Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: France is a relatively weak military power.
Nappy    6/23/2005 5:02:28 PM
France is a relatively weak military power in terms of the world. It has neither logisitcal nor economic capability to invade none other then it's neighbors (possibly a land invasion of England included). What do I mean by invasion? Ability to completely invade,dominate, and ultimately totally control (not like the "green zone" areas and chaos we see in Iraq). Germany is a possiblity but their armaments production capability is far higher then France. Spain is also a possiblity, but to be frank not possible due to the terrain(Pyrnees), and capability of the Spanish airforce (they have a significant airforce believe it or not, in fact with a budget of 8 billion annually just for the airforce.) England is a possiblity also, the French navy is significantly inferior to the English navy but it's possible to perhaps make a surprise landing. As far as comparing France to say an India. This is ludicrous. If India wishes, (this will NEVER happen) she could invade Russia and take Moscow (without Nuclear weapons of course), this could be done fairly easily by India (perhaps with a loss of 20-30 million Indians), Indians frankly pump out more and better qualified engineers, chemist then say France and Russia combined as per the DOW chemical company R&D report in 2004, and have a better capacity to utilize these resources, the Indian economy is much bigger in production capability then say a France or Russia (as output by ODM per operating cost). Finally, I just don't believe France has the "willpower" to do anything like an invasion. It's people are too inclined to luxuries and other wasteful and decadent excess that they will rather surrender or bargain with another power rather then fight. I do not mean to offend or upset anyone (in fact this is a complement to the highly developed social paradise setup by the French people) but the realities are that in a war France would probably roll over.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT
Godofgamblers    flip side   6/29/2005 9:41:59 PM
don't do that! it's mainly just an argument for mothers to get their kids to eat green things ('don't you know people are starving in africa and you want to throw out two spoonfuls of peas!?! don't you care? are you autistic? a sociopath?'). in fact, most of these african famines are politically generated. it's a common tool of repression as has been shown time and time again. millions in aid are sent and the funds disappear, rice sacks with "UN" stamped on them are found being peddled in neighboring countries, etc. for every good deed a gov't does, you can find a dark flip side to it. for instance, PD, you seem like a mellow well-balanced guy to me, so i hope you won't be offended by the following conjectures, but tell me: 1. was the civil war about slavery, or was it really just a power struggle between two different political elites using slavery as one issue, among many, to punish the other? 2. did clinton really care about liberating blacks in SAfrica, or did he simply want to get the 'black vote' in his own country in a very cynical political move? 3. did france really abstain from the iraq war out of principle, or was it a purely machiavellian decision based on chirac retaining popularity among the arab french? i could go on and on, using examples from my own country (if i were brave enough he he), but i am curious to hear your answers. note that i do not endorse or propose any of the above examples: i am simply curious as to your take on the 'angle' taken. all the best
 
Quote    Reply

ProDemocracy    RE:flip side   6/29/2005 9:53:16 PM
1) there was alot of hypocrasy regarding the slavery issue - for example, the emancipation proclomation freed slaves in the south, but NOT the border states still practicing it!! Agree with you there 2) Clinton getting the black vote was probably a foregone conclusion and I am sure he had an eye on the election - but I do believe there were moral reasons for his endorsement of the end of aparthied 3) I believe that Chirac had ulterior motives but also financial interests drove his decision - but Chirac had some moral basis for his decisions I will concede I will add one which may make my fellow Americans bristle Johnson had major financial holdings in the arms industry - what better way to make $$ than to fight and escalate the war in Vietnam? More examples? Would love to hear them!
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    RE:flip side   6/29/2005 10:08:25 PM
the referendum held in east timor by indonesia: was it on the impetus of a prez who believed in human rights and justice, or was it the cynical move of a man wishing to cleanse his country of non-muslims? open question...
 
Quote    Reply

ProDemocracy    RE:flip side   6/29/2005 10:10:54 PM
Sorry I have to claim ignorance on that subject...I wish I had more to offer there....any more examples...Europe, North America and Japan and China (esp history from 1800's to present) are my strong points...
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    ProD tianamien   6/29/2005 10:25:20 PM
i recently heard that the tianamien square incident was completely different than as portrayed in the media: i.e. the reasons for the crackdown, the number of casualties. Some of these events acquire a life of their own from the media. what 'really' happened becomes immaterial once an incident is 'spun' by the media. and goes on to trigger other events, reactions, etc. what do you know about what really happened? or was the media picture fairly accurate?
 
Quote    Reply

ProDemocracy    RE:ProD tianamien   6/29/2005 11:28:45 PM
i haven't heard much about tianemien - I think that the media probably portrayed it differently but my attitude toward that is if China had allowed media in, there would have been more accurate reports and less speculation. In any case, the strong world reaction shows there must have been something going on...notice the marches started while Gorbechev was there - the last thing the Chinese gov't would want is their people worshipping a Russian leader...not sure what else I could say on the subject...what are your thoughts?
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    RE:ProD tiananmien   6/30/2005 9:58:16 PM
i don't know anything about it. it was qualified in the west as a sort of "Beijing Spring". it could have been, i just wonder if there's more to it. the students were patriotic and not anti-state; they were asking for more democracy. complications set in though, as the movement was also made up of workers and other factions that obviously had their own agenda. i read that when they sent the tanks in that hundreds of innocent civilians were killed in the process, civilians that had nothing to do with the demonstrations. i wonder if this is true. if so, it would be fairly damning. it is incredible that the army would kill its own people, innocent ones at that. if that is what happened, then the regime is completely morally bankrupt.
 
Quote    Reply

ProDemocracy    RE:ProD tiananmien   6/30/2005 10:03:17 PM
I agree with you completely...China's regime is notoriously immoral with regard to human rights...what are your thoughts about Rwanda in 1994? Have you seen "Hotel Rwanda"? I'll give you a little insight into my experience with the movie...in the past, I would hear about African violence and tune out - always fascinated with Europe and Asia, but not Africa...well this movie changed that...since I found out the roots of this particular violence were sown with the colonial power who used to occupy them - Belgium...this wasn't just a bunch of Africans killing each other...more to it...anyway, enough of my rambling, what are your thoughts? Perhaps I should start a new post?
 
Quote    Reply

AmiralDeGrasse       4/1/2009 11:32:49 PM

Hello everybody, I am a new to this forum so let me tell you a bit about myself. You could have guessed it, I am a Frenchman and that's why I am contributing to this thread.

 

While reading most of what has been said, I thought I could add up a few elements.

Some points should be taken into account regarding history in the long run. When one looks at what made a given country a world power, they pay attention to certain characteristics related to the economy, demography, stability, influence (soft power), etc.

Most of the time, some of these features are missing to a world class power (the sole exception being the USA in 1945). For example, when Spain was a superpower, back in the 16th century, it was an underpopulated country importing loads of gold from the New World. In the end, Spain suffered from a syndrome close to that of Saudi Arabia: overabundance of (monetary) wealth pushed the Spaniards out of the productive sphere of the economy only to make a living from imports of goods from the manufacturing powers of the day (France, the Netherlands and England).

 

Then France entered the arena of world superpowers. In the midst of the 17th century, under the regency of Anne of Austria (daughter of Philippe III of Spain!), the French military defeated the Spanish Tercios. France was, and has always been the most populated country in Europe (even in comparison with Russia) and third most populated country in the World after India and China. It was a manufacturing powerhouse thanks to Colbert's policy and it became a net exporter of goods endangering the trade balance of other major powers like England.

What happened afterwards is, in retrospect, striking. France's demographic growth slowed down. In 1795, Russia became more populated, in 1870, Germany went ahead, in 1900, England followed suit and during the interwar period, Italy too.

 

Demographics are a big part of the explanation. Power rests on economic prowess but when countries attain a high level of development, what makes the difference between them? Numbers. When two states are on an equal footing, regarding development, the more populated of the two becomes the dominant power.

 

In 1940, there were twice as many Germans as Frenchmen. The USA outnumbered the Japanese by a factor 2. There was also twice as Soviets as Germans. If there were only 60 million US citizens, do you think the USA would still be a superpower? Evidently not. Think again: Luxembourg?s GDP per capita is the highest in the world. But still, 400 000 inhabitants can?t even turn it into a regional power.

 

In 1940, French industry was, not underdeveloped, but still less developed than Germany?s, ceteris paribus (an explanation, besides that of religion lies in the fact that Germany and England had plenty of iron and coal while France did not). This was corrected in the subsequent decades and nowadays France?s technology is on top of the art. French productivity is one of the highest in the world while the country retains some influence in strategic spots of the world, like the Middle East. The tides are turning.

 

Now it is interesting to look at the new trends. France?s demography has become vigorous while Germany?s, Russia?s and Italy?s (and Japan?s) have decreasing populations. 20 years from now, France will, once again, be more populated than Germany. Unsurprisingly, the numbers are going to make a difference since the GDPs per capita of both countries are equal (add to that that France?s economic growth has been faster than Germany?s during the last 20 years).

This is not going to turn France into another superpower in the foreseeable future but it is becoming the dominant power in Europe and, soon enough, America?s most powerful ally, far ahead of Britain. Putting history into perspective, we can witness that Europe?s balance of power is shifting in favour of the only European great power that has always been a major player across the ages, since the fall of the Roman Empire (the Holy Roman Empire, aka Germany, was nothing but a gathering of heterogeneous principalities and never played a major role in continental politics, Britain was an underpopulated country until the 19th century although is had become a major power in the 17th c., Russia, was a newcomer to the European power politics,

 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    amiraldegrasse   4/1/2009 11:55:33 PM
Thank you for taking the time to type out your post, A. DeGrasse, but although interesting, i don't find your central thesis compelling. Viewing history through the filter of population does not explain many things, I'm afraid. While i respect your opinion, in using a reductionist theory, your argument leads to a reduced grasp of the complexity of the situation.
 
For over a century, the UKs population was much lower than Spain's and France's and yet the UK gained clear superiority over the two. In 1940, if we look at the number of cars on the road, I believe the number was much higher for Germany, disproportionately so, pointing to superior industrialization and not mere population superiority.
 
I would argue that the dynamism of France during the French Revolution and the successive upsets and revolutions that followed allowed a brilliant individual such as Napoleon to emerge; population had no effect on any of these matters. France's meteoric rise was in fact the result of ONE MAN and not a head count.
 
Populaton can be a driver of certain forces: domestic consumption, consumer demand, conscripts for a levée en masse, for example, but can be a hindrance in other ways.
 
As for the Arab population in France, this argument does not add water to your mill... (as the French expression goes:) ). The fact that the producing element of the society is non-French and often antagonistic to France does not bode well.
 
In any case, allow me to compliment you on an interesting post (and your excellent English), I look forward to your reply while welcoming you to strategypage:)
all the best
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics