To be honest geographically China or Russia going for the UAE is ludicrous. It's just that earlier posters mentioned it and it's morning in England and I haven't had coffee time yet, okay?

 

As for your assertion that Russia or China having nothing to fear from France? Debatable. The French have a better navy and if the fight is far from the homeland of both nations, then France has better sealift capability. Not to metnion a professional, volunteer based army instead of a conscript based army (which was what I meant by teenagers) and doctrinal superiority. So it's debatable- but I'll leave you the joy of deabting it with FS, as it dosen't really interest me and I have stuff to do today.

 

Plus you seem to agree that the US would step in, right? And likely other NATO powers as part of a coalition, at which point it is unwinnable for any invader. The whole smackdown thing? Slightly childish prehaps, (again, no coffee time yet + hangover) but also likely accurate when any nation goes against the US, France, and other NATO powers.

 

I like to keep it civil and respectful but you claiming racism is a very serious charge and I ask you to retract it immediately. You would not say it to my face- so plase do not do so here as I find it incredibly offensive. I have nothing but respect for the cultures of China, Russia, and continental Europe- I was simply reffering to the fact that the goverment of the PRC and Russia are quite agressive and prehaps a little arrogant and would likely be dismissive of France as a threat. I like the people, just like I like all people- are you arguing that the government of the PRC or Russia are loveable?

 

As for the Euro-trash comment I was simply reffering to the fact that out of Europe only the UK and France seem prepared to make meaningful troop committments. Again, lack of coffee time makes me exagerate and sometimes talk in a vernacular which only I understand. I hope this clears things up.

"First of all China and Russia do not have ill equipped teenagers as soldiers. They have two of the largest and most feared armies in the world, number two and three in the world, and  no they do not fear the French military, why would they? stop playing around.

"

They are numerous inside their boundaries.Outside, their ability of projecting power is very limited.

France homeland is protected by us including our nukes,  and by NATO.

 

So what matter is what we could field for a war in the gulf.

France has a strong superiority in quality (giant vs chineses), produce its weapons, and can build up its army size and power by a magnitude like USA have done in WW2 to fight abroad if the war take a longer time than expected.

To fight in Indian ocean, France has much more abilities than Russia or China.

And it start by the fact we have territories there.

And probably UK or USA would join us.

But the main ennemy is of course Iran.

 

GOG: on Czech in 1938, UK was allied with France but did not want to support us for a war with Germany concerning Czech because they had no alliance with Czech Republic, and were not prepared for a ground war.

To remove the duty of France to defend Czech, UK, plus Italy (which was a go-between since they had not yet chosen their camp in 1938), put maximum pressure on Czech governement to "willingly" accept german conditions.And they did (plus threat of Hitler menacing to reduce to ashes Praha).

Even legally we were freed from treaty obligations at this time, I agree it was not honourable for France.

 

In 1939, it was the reverse situation: UK was more commited to Poland than France but more ready to go.

So war was declared by UK then France.

If we did not attack in the "phoney war" it was an agreement between UK and France.

UK was not ready to field a strong ground army, and not yet prepared fully for air power as France.

France was not in position to attack germany (or believed it), especially since Belgium was still neutral and refused to let us to use its territory for an offensive,  and we did not want to do a ground war alone for enforcing a UK treaty (especially with the fact we lacked young men after WW1) so it was decided to scale up together in might before freeing Poland.

Unfortunately German attacked before french were ready (especially on air force), or British (on ground), and won due to our mistakes.

 

 

 

 

 

_{To be honest geographically China or Russia going for the UAE is ludicrous. It's just that earlier posters mentioned it and it's morning in England and I haven't had coffee time yet, okay?}

_{As for your assertion that Russia or China having nothing to fear from France? Debatable. The French have a better navy and if the fight is far from the homeland of both nations, then France has better sealift capability. Not to metnion a professional, volunteer based army instead of a conscript based army (which was what I meant by teenagers) and doctrinal superiority. So it's debatable- but I'll leave you the joy of deabting it with FS, as it dosen't really interest me and I have stuff to do today.}

_{Plus you seem to agree that the US would step in, right? And likely other NATO powers as part of a coalition, at which point it is unwinnable for any invader. The whole smackdown thing? Slightly childish prehaps, (again, no coffee time yet + hangover) but also likely accurate when any nation goes against the US, France, and other NATO powers.}

_{I like to keep it civil and respectful but you claiming racism is a very serious charge and I ask you to retract it immediately. You would not say it to my face- so plase do not do so here as I find it incredibly offensive. I have nothing but respect for the cultures of China, Russia, and continental Europe- I was simply reffering to the fact that the goverment of the PRC and Russia are quite agressive and prehaps a little arrogant and would likely be dismissive of France as a threat. I like the people, just like I like all people- are you arguing that the government of the PRC or Russia are loveable?}

 

 

 

 

I hope you no longer have that impression. And yes as I posted in my response PRC or Russia going into UAE is not going to happen, someone else mentioned before me and so I referenced it. And also you're right they are all nuclear powers which makes it almost a moot point. This is a good example of why one should not post early in the morning while hungover and before coffee time. I hope this clears everthing up.

I think the discussions about "invasions" in the UAE by China, Russia, etc. are a bit surreal (the Russians can anyhow do it in a different way - maybe they have "invaded" the UAE already :) If you go to Dubai nowadays  it is a clear advantage if you speak Russian ... if you dont believe it go there and try ...) 

The issue in the gulf region is something different: The gulf arabs heavily mistrust Iran (which by the way are not Arabs) and are very suspicious about their nucelar program. Becasue of this, since a few years many gulf states are considering whether to convert petro-dollars somehow into nukes in order not to appear a weak victim for blackmailing once Iran has become a nucelar power in the region. UAE have figured out a better, i.e. more effective, more efficient and pobably cheaper way to do it - they set up good and tight relationship with an existing nuclear power (especially one which is able to deploy mini-nukes if needed). Also France is not known to be very Iran friendly and has already put out strong words concerning Ians nuclear program.  So the choice was probably not a bad one for UAE.

FS - although I am in principle on your side of the pond, I think that your agrumentation concerning French WWII involvement is a bit, lets say, too positive. The static defensive strategie put foward by Joffre etc. was from a strategic standpoint simply BS. And they made the mistake again later in the Indochina wars. Lets face it - from a strategic perspective France always had its weak points, and although being brilliant in tactics sometimes I fear that we are still not the straegic masterminds. 

Joffre was general in WW1 not WW2! LOL

Reasons of defeat in 1940 and reasons for which we did not attack in 1939 are WELLdocumented

Read that for exemple:

 

3 main reasons which led to not attack in 1939 or 1940

1)Italian air power has to be added to Germany and France air power was less than a quarter of German+Italian aviation

Parity of French+Briish could not be attained before 1942 with actual production rate.

2)Belgium did not let us attack germany though its territory which let only Alsace border to attack Germany in front of Black forest or Eiffel mountain in a ground not very suitable for tanks (and heavily mined by germans).

3) Most french division were manned by old reservists and not suitable for attack.Best divisions were armored/motorized divisions in front of Belgium border.

 

Germany has always attacked via Belgium and Luxembourg and it worked since each time germany violated their neutrality.

However France could not violate their neutrality.

 

sometimes I fear that we are still not the straegic masterminds. 
The problem is more in our general staff management (with huge political interference) and the fact that we used to have no natural barrier between our main ennemy which was germany.Only 300 km of depth (distance from Metz to Paris) which is little in case of a failure.

300 km is done in a week only for a non motorized infantery division.

 

 

FS - although I am in principle on your side of the pond, I think that your agrumentation concerning French WWII involvement is a bit, lets say, too positive. The static defensive strategie put foward by Joffre etc. was from a strategic standpoint simply BS. And they made the mistake again later in the Indochina wars. Lets face it - from a strategic perspective France always had its weak points, and although being brilliant in tactics sometimes I fear that we are still not the straegic masterminds. 

Joffre was general in WW1 not WW2! LOL

Reasons of defeat in 1940 and reasons for which we did not attack in 1939 are WELLdocumented

Read that for exemple:

 

3 main reasons which led to not attack in 1939 or 1940

1)Italian air power has to be added to Germany and France air power was less than a quarter of German+Italian aviation

Parity of French+Briish could not be attained before 1942 with actual production rate.

2)Belgium did not let us attack germany though its territory which let only Alsace border to attack Germany in front of Black forest or Eiffel mountain in a ground not very suitable for tanks (and heavily mined by germans).

3) Most french division were manned by old reservists and not suitable for attack.Best divisions were armored/motorized divisions in front of Belgium border.

 

Germany has always attacked via Belgium and Luxembourg and it worked since each time germany violated their neutrality.

However France could not violate their neutrality.

 

sometimes I fear that we are still not the straegic masterminds. 
The problem is more in our general staff management (with huge political interference) and the fact that we used to have no natural barrier between our main ennemy which was germany.Only 300 km of depth (distance from Metz to Paris) which is little in case of a failure.

300 km is done in a week only for a non motorized infantery division.

 

 

...

FS, Joffre was operative in WW1 - thats right, but he was a major promoter of the static/fortified defensive strategy (based on Verdun- or Epinal  like bunkers and forts) which later resulted in the CDF (Commission de défense des frontières ) and CORF projects. The reason why I mentzioned him is basically that he is a very good example of not learning from things that did not work in the past and create long-term constraints that make you rather inflexible. The key is that we need to see things in context - especially strategic setups, which take a long time of preparation and are huge cost blocks. I absolutely agree with your assessment concerning the "non-readiness" for attack. This was partially due to a high tribute in personnel paid already during the WW1 years, but also to a large extent of diverting money and resources into extremely expensive and manpower intensive defensive setups like the Maginot line, which later turned out to be ineffective (and also were ineffective concerning the Belgian fortifications like fort Eben). What I am trying to point out here is that the long-term strategic setup can bring you in a situation where the set of actions you have a vailable is very restricted. And this long-term point of view is often missing in decision making.

 

 

 

 

The British and French knew the Russians would invade Poland but decided not to inform the Poles. The reason? They were not too worried as they assumed the war would quickly degenerate into trecnch warfare and thus stalemate after the intial maneuvering was over. It was at this point that the Allies intended to step in ---not as combatants ---- but as negotiators.

 

I think deep down they assumed this would happen in France, even if in fact it never happened in Poland.

 

As the cliche goes, the Allies were still fighting the last war.