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
AmiralDeGrasse       4/4/2009 12:27:17 PM

In 1936, de Gaulle met Blum, then freshly elected to the office of President of the Council (Prime Minister) and made his advocacy in favour of a mechanised army. Blum, a socialist, feared that such an professional military would become a threat to the IIIrd Republic. Furthermore, he said this would be an army for conquest rather than a defence force, and he was horrified at this prospect.

 

But, to be fair, in the meantime Blum was the first President of the Council to dramatically increase the French spending on defence. In the meantime, the British started their rearmament.

 

I don?t think the French elite, in the 30s, was appalled at the prospects raised by Blum?s election. In fact, it was the choice of their majority since that in the IIIrd Republic, the president of the Council was chosen among the members of the Assemblée Nationale (lower house).

 

In another order of idea, you are right when you say many French intellectuals were anti-Semites. Although they still were a minority. Maurras was one of them but he also despised Nazism because, he said, this ideology stemmed from the 19th c. German romanticism. For this reason, Maurras preferred the Latin version of fascism, exemplified by Mussolini.

 

Then there was this famous novel by Julien Benda, called ?La trahison des clercs? (Betrayal of the Elites), whose central thesis was that the elites did not carry on their duty to lighten the ways of the future for the people. Those elites betrayed French ideals, the very ideals that triumphed in the Revolution: liberalism and nationalism, in its liberal, rousseauist version (as opposed to the German volksgeist theorised by Herder who preferred an ethnocultural version of nationalism).

 

So I must disagree with the statement that the elites gave up France to Germany. Some of them were quick to surrender when the first phase of the war was lost. Most were like the British elites (notwithstanding Nazi sympathisers like Lord Halifax, then at the Foreign Office), hesitating as to whether give priority to the struggle against fascism or to the struggle against communism.

 

Decadence was definitely of a word of the time. Spengler wrote about it, and many ideologies were inspired by a need to fight decadence of accept it as a supreme form of civilisation. Nazism was an answer to this perceived state of affairs in the basic idea that the world was so old and boring that it needed a radical transformation. I would not overstate the influence of Dadaism for that it is mostly absent from the writings of most French authors of the time and subsequently from their Memoirs.

 

Conversely, institutions, retrospectively, were thought to be a major hindrance to the exertion of France?s might. The IIIrd Republic (1875 to 1940), and later the IVth (fr. 1946 to 58) which was very similar, were thought to prevent French governments (because of ministerial instability and constant interpellation by the MPs) to act in conformity with the national interests of the country, in a sustained manner.

This is why the Vth Republic eventually emerged in 1958, breaking with what was called ?le système des partis? (translation useless). From that moment, in effect, French governance has dramatically changed. E.g. the development of the A bomb required a strong leadership and it would, probably, not have been achieved under the rule of the IVth Rep.

 

Now there is something interesting regarding the history of ideas. René Rémond, a French political expert from Science Politique, wrote a study stretching over 2 c. of history of the Right in France. There are, he stated, 3 traditions rooted in the modern history of France. 1) the legitimists (Old Regime type monarchy); 2) the Orléanistes (Bourgeois monarchy type regime); 3) the Bonapartistes (Imperial institutions-type regime).

 

Group 1 has become meaningless: some can be found in the far right wing of French politics. They have become a heterogeneous group.

Group 2 is still in place, they converted themselves to Republicanism, and are to be found in centre-right parties like that of François Bayrou, Modem party, and that of Morin, actual minister of Defence, chief of the

 
Quote    Reply

Bigjay       4/4/2009 7:49:36 PM
France is a weak power if there are only five powers.
 
The fact France has an nuclear arsinal makes it at least one of eight.  Then to know it has four subs with ICBMs put it at par with the UK.  However, its air force or rather one real aircraft carrier and bases around the world, make it more of a threat than the UK.  It has the same or close to the number of amphbiouls warfare ship as the UK.  And they are as good as sold to any country in NATO.
 
And France has things most countries dominatied by the US don't, a large vibrant (if second class to the US) military industrial complex.  Yes, they build most of their equipment.  No real war has ever been won without industry.  Yes, the Rafel may not be the F-22 or the Typoon 2 but it is made in France along with most of the Frence equipment save the new carrier.
 
In true terms the French are tide for 4 and 5.
 
Oh, and the French have four modern 15,000 to 25,000 amphibuious assault platforms plus a real carrier.  Those can take most third world countries.
 
Haae fun, Jason
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       4/4/2009 8:16:42 PM

And France has things most countries dominatied by the US don't, a large vibrant (if second class to the US) military industrial complex.  Yes, they build most of their equipment.  No real war has ever been won without industry. 

IIRC the largest non US defence company in the world is BAE. (4th IIRC)  then there are a swag of other US companies.  The french just make the 10.

its a moot point anyway, as defence companies are multinational.  eg Thales took ownership of ADI in australia hence getting australian production facilities and capability.  Thales is also not totally French in corporate ownership.

In addition, in times of absolute threat to the nation state (and in recent history) , the state will exercise privilege and take control of  manufacturing direction.  There are only 6 countries that  have done the state directed and managed infrastructure control of private assets in war time.  US, USSR, UK, Germany Canada and Australia (although one could argue that France and Czechoslovakia could be included as the Germans took over their industries and used them for supporting the Reich)
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    History is a science...   4/5/2009 12:20:47 AM
I'm impressed by your open mindedness, AdG, and your ability to analyze and critique
your country's culture and history. It is the mark of well educated person and a
free thinker.

I'm also glad you do not advocate a state based on ethnicity as I do not believe it
is viable in our day and age. Whether a multi cultural society is the way of the
future remains to be seen but some countries like Canada are making bold moves in
that direction.

As to Leon Blum, there is a book on the matter I mentioned , which contends that the
French elite gave up on the republic when a Jewish PM came to power. This does not
prove my point of course, but it shows that there was a current of despair (and of
deterritorialisation). implicit in anti semitism.

Dadaism expressed very well the spirit of the times and the absolute nihilism of
some of the cultural elite. Duchamp was French I think. You may be right regarding
its influence as it was short lived.

Yes, I'm familiar with Remond's work. I think there is some truth to it as it seeks
to find trends in seemingly disparate matters, which is the task of historians, to
give order to the stream of events.

Hisory is a science, not an art, as I'm sure you agree. Though we can interpret
things differently, we have to analyze without morality, prejudices and personal
issues. Just as in science, there can be no moral judgments tacked on to theories or
descriptions. However, it is still subjective in that we can pick and choose facts
as we want. We can deem certain facts to be important and others as trivial. In the
case of French defeatism we must conclude that it was present and that it cannot be
dismissed as a 'mood' or something trivial. We cannot judge whether it was wrong or
right: simply that it was an inalienable fact of French politics. Victory or defeat
is a state of mind and, as you point out, France felt the fight was over before it
had begun. Why this happened is somewhat of a mystery to me. France had the same or
better materiel as Germany; to say that the French feared another World War is true,
but was it less traumatic for the Germans? I think, as it has been said on these
boards before,that "the soldiers fight battles and then the politicians move in to
decide who has won and lost". So true! In the case of WW1, against all commonsense
wisdom, I would venture that France counted itself as a loser and not a winner. The
huge casualties were one reason, and the fact that the peace that was negotiated
seemed to leave the Germans as dangerous as ever (only angrier!) led many to believe
that France's days were numbered. I believe it was Weygand himself who remarked
after the signing of the Versailles Treaty, "this buys us 20 years at the most"
(uncanny prediction!).

The return to France of Degaulle after WW2 led to the possibility of a revival in
France, but we have yet to see it realized. Algeria and other colonies slipped away;
the EU failed to establish itself as anything more than a paper dragon; the various
Mediterranean ambitions of France have yet to bear fruit. Most telling of all, at
present the French military seems to be a work in progress; confused and conflicting
mission demands and vision, a string of bases round the world with no clear use, a
lack of projection power..... The list goes on.

I reiterate that France now needs a unifying idea to align its military and
political strength, a leader who can articulate a vision that can unite the
disparate elements of French society. Against my better judgment I find myself again
espousing the 'Great Man' theory hehe: One man can make the difference!

As Alexander the Great said 'I don't fear an army of lions led by a sheep but I
would fear an army of sheep led by one lion!".

I doubt if Sarko is that man..... But perhaps his successor?

I believe France has the potential for many of the reasons already mentioned:
defence industry, bases, history, and independence.

As for myself, I come from the country that Arthur Rimbaud visited when he deserted
from the Dutch navy. The country, perhaps, which inspired Les Illuminations ;)....
 
Quote    Reply

Bigjay       4/5/2009 2:53:18 AM








IIRC the largest non US defence company in the world is BAE. (4th IIRC)  then there are a swag of other US companies.  The french just make the 10.








Yes, the French companies maybe 10th, or third if you look at country of orign.  However, Frances miltiary industries are mostly French own and they build almost all of there own equipment.  But the fact is that France is one of say five countries that has a miltary industrial complex big enough to supply it's self.
Sure countries like Canada and Australia could ramp things up in time of war but that takes time.
Whether or not the Rafel is a good plane, there is a production line in France that in time of war can be turned on.  All but Russia, China, the UK/Germany/Italy/Spain (if they can agree), the US, and Sweden have the ablity to build a 4.5 gen, or better, fighter at a whim.  That is not a small feet.
Seems like most on here got burned by a French girl and can't get over it.
 
Have fun, Jason

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       4/5/2009 3:29:52 AM
Yes, the French companies maybe 10th, or third if you look at country of orign.  
I was looking at country of origin.
However, Frances miltiary industries are mostly French own and they build almost all of there own equipment.  But the fact is that France is one of say five countries that has a miltary industrial complex big enough to supply it's self.
     Granted, and wasn't in dispute

     Sure countries like Canada and Australia could ramp things up in time of war but that takes time.
        Hmm, national emergency provisions?  It's been done in under 30 days in wartime.

Whether or not the Rafel is a good plane, there is a production line in France that in time of war can be turned on.  

As can other countries.  see above.  Most aircraft in WW2 were built on motor vehicle production lines.  again, the capacity for France to convert civilian production capability wasn't in dispute

All but Russia, China, the UK/Germany/Italy/Spain (if they can agree), the US, and Sweden have the ablity to build a 4.5 gen, or better, fighter at a whim.  That is not a small feet.
 
again, who said it wasn't a small feat?  Anyone in the G8 can turn their hand to it - and there are quite a few in the G20 who also can.  In times of national emergency, more can be included as they have latent capacity to do so.  AT a strategic security debate, you always look at actual and latent capability.  You also factor in how vulnerable the actual capability is to intervention and the impact of decay.  Nations with land borders immediately get elevated as a risk due to geography issues.  Those with sufficient land mass reduce the vulnerability issue.  So US, China, Russia, Canada all have greater capacity to weather any attempt to intervene on their warfighting and warbuilding capacity.  It's a simple fact.

Seems like most on here got burned by a French girl and can't get over it.

ah, the strawman response.  I get on fine with my ex and I deal with a French owned defence sector entity every week.
you seem to be the one with the need to pump up up the debate.  "getting over it" seems to be an issue for you.
 

Have fun, Jason





 
Quote    Reply

AmiralDeGrasse       4/5/2009 11:55:29 PM

I am also surprised by your open mindedness. It is pleasant to talk with someone so versed in history and ?culture générale? (another French whim).

I would not qualify myself as a free thinker since I never thought I needed to conceptualise my ?weltanschauung? (in the generic meaning of the word). Furthermore, I would not have been on the same side as many free thinkers of the 19th c.

I tend to be accustomed to the ways of Raymond Aron in that he is a sceptical and a liberal (philosophical sense), yet an unorthodox, thinker who believes Men?s rights are history-made rather than given by nature.

 

Aron, likewise, opposed Clemenceau?s word, another prominent free thinker, in that the French Revolution was an inseparable whole. Aron would argue the Revolution?s values could have been implemented gradually without the bloodshed we owe to our forefathers, many great men, also zealous revolutionaries.

 

It leads me to talk about Hugo?s opposition to Napoléon le petit?s regime: the Second Empire. And indeed it is a good point to start with. I believe that you are an Englishman, re your allusion to Rimbaud. Je me demande même si vous parlez ma langue?

 

Louis-Napoleon was an admirer of Great Britain and he wanted to maintain a kind of precocious Entente with the Victorian Empire. He also was the founder of liberal Bonapartism and, IMO, by extension, the kind of ?republican imperialism? on which lays present day French governmental practice and institutions (I am not truly faithful to Rémond?s work in this statement, but let?s assume he started his ?Histoire des droites en France? after the Congress of Vienna because such was the beginning of the despatch of modern French political forces of the Right, and hence, Bonapartism had become a concept in 1852, not 1804). These associations of opposites are typical of French thought and practice.

 

This is to say there was no fatality to French defeatism neither the fact Blum, a Jew, had become PM explains the disaffection of many elites towards the Republic. In the sense France was also the country that rebuffed the pretentious and ostensibly anti-Semitic military hierarchy and reversed the initial conclusion of Dreyfus? trial. A point Herzl missed but a point that struck Halevy to his great relief.

 

In a similar manner, when Napoleon III was ill when he declared war on Prussia, in 1870. He did know the French military was not up to the challenge since the Loi Niel (relative to the modernisation of the army) was rejected by the legislative assembly, in 1866, only to pass 2 years later in a dramatically less ambitious version. Most of the opponents of the Loi Niel were not right-wing anti-Semites (it would be an anachronism at the time) but internationalists and leftists alike who refused to ?militarize the society? (an allusion to the conscription system Napoleon III and Marshal Niel wanted to implement in order to face Prussia).

 

 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/6/2009 1:51:07 AM



















IIRC the largest non US defence company in the world is BAE. (4th IIRC)  then there are a swag of other US companies.  The french just make the 10.























Yes, the French companies maybe 10th, or third if you look at country of orign.  However, Frances miltiary industries are mostly French own and they build almost all of there own equipment.  But the fact is that France is one of say five countries that has a miltary industrial complex big enough to supply it's self.

Sure countries like Canada and Australia could ramp things up in time of war but that takes time.

Whether or not the Rafel is a good plane, there is a production line in France that in time of war can be turned on.  All but Russia, China, the UK/Germany/Italy/Spain (if they can agree), the US, and Sweden have the ablity to build a 4.5 gen, or better, fighter at a whim.  That is not a small feet.

Seems like most on here got burned by a French girl and can't get over it.

 

Have fun, Jason






So because we believe the Rafale is inferior to an F-16 due to it's lack of proper mods we've lusted for a French girlfriend who didn't want us? Not only is it a bad allegory, but you're assuming we don't prefer the hot Amie chick or nice Brit.
... Actually, it's just plain stupid... France pulls of the 'Ice' pretty well, but not the 'Princess' part.
 
The Mirage 2000 on the other hand is a nice plane. Nothing special, but quite decent.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/6/2009 1:56:08 AM
Of course, I don't have anything against France in general - except her arrogance.
She's a beautiful enough girl on her own, though her proponents always seem to invite counter insults.
 
I guess I'll try to avoid moving into the allegorical arena next time. It's too filled with straw... which is why I suppose those who lack arguments are the first to move into it.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/6/2009 1:57:23 AM
From what I hear the M2000 is better than an F-16. Probably not as good as an F-18 though... I wonder how it'd do against an F15...
 
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