UK and France to share aircraft carriers

reply to post by Freeborn

Star.

If the shared aircraft carrier were to engage in any combat situations, only the English part of the crew would be doing any fighting.

Just who is the one person or group responsible for this ridiculously hare-brained idea?

Edit: The only way this would work is for France to surrender their sovereignty to Great Britain and quit speaking French, what a nasty language.

[edit on 1/9/10 by Intelearthling]

reply to post by Manouche


I fail to see how America can be dragged into this apart from France had designs on America for itself but ended up with nothing!

This has been ongoing since at least 1066 when The Normans usurped the English throne.
As a result of this the ruling English monarch inherited some French lands.
And therein lies the roots of the age long enmity between the two nations.

Both nations have consistently attempted to scupper each other's interests thus advancing their own.

I could list numerous examples of how Britains have contributed and advanced so many fields within arts and culture in comparison to France but I think that should be for another thread.

De Gaulle consistently vetoed British entry into the EEC as he saw the UK a threat to the Franco-Gremanic controlled behemoth it continues to be today.
De Gaulle disliked British society and culture which he considered course and uncouth.
He resented the roles Churchill and Roosevelt played in the war.
He refused to allow French soldiers to take part in the D-Day landings only allowing them on shore after the beach heads had been secured.
Ironically The Free French Forces were predominantly made up of troops from France's colonies.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
Since when has the US protected anyone.

If a massive oil field were to be discovered beneath Wolverhampton, the US is likely to declare England a terrorist nation and invade the place.

Well they actually service and hold all the parts for our Trident missiles, so if we are ever to used those we will need to get them off America first

Britain is technically so dependent on the US that in effect Trident is not an independent system. For example, the British Trident missiles are serviced at a port in the state of Georgia and warhead components are also made in the US.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Servicing is one thing the other side say it's still independent:

Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has stressed Trident's independence, saying its firing does not require the permission, the satellites or the codes of any other country (ie the United States).

news.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by Foodman


Hang on a minute!!

Surely we are due another war with France at any moment now, this is the longest time England and France have ever been in peace, it's only natural that one of us is going to try and invade the other soon. How the hell are we going to go about that when we are sharing war ships?!

Originally posted by Emphursis


But the French? Really? For almost two hundred years, the main reason FOR the Navy was to scare the French!

Almost 200 years, eh?

Try almost 1000 years and you'd be almost there.

P.s. I accidentally clicked the "friend" tab instead of "quote", so it looks like we're friends now. Don't you dare let me down!!!

reply to post by Freeborn


That may be so, but the fact remains we're not going to be sharing ANY ships with the French. We just talking about sharing operational duty with them, ie have 1 carrier at sea and the other two in port, which is cheaper. The UK gets it's two and France builds the one they have said they want.

The real money saver coming down the line with regards to the carriers (they've already been paid for) is the planes that go on them. It is highly likely there will be no ski jump on them and instead an EM catapult installed for either the F-35C which up to now has been only planned for the USN, or (god forbid) we stock them full of F-18's..

[edit on 1/9/10 by stumason]

Originally posted by triplesod
reply to post by Foodman

 

Hang on a minute!!

Surely we are due another war with France at any moment now, this is the longest time England and France have ever been in peace, it's only natural that one of us is going to try and invade the other soon. How the hell are we going to go about that when we are sharing war ships?!

Good question

I guess politicians will have to use the old trick: waving their fist of fury with the right hand without knowing what the left hand do.

They're well trained i heard, no biggie.

reply to post by stumason


I know we are not, it makes absolutely no sense at all.

Didn't they propose, a few years ago, that a similar arrangement might be put into place with British & French ballistic missile submarines and their targeting ?

Didn't hear an awful lot more back about that one. Wouldn't surprise me if they've got a secret deal on the go which effectively doubles the number of targets that British & French submarines can take out ... and that our "adversaries" have been made aware of that fact.

Just a guess, right enough.

As to this carrier deal, I'm a bit concerned. Although the Russians aren't going to be sailing up the Thames (or the Seine) anytime soon, it's a bit like the 1981 Defence Review & proposed Navy cuts, it might send the wrong signal to potential aggressors.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by LeBombDiggity]

[edit on 1-9-2010 by LeBombDiggity]

Seriously guys, it takes you all 4 pages of arguing and you dont see whats obvious here?

Alot of you folks are brits, and for those of you that arent....have ya ever tasted brittish food? Crikey! thats some bland slop to put it mildly, Im fairly certain the bright brittish naval officers eyeing a potential year at sea due to any number of possible wars....figured hey why dont we get the frenchies to come along, at least then we will get some good grub

To Freeborn

The US and the UK are in the same cultural sphere sharing specific traits, trends, ideas, concepts and interpretation of history. It's a different cultural sphere from, say, Hispanicity or the Arab world.
I'll use anglosphere if you are unhappy with anglo-american.

As an exemple, you won't find the stereotype that French are cowards in Hispanicity or any other cultural sphere. It's specific to the anglosphere, it appeared after WWII and the will of non-dependance to the US by de Gaulle. It's pejorative but first of all politically driven.

You are referring to past events like it's a personal matter and as if they'd explained nowadays stereotypes. They are not. France or England had everyone as an enemy at one point of their long history. They fought each other on numerous fields not only by military means and they fought other powers too.
AFAIK relations have evolved since then between the two. It doesn't explain this outrage I read on the thread. This outrage is not based on past history but on insidious depictions spred in your cultural sphere during our modern days.

Britain has contributed a lot to our world in so many fields as you said. If you felt you had to add this because you think I dislike Britons, you are very wrong. I have no dislike for Americans either or why would I hang around here ?
If you want to prove some kind of superiority from the UK, go make a thread but what's your motive ?

De Gaulle vetoed UK and explained why many times. He thought there was no political will in UK to participate in the construction of a new Europe and that the UK were closer to the US than to the rest of Europe, that the UK would obstruct the development of european cooperation for fear of its influence if it was successful.

Sorry for the long quote, the site doesn't provide a direct link.
Taken from here : www.ena.lu...

General de Gaulle's first veto

On 14 January 1963, General de Gaulle held a press conference at which he declared his opposition to the United Kingdom’s application for membership. He referred to incompatibilities between continental European and British economic interests. In addition, he demanded that the United Kingdom accept all the conditions laid down by the Six and revoke its commitments to countries within its own free trade area. On 28 January, the French Government forced its five European partners, who were already shocked by the unilateral veto, to adjourn the membership negotiations.

General De Gaulle was afraid that the new member might threaten the common agricultural policy (CAP) and transform the European Economic Community (EEC) into a huge free trade area. Above all, he regarded the United Kingdom as a Trojan horse concealing US interests: he believed that British membership would lead to the Americanisation of Europe. He declared his support for a deepening and an acceleration of common market integration rather than expansion, and shed doubts on the UK’s commitment to Europe.

De Gaulle's attitude also stemmed from reasons not connected solely with EEC interests. In addition to the anti-British resentment that he had continued to harbour ever since he was exiled to London during the war, he was afraid of British-American nuclear cooperation. When, in October 1962, American Polaris rockets were supplied to the British, this was a grave blow to Franco-British relations, while de Gaulle continued to develop close relations with Germany.

It's an articulate geostrategic vision. Because it's not very favorable to british and american interests, he must be taken down and discredited in your general culture, on irrationals like "he hates...".
Now, looking back, do you think he was wrong ? Who is generally considered UK's most important ally ? Europe ? Are the UK committed to Europe ?

I am only guessing but I think you are not pro-EU and you use De Gaulle's veto as a point to this discussion. Odd.

There was no Franco-German behemoth at the time so nothing to threat. France-German cooperation really started with Kohl and Mitterrand. The threat was that if UK joined, UK would obstruct further cooperation and denature the development of a new Europe. It's my opinion and I think it's a spread opinion it's exactly what the British government did.

De Gaulle disliked British society and culture which he considered course and uncouth.

Is it hearsay ? Did you read it in his "Memoires" ? Or is it a projection of your collective memory ?

He resented the roles Churchill and Roosevelt played in the war.

What do you mean he resented their roles ? He had his own role and they were disagreements, especially with Roosevelt. Actually, Churchill was close to de Gaulle, there would be no de Gaulle without Churchill then he felt under Roosevelt's influence. De Gaulle didn't want foreign interests to take advantage of France situation. He tought the British had views on French colonies and the most important, he didn't want a foreign military administration of France like it happened in Italy.
What would you expect from your political leaders in such a situation ? It's not like he declared himself or acted as an enemy of the UK.
At the time, he was popular in the UK just like Churchill was and still is very popular in France, all the discredit came afterwards. It's a construction.


[edit on 1-9-2010 by Manouche]

reply to post by Freeborn

Originally posted by Freeborn
He refused to allow French soldiers to take part in the D-Day landings only allowing them on shore after the beach heads had been secured.

You didn't read that in a history book, did you ?
De Gaulle was informed about Overlord only early june. The French were set aside the Normandy landing, Roosevelt didn't want de Gaulle to gain political credit and be able to impose a French administration, he wanted an American administration of France.
There were only 200 French soliders who participated in the landing in Ouistreham alongside Britsh troops. It's a shame you belittle their sacrifice since you and me, we don't know what our lives would look like if it wasn't for their bravery and the bravery of all those soldiers regardless of their nationalty. A dozen reached Paris, the rest died in combat.
On a side note, French are generally very sensitive when disrespect is shown to Americans, Brits or Canadians fallen on D-day and the days after despite what is constantly implied in some cultural spheres. Of course, sadly, the youth is like everywhere else, they are not really interested in times that predates the Flood to them.

Originally posted by Freeborn
Ironically The Free French Forces were predominantly made up of troops from France's colonies.

The Free French Forces landed in Normandy two months after D-day. I point it because I presume you don't know. They were indeed largely made up of troops from French colonies. I am sure if you think about it again, you'll find it makes sense. It's ironic only because it fits your carefully crafted opinions.

reply to post by Manouche

OMG FINALLY, someone smart posting without the usual "im american, we saved the world hurp durp derp"

Manouche, seriously, your post is awsome, educated and well documented.
Thank for pointing thoses points into light, sincerely.

on ATS ,if you're german you're automaticaly a nazi (yup, im german, im smart and i dont understand why im called nazi sometimes on ATS) and if you're french it mean you're a dirty surrending coward.

they should change the motto on ATS instead of Deny ignorance, Deny ignorants would fit perfectly according the amount of "proud patriots" who never opened an history book

Once again, thank you Manouche

Thank you OTTOKARMA but I am not smart and I am not particularly well educated. My posts are only mostly the perceptions of my own cultural sphere. I am guilty of falling into them many times too.

My point is we are brainwashed with stuff that is 99% ignorance. We all think we think by ourselves and are strongly opiniated whereas we are on tracks, thinking exactly as we are programmed to. Very few of us can really think outside the box, our cultural box. We are full of facts we know about and we are certain of when truly we are only repeating them like parrots and have never questioned them.
We need to communicate between spheres and share our perceptions, maybe that way we can better understand the world we are living in and go past the illusions.

reply to post by Manouche


First of all I would like to commend you on an extremely well written response.

Secondly I would like to point out that a lot of my post was meant 'tongue in cheek' and had intended humorous overtones as the idea that the UK and France would even consider sharing aircraft carriers is ridiculous from both nations point of view.
Sharing duties and responsbility maybe, actual craft no.

De Gaulle, like Napoleon before him, has been demonised to represent everything that we British, English especially, dislike about The French.
That there isn't a certain amount of propoganda and spin involved is without doubt.
But speak to the ordinary 'man in the street' and he will express a general dislike and mistrust of all things French.
It is impossible to forget a thousand years of warfare in a generation.
We are an island people and have an island mentality, it's what drove us for centuries.
We have a distinctly different nature and approach to continental Europeans.

So in that maybe De Gaulle was right.
However, even in the quote you supplied it states this:
"De Gaulle's attitude also stemmed from reasons not connected solely with EEC interests. In addition to the anti-British resentment that he had continued to harbour ever since he was exiled to London during the war, he was afraid of British-American nuclear cooperation. When, in October 1962, American Polaris rockets were supplied to the British, this was a grave blow to Franco-British relations, while de Gaulle continued to develop close relations with Germany."

Quite clearly De Gaulle had a cetain amount of resentment towards the UK from the years spent here during the war.
Why one has to ask oneself?

And why was he suspcious of Anglo-American nuclear co-operation?
We were both allegedly his allies, had helped liberate France and were both in NATO in addition to being permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Why didn't he want the UK to have independant nuclear weapon capability?
Not his sense of French superiority rearing it's ugly head was it?

And it's obvious he's forging closer links to Germany well before the Mitterand - Kohl era.

At present the UK resents being reliant on the US and refuses to become subserviant to the EU.
The UK has some difficult and important decisions to make.
We each have our opinions on that and I suspect that this isn't the thread to voice them.

During The Normandy D-Day landings 530 Free French parachuted behind German lines in Brittany.
They were the only Free French to see active service.
Opinions differ as to why.
Some believe it was at De Gaulle's insistence as he wanted them held back for his entrance and parade through Paris.
Roosevelt was never going to get an American administration in France.

I have nothing but respect for all those who fought anywhere in WWII, regardless of nationality.

My point is that the French themselves could, and should, have done far more themselves to help gain the liberation of their country.
The extent, nature and number of French collaborators far exceeded those involved in Resistance activities and is still a source of national shame to the French today who generally refuse to discuss and even acknowledge it.

Yes, French people near the landing areas are most appreciative and respectful to Allied vets.
The attitude changes as you get further inland and in some former Vichy controlled areas and other areas can be downright hostile.
But this doesn't fit into the accepted viewpoint of things and rarely get's reported.

De Gaulle distrusted British intentions and suspected they were after France's colonial territories.
De Gaulle famously and fervently believed that 'France had no friends, only interests'.

Churchill regarded relations with De Gaulle a constant battle and considered it one of his hardest challenges of the war.


[edit on 1/9/10 by Freeborn]

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Wonder why you fight wars in the middle east? the wars have been going on there since before america was a country. ur all european in disguise

reply to post by Shadowfoot


Interesting, especialy since British food is world renowned for its wholesomness when compared with say the calorific obscenity of American food, the over complicated and light weight of French cuisine, and the outright insanity of German food which boils down to eighty different kinds of sausage, and various vegetables mixed with mayonaise like sauces.
International chefs prefer british asparagus, and many swear by Aberdeen Angus beef, welsh lamb ... I could go on.
Suffice to say we have some of the best raw materials in the world, and even the poshest and most patriotic of foriegn chefs would be hard pressed to say otherwise.

reply to post by Manouche


Thank you for that lucid and well argued response.

Deuxième ligne

Considering how many wars England and France have had, this is good step forward. Both have excellent armed forces, more the merrier.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Aaaah my friend, please forgive my blatant attempt at humor, all in good fun