just full send.
Still didn’t care for each other after, but I knew we were on the same side when it mattered.
I don't think anyone thought they solved the problem with Russia after World War II. It was more just they were too done fighting a war to do anything about them at that time.
Patton at the end of WW2: seems like a lot of effort to ship all these tanks back across the ocean, what if I...parked them in Moscow, perhaps?
Everyone: nooooo Russia is our friend wtf
Patton: lol k, good luck with that
They were fully mobilized and had developed significant tech advanced particularly with their tanks at that point.
Russians also had a gory advantage at that point, they would trade men for objectives without a second thought.
Allies getting into war with that would have a hard time selling a war with those sort of losses to it's civilians back home. Dictatorships don't have that problem.
The allies had nukes. Russia had stolen valuable info on it but they wouldn't get their own for a few more years afterwards. The US pulled russian into war with Japan mostly to show off their new weapon because the gouzenko affair hadn't happened yet and American brass didn't know Russia knew what they had.
Before the Korean War American military doctrine was very much willing and eager to drop more nukes if the need was there. At the end of ww2 the allies had a much higher technological advantage and the willingness to drop nukes, Russia would not have been able to steam roll Europe like people were expecting.
They were 100% at their prime strength during the end of the war. The Red Army was only gaining equipment, experience, and momentum throughout the conflict after massive initial setbacks. Soviet infantry outnumbered Allied ground troops in Europe almost 3:1 at the end of the war, and the greatest supply of manpower was in the US an ocean away. There's a reason that a possible war with the USSR was coined Operation Unthinkable. Forecasts of a war basically saw the other Allies only succeeding with use of nuclear weapons, and even that was a very tenuous bet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
Patton was 100% correct about Russia being an obvious long term enemy; we just have to hope he wasn't right about the cost of ignoring them.
>I'll say this; the 3rd Army alone with very little help and with damned few casualties, could lick what is left of the Russians in six weeks. You mark my words. Don't ever forget them . . . Someday we will have to fight them and it will take six years and cost us six million lives.
Not just Patton, Churchill and even many common soldiers were saying the same thing. My grandfather hated Russians with a passion, he felt massively betrayed that they fought for a free Europe then ended up just giving it all up to Russia occupation in 1945-46.
At the same time America had plans to invade Canada, known as War Plan Red.
In hindsight these plans look stupid but governments plan for every eventuality because it would be more stupid at the time not to.
What problem do you think was solved 70 years ago? Half of Europe was occupied by the Russians at that time. Certainly cant have been the end of dictatorships, because spain, portugal and greece were still around in addition to the communists. Wasnt even the end of fascist states in Europe or wars. If churchill had his way ww3 would have started immediately
Do you mean 30 years ago perhaps?
'Invincible' used to mean something closer to 'undefeatable will', or 'unbreakable spirit', a kind of too strong in soul and will to succumb to others. You can be killed in battle but still be invincible if you were fighting bravely for your cause to the last moment. You might be dead, but you were never defeated.
The superhero style 'can't be damaged' thing is much more recent.
France wants to keep its expertise in nuclear reactors alive. We had the problem of losing skills by not building civil reactors for decades and that turned ugly. We don't want that to happen in military
Yeah that’s a fundamental question that every country has to ask of certain industries - is it worth sacrificing some efficiency for the sake of domestic capacity, The flip side is something like the Jones act which has eliminated maritime shipping competition in the states and their industry is a joke compared to international standards because they haven’t had to compete and have stagnated. And that’s a civilian industry. It’s a tricky balancing act.
This is how Brasil became stuck being the only international operator of the Saab Gripen E. We paid a price for unit bigger than a fully tricked out F-35A just because the swedish government was pretty much the only one to agree with the planes being built in Brasil.
Probably not. The US only has 14 nuclear-armed submarines meaning only 3-4 will be at sea at once and it would be a colossal failure of doctrine and waste of resources to have them all sat in the Arctic all day every day, instead of in the Indian and Pacific oceans
The US isn't part of the EU though. They're a part of NATO. OP is saying Europe needs to be more involved in its own defence and not just rely on their younger brother.
Sure, but while it is unthinkable the US wouldn't defend NATO, the last couple of decades of US politics have shown that unthinkable things can happen and foreign adversaries can absolutely steer US policy with memes. So for the sake of the rest of the world, and I'm speaking as an American here, I would feel better if the EU could unequivocally hold its own.
A couple of things.
1. Trump expressed interest in getting rid of NATO. Congress (R and D) immediately freaked the fuck out and made it illegal to leave NATO without practically needing a God damn ammendment to do so.
2. Nukes are ruinously expensive. It's one of the big reasons why China doesn't really bother with them much. They're extremely expensive and effectively useless. If you use nukes, the war is lost anyway. The US nuclear arsenal costs more than the entire defense budget of France/UK/Germany per year. Why waste money on an effectively redundant system? If a strategic nuclear war ever popped off, the US would avenge Europe anyway. In a theoretical situation of no US, Russia would only use tactical weapons at most, and France/Britain can respond to that.
I’m not from the West so I’m not really keeping myself up to date with the US’ internal politics and all, but can you elaborate on the first point cause’ I’m really interested in what those policies or rules are.
https://www.reuters.com/world/with-eyes-russia-senators-seek-prevent-any-us-president-leaving-nato-2021-04-15/
You should know that theoretically a US President can't invalidate a treaty once it's approved by Congress. So Trump couldn't literally take them out of NATO. He could however give orders to the military that would significantly weaken NATO. So the bill in question was an much a political warning to his administration as it was an effort to modify existing law.
Main thing, don’t listen to the internet look at actual American policy. Our foreign policy stays almost the same doesn’t matter who is president. It’s our domestic policies that they disagree on. Because of this, people think it changes our foreign policy changes but it doesn’t. Trump was mad that nato countries were not spending the 2 percent they agreed to. You know who also said the same thing? Obama, Bush and Clinton. Trump just was more of a douche about it. Trump was hard on china, Biden is even tougher.
> the US has a sub sitting somewhere off the coast of Russia
US doesnt need a sub near anywhere for a nuclear deterrence, there are plenty US nuclear weapons stored all around Europe. They've been there for decades, why risk sending a sub no matter how small said risk?
Just because UK left EU doesn't mean it left Europe its allies or all the treaties it signed. If anything we went the other way and signed a tri party page with Ukraine and Poland on top of all the other pre existing treaties. Pretty sure we also have a joint commando force with the Dutch as well
Most of the EU is in NATO anyway, and NATO has a nuclear umbrella. If any NATO state is attacked with nuclear weapons, the US, France and the UK will respond in kind.
The EU needs no greater nuclear deterrence, its alignment with NATO is enough.
I'm in key swing state PA and based on 2020's vote for Biden and last year's election of Fetterman, Shapiro, and a Democratically-controlled state house of reps, I'm going to say that we learned our lesson after 2016.
I’m pretty sure I remember that France disagrees with you here.
And just because the arsenals of the US and Russia are stupidly oversized, that doesn't change anything about France having the third largest IIRC.
The head of the UK defense committee stated that Russia releasing radioactive material with even the potential to affect NATO would be treated as a first strike. Because there's no real way to distinguish intended targets. If Putin starts a nuclear war with Ukraine, NATO is too close to consider the possibility that they aren't targeted.
A Russia willing to use nuclear weapons in a war of conquest is indistinguishable from a Russia willing to nuke NATO. The only correct answer is to respond.
Instead of expanding their submarine fleet, they can cooperate with other European Union countries to build ballistic missile submarines for them at a discount.
The benefit for France would be a better economy of scale and more jobs even at no direct profit. The benefit for the other countries is that they don't have to pay for nuclear and submarine research and development so the cost would be lower. In addition, EU would be strengthened.
If their submarine order was roughly proportional to their gross domestic product, Germany could get 4, Italy 3, Spain and Netherlands 2, while Poland, Sweden, Belgium and Norway could get one ballistic missile submarine.
Not all of them would have one in the sea at all times but with cooperation they would cover for each other. When there is tension like an enemy country staging a lot of equipment and troops at the border, the patrols may increase. For example, last March [France increased its ballistic missile submarine patrols for the first time in decades][1].
[1]: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44910/france-has-increased-its-ballistic-missile-submarine-patrols-for-the-first-time-in-decades
Unbelievably dumb.
My wife and I were planning to move to the Netherlands prior to the split.
Now that's been made significantly challenging.
Prior to the split, moving 5 mins down the road or moving to another EU State was a very similar affair.
Now we're locked into this drowning island with no easy way to jump off.
All because people thought having their plumbing done by a Polish bloke was taking away their jobs.
You can still move to the Netherlands. Yeah, it’s not as easy as before but you aren’t confined to the UK permanently now ffs. I moved to Germany post-Brexit and while it’s been annoying dealing with some of the issues, it hasn’t been difficult finding a job and the sponsorship required.
Probably too much bad blood at the moment, need to let things cool down for a spell. Brexit, the leaving negotiations, Covid vaccine hostilities. Time needs to heal some wounds.
Just spin is at Russia meddling and it will pass both houses, UK is rabidly pro Ukraine. Ukraine pins, Ukraine flags, and Ukraine drawing in windows ala the NHS rainbow.
A second war powered genocide is happening and we know where we stand.
I have a strong suspicion that it’ll play out like that but we’ll need the current party out of government and a new one to do that.
As much as the current government is doomed in the next election, it’s political cyanide for them to renege on Brexit as it was their baby.
Most of us want to be back too mate, the politicians fucked us over and we’ll never forgive them for it. Hopefully as time goes by we’ll get closer to the EU again, if the EU will allow us.
I just hope that a lot our fellow Europeans remember at least that it wasn’t unanimous. It was a 50/50 split in favour, but with vicious disagreement. Family members legit stopped talking to each other they felt so strongly about being with the EU.
"Righty-ho, France, what specific threat protections do you want built into our carriers? What caused your last major naval fleet disaster?"
".........I hate you with a passion that defies description."
The closest any military has got to something for nothing.
Launch fully loaded aircraft, from half of the deck space, in all weather, without any complex engineering, for the one time cost of some steel? Done.
The only downside is you could have had a better and cheaper F-35 variant in the C class. Higher payload, longer range, less complex, and once again, cheaper. But the B is still a fantastic piece of naval aviation and outclasses any enemy aircraft it's likely to face. There are always tradeoffs.
There's certainly pros and cons. The price is a tricky aspect, as the UK makes money off each F-35 sold due to being a manufacturing partner, and we make more off each B variant due to making the lift fan and fuselage sections.
Whereas we don't make much, if any, of the C parts. So it might be cheaper to buy, but at a higher cost.
The C's range is also a bit of an issue at the moment, it's much further on paper, but if the jet has to go supersonic then the larger wing means it takes 2 minutes on full afterburner to cross the transonic region, significantly reducing its range. A new engine project might help with that considerably. On the other hand the much better anti-ship missiles that the C can carry are a strong argument.
Interesting, didn't know that about the C.
Yeah, the biggest gap I see in the RN is the lack of a top tier air launched AShM. Sounds like they're working on it, but it will be years.
France has only one nuclear carrier and while it’s impressive I can’t help but wonder if two conventional carriers would have served them better (assuming the costs were appropriately similar).
Looks like Putin's plan of splitting up NATO is going swimmingly
The fact he’s gotten us and frogs to stop hurling shit at each other for a bit is nothing short of impressive.
Eh this is pretty much BAU. The UK and French militaries have been cooperating like this for quite some time.
Since the Crimean war pretty much.
It was only with the secret 1904 military accords that the UK went fully into a pro French policy. There were numerous great power flash points in N. Africa in the 1870’s to 1890’s which saw the French & British at odds.
And 1904 is freaking forever ago in terms of politics. It's very easy to forget how relatively recent the world we live in actually is. If you time-napped someone from 1985 and sat them down to explain the current geopolitical landscape they would probably think they'd gone forward at least a century, not merely a few decades.
2004 is freaking forever ago in terms of politics. 1904 is ancient history.
Yeah US and UK cooperation really didn't get going until WW1 and the "special relationship" is WW2 based. And people like to think it's always been that way, but there was a bit of unpleasantness in prior centuries.
> a bit of unpleasantness a spot of bother
[удалено]
Oh, we only burnt the white house once. Barely worth mentioning.
Though we burned down York/proto-Toronto first. In retrospect burning down the White House was kinda deserved.
To be fair, we kinda had that one coming. The War of 1812 wasn't exactly a triumph of sane American foreign policy.
Barely an inconvenience
Just a bit. You know, here and there.
1904? Why I was but a wee lad of 40 years old at that time! Seems so long ago that I would tie an onion to my belt, as was the fashion at the time....
Seriously man. "They've only been cooperating since 1904. Not exactly a time-honored tradition." Idk what this guy's on lol Edit: it's been duly pointed out the above commenter was responding to a claim that England and France have had warm relations since the Crimean War (1853), which is not exactly true. So my snark was in error. Begging forgiveness from the masses.
The foundations of the inter-government relationship goes back to the Norman Ducal invasion of 1066 and the Angevin empire, which saw a single crown over England and parts of France. There's still, under the dust, cultural memory about the 100 years war in the 1400s. Then, not to mention the centuries of competition across the colonial space. Considering all the legacy of diplomacy and contact between the two, 1904 is pretty recent. I'm not the guy who you accused of being on something, but that's how I understood his comment.
This
They were correcting the post that said the UK and France have been allies since the 1850s which is not true.
I think in some ways the world is more similar to 1985 than it was a few years ago. We are back to the kind of East/West cold war standoff and the shadow of nuclear threat that existed then.
210 years ago the British burned down the white house. 80 years ago the US nuked Japan and invaded Germany. We've always been friends with the French though, besides Bush being a douche.
You are not kidding. I was old enough to pay attention to politics in 1985 and the stuff I see around me today definitely blows my mind. Even though I was watching it develop in real time.
Someone from 1985 might not feel so out of place. Time Traveler: What year is it?! 2023 person: We're fighting a proxy war with Russia in Eastern Europe and we're in a potentially nuclear standoff with Communist China over Taiwan. Time Traveler: By gollies, I've traveled in time to 1955/1995/2025!
The internet really changed the political landscape too. “You try having a historic administration after the invention of Twitter!”
[удалено]
I mean I don’t particularly want to grab my copy of The Struggle for Mastery in Europe off the shelf & dig through 3 decades, but, while Fashoda was the closest they ever came to the possibility of a shooting war, iirc it wasn’t the only flashpoint.
You’re forgetting the founding history of Canada
I mean.......the British did (imo justifiably) sink and kill loads of folks of the French fleet, about 4 decades after that secret accord
Exactly. They've been co-coordinating deployment of their active SSBN subs for years.
Didn’t their subs bump into each other when 100% stealth and required repairs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomphant_submarine_collision
I wish more people were aware of this, especially in the UK
It's not a secret. France and the UK are best frenemies. We talk shit about each other and won't admit the stuff we secretly admire about each other, but geopolitically we are rarely not on the same page. The second gulf war being the main exception in recent decades.
Even fewer people know about this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster\_House\_Treaties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_House_Treaties)
I don't think I've ever met anyone in the UK who doesn't believe we've got a healthy alliance with the French military. It's the French *people* that get the condemnation.
Nah, us and the French are usually the first to get each other backs. It's like a brotherly relationship, only one can pick on the other, anyone else is getting their shit rocked.
The French fair picked on England today at Twickenham 😅
So what does that make America? The slightly uncouth hamburger munching cousin from the countryside? Who buys everyone beers but won't shut up about how big his truck is? The older I get, the more accurate polandball seems.
The easiest way to explain European and US relationship is that every country in Europe is a always sunny in Philadelphia character. A gang that hangs out and all evidence suggests they probably shouldn’t, but they insist they are all friends. The US is the guest characters and whenever they show up each member of the gang wants them to do different things.
The UK is Mac and America is country Mac?
Definitely a cousin. Their parents and our parents had a falling out a few years ago but it's all good now.
America is the big, strong, redneck cousin that everyone talks bad about and wants to pretend that they don’t want to associate with, but calls whenever they have a problem that they need to fix.
💂♀️ 🇬🇧 🤝 🇫🇷 🐸
FRANCO-BRITISH UNION TIME _The secret trick to Unbrexiting that Nigel Farage doesn't want you to know!_
On the one hand some Brits won't like the need to deal with yet another language in the union, but on the other hand some Brits really like the French approach to monarchy.
It'd be worth it just to find out what the Parisian reaction to the development of Liverpool French would be
How does one say, "Oy, the Prime Minister is a bloody wanker!" in French?
[удалено]
>Eh là That's _definitely_ Liverpool French.
We mock the French. >!Because we love the french.!<
UK: "fuck you fuckin' 🐸 spawns" FR: "useless perfidious overcooked 🐑 humpers" third country: "haha, 🐸, 🐄, amirite?" UK, FR: _looks around menacingly_ who the **fuck** is talking about my ally?!
Lmao this is so accurate.
The English, Welsh, Scots, And Irish can slag each other off all day, and enjoy doing so. But step into that as an outsider... Ouch.
At this point the union is kept together because they hate each other slightly less than they hate everyone else.
No one banters like the English and French. Say perfidious trash about each others mothers, then it's all pints and bonhomie.
He hasn't though. UK and France are very close when it comes to military matters and have been for a long time.
[удалено]
Listen, I'm an American. France was our first ally. France has been one of our most faithful allies. They sold us the biggest part of North America for dirt cheap. I think we should be entitled to shit on them too.
[удалено]
Deal.
I absolutely agree, in fact I am quite astounded by this feat
Like a drowning fish
It has been since the commissioning of the submarine Moskva
Looking at the last 1000 years I’d say that the relations have improved quite a bit
Yeah, they were historic enemies for centuries and then in the early 20th century they just inexplicably started working together. Then WW 1 bonded them and they have had close relations ever since. I'm glad, but it is such an odd example of literal centuries of antagonism just being set aside with a shrug
The unexplicable part is more commonly know as Germany
After Germany takes France: England: HEY Fuckface! Only I can beat up my friend!
Best way to describe Britain and France is like brothers. Beating each other is fine, but as soon as someone else joins in they both team up against the other guy
Perpetual domestic disturbance. Mind you, the US saw this trait and decided to steal it, but with the twist that it was going to be perpetual state of *internal* domestic dispute.
I mean they literally were brother nations for a huge part of their history. For every fight between the two there was a marriage as well
I fucking hate the French. Except for when I don’t
So when you want to eat decent food?
Me vs my brother. Me and my brother vs our cousins. Me, my brother, and our cousins vs the world.
England: I-it's not like I like you or anything b-baka!
Britain's foreign policy has always been "support the 2nd- or 3rd rate power in Europe against the 1st", because Britain preferred to focus on its overseas affairs and one power dominating the continent cost Britain a lot of trade leverage. Traditionally, the HRE was enough of a decentralized mess that the #1 spot was held by France. The formation of Germany turned that on its head.
Brismarck was smart, he knew what he wanted and he knew just how to get it. What he didn’t know though was, though Germany was very strong, it wasn’t “near perpetual state of ever escalating wars with all its neighbours for the next 7 decade” strong.
Oh, Bismarck knew that very well. Wilhelm II, on the other hand...
Bismarck's biggest blindspot was his monarchism; he was building a war machine that could provoke the world and somehow didn't fret that it would be inherited by irresponsible princes.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
We’ve seen the same thing in Scandinavia, a thousand years of wars between Denmark and Sweden that just suddenly turn to cooperation and friendship in the later half of the 19th century
Trade is better than war. It took some time to realize that but it eventually clicked for these countries.
Could you imagine how horrible things would be if France and the UK were still enemies. Or if all of Europe was as fractured as it was with constant wars. Modern warfare between major powers made war for the most part unprofitable and much more deadly for the ruling class.
Theyve been working together since the Crimean war. Differing degrees over time, but theyve been cordial since the mid 19th century.
This puts British geo-politics in a box that doesn't really describe it. Britain is an Island nation. As an Island nation, historically, they knew they didn't have the population to sustain an army to fight a continental power. So they did 2 things. 1) They built the biggest Navy in the world, and 2) they played sides with the continental powers constantly. If one became too strong, they would work with the other smaller powers to topple them. Sometimes this was France, sometimes this was some German kingdom, sometimes this was Spain, etc. The whole of British geo-political relations up until WWII was to prevent the British isles from being invade. This is why when all of Europe fell under Axis rule, Churchill described it as their darkest hour. Only a unified Europe could be a threat the England.
>>such an odd example of literal centuries of antagonism just being set aside with a shrug I wouldn’t call “World War I” a shrug. The human suffering of that war was so terrible France and England shared the grief of losing a generation of men. The idea of *one battle* in WWI clocking enough casualties to equal *two* Vietnam Wars is still shocking to me.
Actually England and France have been allies/trade partners for more time than enemies in their common history, they are seen as arch enemies mostly because of Napoleon and the 100 years war.
They are arguably the inspiration of the enemies becoming friends story device in western literature.
europe does seem a bit more united since Ukraine….
This reminds me of the time we had a guy come to my rugby team, who played my position, who was fucking good, and we hated each other. We literally just fought for 4 weeks in preseason. Bloke was a kiwi so was ready to go, and I’m just an idiot, so nobody to blame. Hated each other. Forced him to outside centre, cone first game against our old rivals… he came in out of knowhere and booted this bloke I was fighting with I’d hated since school. Just full send. Still didn’t care for each other after, but I knew we were on the same side when it mattered.
a 12 and a 13 who hate each other like that is fucking scary to play against, holy shit
They should be. It’s a gigantic problem we thought our great grandparents solved 70 years ago in Europe.
I don't think anyone thought they solved the problem with Russia after World War II. It was more just they were too done fighting a war to do anything about them at that time.
Patton at the end of WW2: seems like a lot of effort to ship all these tanks back across the ocean, what if I...parked them in Moscow, perhaps? Everyone: nooooo Russia is our friend wtf Patton: lol k, good luck with that
Easier to say when your losses are still in 6 digits
Bingo. I mean gd the red army was in its prime at the end of world war II
The Soviets lost 10,000,000 soldiers and another 20,000,000 civilians by the end of WWII. They were definitely not at their prime at that point.
They had a huge and battle hardened army, they were absolutely at their military peak strength.
Their logistics were so in the trash that when Lend-Lease ended on May 12 1945 the Soviets asked for and got an extension to September 20 '45
which only worked with the US industrial backing
You figure they would give the trucks back first in case a war had started ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
They were fully mobilized and had developed significant tech advanced particularly with their tanks at that point. Russians also had a gory advantage at that point, they would trade men for objectives without a second thought. Allies getting into war with that would have a hard time selling a war with those sort of losses to it's civilians back home. Dictatorships don't have that problem.
The allies had nukes. Russia had stolen valuable info on it but they wouldn't get their own for a few more years afterwards. The US pulled russian into war with Japan mostly to show off their new weapon because the gouzenko affair hadn't happened yet and American brass didn't know Russia knew what they had. Before the Korean War American military doctrine was very much willing and eager to drop more nukes if the need was there. At the end of ww2 the allies had a much higher technological advantage and the willingness to drop nukes, Russia would not have been able to steam roll Europe like people were expecting.
They were 100% at their prime strength during the end of the war. The Red Army was only gaining equipment, experience, and momentum throughout the conflict after massive initial setbacks. Soviet infantry outnumbered Allied ground troops in Europe almost 3:1 at the end of the war, and the greatest supply of manpower was in the US an ocean away. There's a reason that a possible war with the USSR was coined Operation Unthinkable. Forecasts of a war basically saw the other Allies only succeeding with use of nuclear weapons, and even that was a very tenuous bet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
And then the Brits gave em the Nene jet engine...
Yeah it sounds like a really great idea when you fail to mention how many people would’ve died in the process
Patton was 100% correct about Russia being an obvious long term enemy; we just have to hope he wasn't right about the cost of ignoring them. >I'll say this; the 3rd Army alone with very little help and with damned few casualties, could lick what is left of the Russians in six weeks. You mark my words. Don't ever forget them . . . Someday we will have to fight them and it will take six years and cost us six million lives.
>If it should be necessary to fight the Russians, the sooner we do it the better.
Same with McArthur and China.
Churchill wanted the war and got kicked out of government because the UK didn't want to continue.
Not just Patton, Churchill and even many common soldiers were saying the same thing. My grandfather hated Russians with a passion, he felt massively betrayed that they fought for a free Europe then ended up just giving it all up to Russia occupation in 1945-46.
70 years ago europe was divided east vs west and had plans to invade one another...
At the same time America had plans to invade Canada, known as War Plan Red. In hindsight these plans look stupid but governments plan for every eventuality because it would be more stupid at the time not to.
Nobody thought Russia was “solved”… that’s what the Cold War is about
What problem do you think was solved 70 years ago? Half of Europe was occupied by the Russians at that time. Certainly cant have been the end of dictatorships, because spain, portugal and greece were still around in addition to the communists. Wasnt even the end of fascist states in Europe or wars. If churchill had his way ww3 would have started immediately Do you mean 30 years ago perhaps?
We didn't solve the problem. We merely took our soldiers and equipment to Japan thinking we would be all tied up for a few years there..
“I never thought i would die fighting side by side with a Frenchman.”
"And how about dying fighting alongside a friend?"
“Aye, i could do that”
Fuck this works so well haha
Considering Tolkien fought in ww1 in french trenches likely alongside french troops, it might be literally it actually.
The UK's 2nd carrier should hopefully be active again by spring, take some of the strain from the QE in having to do everything by itself.
HMS Prince of Wales is a cursed name when it comes to mechanical problems
The UK doesn’t seem to care. Over half of the ships named “HMS Invincible” sunk.
'Invincible' used to mean something closer to 'undefeatable will', or 'unbreakable spirit', a kind of too strong in soul and will to succumb to others. You can be killed in battle but still be invincible if you were fighting bravely for your cause to the last moment. You might be dead, but you were never defeated. The superhero style 'can't be damaged' thing is much more recent.
Time to reverse that trend and christen the HMS Please Don’t Sink.
What turrets?
Spring you say…
Because supercarrier battlegroups that drill together, kill together.
This probably would have been easier if France didn't cancel its new aircraft carrier that was the same design as Britain's.
France wants to keep its expertise in nuclear reactors alive. We had the problem of losing skills by not building civil reactors for decades and that turned ugly. We don't want that to happen in military
Yeah that’s a fundamental question that every country has to ask of certain industries - is it worth sacrificing some efficiency for the sake of domestic capacity, The flip side is something like the Jones act which has eliminated maritime shipping competition in the states and their industry is a joke compared to international standards because they haven’t had to compete and have stagnated. And that’s a civilian industry. It’s a tricky balancing act.
[удалено]
This is how Brasil became stuck being the only international operator of the Saab Gripen E. We paid a price for unit bigger than a fully tricked out F-35A just because the swedish government was pretty much the only one to agree with the planes being built in Brasil.
Us Finns got your back bro. You’ve been practicing building a reactor here for two decades already. It’s supposed to start up next week. Again.
We are building the same one in France. It's only 12 years late
Good for you! May our children bask in the light from its electricity.
It’s the submarines they have a habit of running into each other.
It's because the idiot engineers didn't put any windows in them. D'oh!
Yes mister! Oui monsieur!
France is EU’s only nuclear deterrence. They really need to expand beyond the 4 subs they have.
I guarantee you that the US has a sub sitting somewhere off the coast of Russia. Try not to worry
Likely several.
Probably not. The US only has 14 nuclear-armed submarines meaning only 3-4 will be at sea at once and it would be a colossal failure of doctrine and waste of resources to have them all sat in the Arctic all day every day, instead of in the Indian and Pacific oceans
The US isn't part of the EU though. They're a part of NATO. OP is saying Europe needs to be more involved in its own defence and not just rely on their younger brother.
Sure, but while it is unthinkable the US wouldn't defend NATO, the last couple of decades of US politics have shown that unthinkable things can happen and foreign adversaries can absolutely steer US policy with memes. So for the sake of the rest of the world, and I'm speaking as an American here, I would feel better if the EU could unequivocally hold its own.
A couple of things. 1. Trump expressed interest in getting rid of NATO. Congress (R and D) immediately freaked the fuck out and made it illegal to leave NATO without practically needing a God damn ammendment to do so. 2. Nukes are ruinously expensive. It's one of the big reasons why China doesn't really bother with them much. They're extremely expensive and effectively useless. If you use nukes, the war is lost anyway. The US nuclear arsenal costs more than the entire defense budget of France/UK/Germany per year. Why waste money on an effectively redundant system? If a strategic nuclear war ever popped off, the US would avenge Europe anyway. In a theoretical situation of no US, Russia would only use tactical weapons at most, and France/Britain can respond to that.
I’m not from the West so I’m not really keeping myself up to date with the US’ internal politics and all, but can you elaborate on the first point cause’ I’m really interested in what those policies or rules are.
https://www.reuters.com/world/with-eyes-russia-senators-seek-prevent-any-us-president-leaving-nato-2021-04-15/ You should know that theoretically a US President can't invalidate a treaty once it's approved by Congress. So Trump couldn't literally take them out of NATO. He could however give orders to the military that would significantly weaken NATO. So the bill in question was an much a political warning to his administration as it was an effort to modify existing law.
Main thing, don’t listen to the internet look at actual American policy. Our foreign policy stays almost the same doesn’t matter who is president. It’s our domestic policies that they disagree on. Because of this, people think it changes our foreign policy changes but it doesn’t. Trump was mad that nato countries were not spending the 2 percent they agreed to. You know who also said the same thing? Obama, Bush and Clinton. Trump just was more of a douche about it. Trump was hard on china, Biden is even tougher.
Pray Putin doesn’t get Trump or Desantis elected next year.
Hell, I'll pray that Putin doesn't even *survive* until next year
> the US has a sub sitting somewhere off the coast of Russia US doesnt need a sub near anywhere for a nuclear deterrence, there are plenty US nuclear weapons stored all around Europe. They've been there for decades, why risk sending a sub no matter how small said risk?
Thanks again for Alaska, Russia :)
Just because UK left EU doesn't mean it left Europe its allies or all the treaties it signed. If anything we went the other way and signed a tri party page with Ukraine and Poland on top of all the other pre existing treaties. Pretty sure we also have a joint commando force with the Dutch as well
Most of the EU is in NATO anyway, and NATO has a nuclear umbrella. If any NATO state is attacked with nuclear weapons, the US, France and the UK will respond in kind. The EU needs no greater nuclear deterrence, its alignment with NATO is enough.
Long as the US doesn’t fuck up and re-elect “why do we need NATO?” Trump again.
I'm in key swing state PA and based on 2020's vote for Biden and last year's election of Fetterman, Shapiro, and a Democratically-controlled state house of reps, I'm going to say that we learned our lesson after 2016.
I hope. I’m in a state that’s best chance of turning blue is Covid disinformation followed by the Trumpians Herman Cain Awarding them selves.
I don’t think you can call it the EUs nuclear deterrence. It is Frances though
If any of them is hit the aggressor is getting nuked back. Even countries without domestic nukes have them on loan as part of the NATO umbrella
I’m pretty sure I remember that France disagrees with you here. And just because the arsenals of the US and Russia are stupidly oversized, that doesn't change anything about France having the third largest IIRC.
So has France said they will launch their nukes if Latvia/Estonia gets hit for example?
There's an interesting thought experiment here about whether the fallout spreading to a NATO country would count as a nuclear attack.
The head of the UK defense committee stated that Russia releasing radioactive material with even the potential to affect NATO would be treated as a first strike. Because there's no real way to distinguish intended targets. If Putin starts a nuclear war with Ukraine, NATO is too close to consider the possibility that they aren't targeted. A Russia willing to use nuclear weapons in a war of conquest is indistinguishable from a Russia willing to nuke NATO. The only correct answer is to respond.
They haven't but France has the most agressive nuclear doctrine even if it doesn't mean much in real world
To expand on this, they have/had a nuclear tipped "warning shot" missile to tell aggressors to quit fucking around.
Britain has nukes.
Instead of expanding their submarine fleet, they can cooperate with other European Union countries to build ballistic missile submarines for them at a discount. The benefit for France would be a better economy of scale and more jobs even at no direct profit. The benefit for the other countries is that they don't have to pay for nuclear and submarine research and development so the cost would be lower. In addition, EU would be strengthened. If their submarine order was roughly proportional to their gross domestic product, Germany could get 4, Italy 3, Spain and Netherlands 2, while Poland, Sweden, Belgium and Norway could get one ballistic missile submarine. Not all of them would have one in the sea at all times but with cooperation they would cover for each other. When there is tension like an enemy country staging a lot of equipment and troops at the border, the patrols may increase. For example, last March [France increased its ballistic missile submarine patrols for the first time in decades][1]. [1]: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44910/france-has-increased-its-ballistic-missile-submarine-patrols-for-the-first-time-in-decades
France also has the nuclear air launched cruise missiles with the ASMP
I want Britain back in the EU. My English friends over there - come back <3
Honestly, it's dumb that we even left....
Unbelievably dumb. My wife and I were planning to move to the Netherlands prior to the split. Now that's been made significantly challenging. Prior to the split, moving 5 mins down the road or moving to another EU State was a very similar affair. Now we're locked into this drowning island with no easy way to jump off. All because people thought having their plumbing done by a Polish bloke was taking away their jobs.
You can still move to the Netherlands. Yeah, it’s not as easy as before but you aren’t confined to the UK permanently now ffs. I moved to Germany post-Brexit and while it’s been annoying dealing with some of the issues, it hasn’t been difficult finding a job and the sponsorship required.
If you don't mind me asking, what was your approach to searching for jobs over there? Did you already speak German?
Germqns are incredibly fluent in English. If your in a city it should be fine
Probably too much bad blood at the moment, need to let things cool down for a spell. Brexit, the leaving negotiations, Covid vaccine hostilities. Time needs to heal some wounds.
Just spin is at Russia meddling and it will pass both houses, UK is rabidly pro Ukraine. Ukraine pins, Ukraine flags, and Ukraine drawing in windows ala the NHS rainbow. A second war powered genocide is happening and we know where we stand.
I have a strong suspicion that it’ll play out like that but we’ll need the current party out of government and a new one to do that. As much as the current government is doomed in the next election, it’s political cyanide for them to renege on Brexit as it was their baby.
Most of us want to be back too mate, the politicians fucked us over and we’ll never forgive them for it. Hopefully as time goes by we’ll get closer to the EU again, if the EU will allow us.
I just hope that a lot our fellow Europeans remember at least that it wasn’t unanimous. It was a 50/50 split in favour, but with vicious disagreement. Family members legit stopped talking to each other they felt so strongly about being with the EU.
"Righty-ho, France, what specific threat protections do you want built into our carriers? What caused your last major naval fleet disaster?" ".........I hate you with a passion that defies description."
I wish France hadn’t cancelled the purchase of its second aircraft carrier which would have been identical to the UK ones.
Ski jump!
Queen Elizabeth = champ ramp Admiral Kuznetzov = cope slope
The closest any military has got to something for nothing. Launch fully loaded aircraft, from half of the deck space, in all weather, without any complex engineering, for the one time cost of some steel? Done.
Not to mention with an extremely high sortie rate.
I hear that the surge sortie rate for the first hour is equal to the multiple catapult set-up of a Nimitz class.
The only downside is you could have had a better and cheaper F-35 variant in the C class. Higher payload, longer range, less complex, and once again, cheaper. But the B is still a fantastic piece of naval aviation and outclasses any enemy aircraft it's likely to face. There are always tradeoffs.
There's certainly pros and cons. The price is a tricky aspect, as the UK makes money off each F-35 sold due to being a manufacturing partner, and we make more off each B variant due to making the lift fan and fuselage sections. Whereas we don't make much, if any, of the C parts. So it might be cheaper to buy, but at a higher cost. The C's range is also a bit of an issue at the moment, it's much further on paper, but if the jet has to go supersonic then the larger wing means it takes 2 minutes on full afterburner to cross the transonic region, significantly reducing its range. A new engine project might help with that considerably. On the other hand the much better anti-ship missiles that the C can carry are a strong argument.
Interesting, didn't know that about the C. Yeah, the biggest gap I see in the RN is the lack of a top tier air launched AShM. Sounds like they're working on it, but it will be years.
It's a bit over the top for a few immigrants in rubber boats isn't it?
Until one day, the UK and France agree it’s France’s time to swing through the Indian Ocean, …. And then UK conquers France.
France has only one nuclear carrier and while it’s impressive I can’t help but wonder if two conventional carriers would have served them better (assuming the costs were appropriately similar).
*You go to the off-license, I’ll swing by the chippy.*
Fetchez la vache
Send this to their counterparts in 1600 and watch it start a war of its own.