How to P"""" off the French

[west didsblue]

Lol you write some shit.

The French stopped supply to Argentina simply because the great Lady Thatcher threaten them, and the Americans supplied us with their satellite information but more importantly the new all aspect sidewinder missile system giving the UK air superiority.

Both the US and France provided valuable support during the Falklands war. US support was kept quiet because although Reagan supported us, other parts of his administration and large sections of the US population wanted to side with Argentina. Similarly, Mitterand provided valuable support yet there was a French technical team in Argentina providing support to the Exocet missiles, and it's not clear whether Mitterand was aware of this. There's no doubt he should have been if he wasn't.
Like most things when it comes to war, there are shady dealings always happening and neither country provided unequivocal support but on balance the help provided by both countries far outweighed the negative aspects.

 

[metalblue]

I think it's too early to say whether it's a triumph of anything over anything for the long term. Of all European countries, the French have by far the biggest strategic presence in the Pacific with vast swathes of the ocean nominally under French control via French Polynesia, New Caledonia and Wallis & Futuna, probably second only to the US. Logically, from a strategic perspective, it would have made more sense for the US and Australia to align themselves with France in that region, which makes me think what they actually have done is more to do with trade than anything else. Just my opinion though.

I follow your logical and there is absolutely merit in it. For me I’d say If it was about regional strategic footprint they would surely have partnered with the Japanese.

Outside of the Japanese the only nation with the regional military clout are the Americans. Strategically the US and Japan are the only two serious candidates and this has got China rattled (far more so than the French deal).

I have a hunch the UK were necessary for the US to share the nuclear tech details and the French just unfortunate collateral damage to the US…. otherwise a US/Japan/Aussie agreement would have been the most powerful although it would tip the balance and probably result in a massive arms race in the region so maybe dismissed by the US for those reasons.

The US will rely on NATO for French support should we ever get to a shooting war (hopefully that never happens but China does need checking) however I don’t think the third cog in this deal is all that significant- a US/Aussie/French deal is as good as US/Aussie/UK or US/Aussie/Sweden or whoever really.

 

[west didsblue]

I follow your logical and there is absolutely merit in it. For me I’d say If it was about regional strategic footprint they would surely have partnered with the Japanese.

Outside of the Japanese the only nation with the regional military clout are the Americans. Strategically the US and Japan are the only two serious candidates and this has got China rattled (far more so than the French deal).

I have a hunch the UK were necessary for the US to share the nuclear tech details and the French just unfortunate collateral damage to the US…. otherwise a US/Japan/Aussie agreement would have been the most powerful although it would tip the balance and probably result in a massive arms race in the region so maybe dismissed by the US for those reasons.

The US will rely on NATO for French support should we ever get to a shooting war (hopefully that never happens but China does need checking) however I don’t think the third cog in this deal is all that significant- a US/Aussie/French deal is as good as US/Aussie/UK or US/Aussie/Sweden or whoever really.

Yep, the third cog isn't that important. The key players are the US and Australia. We're just looking for non-European friends and it suits the US and Australia to let us in because it gives a bit more credence that there's a strategic goal rather than it just being a defence deal with the US taking business from the French. As I said, if it was mainly about strategic goals they wouldn't be pissing off a NATO ally that owns several hundred islands in that region.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Yep, the third cog isn't that important. The key players are the US and Australia. We're just looking for non-European friends and it suits the US and Australia to let us in because it gives a bit more credence that there's a strategic goal rather than it just being a defence deal with the US taking business from the French. As I said, if it was mainly about strategic goals they wouldn't be pissing off a NATO ally that owns several hundred islands in that region.

You do know the Pacific is pretty big. So out of interest what is the strategic military importance of several hundred tiny French islands that arnt military installations in the pacific that are nowhere near the South China Sea or China, infact they are further away from China than Australia?

 

[BobKowalski]

I suggest you check this out in a bit more detail than the google headlines Bob? I can add that they no doubt backed the UK much more, but some dodgy shenanigans were going on!

I went with what has been published on the subject. France did not do any ‘sneaky sales of tech’ to Argentina which was the original claim. Mitterrand was supportive of the UK.

Regan urged Thatcher to abandon plans to retake the Falklands and hand over the Islands to a third party peace keeping force.

 

[BobKowalski]

Lol you write some shit.

The French stopped supply to Argentina simply because the great Lady Thatcher threaten them, and the Americans supplied us with their satellite information but more importantly the new all aspect sidewinder missile system giving the UK air superiority.

Thatcher requested France not go through with the sale of Exocet misses to Peru for fear they would end up in Argentine hands. France complied.

The US put pressure on Thatcher to abandon plans to retake the islands and instead allow a third party peace keeping force. Haig, if you recall, was dispatched to try and mediate a peaceful resolution.

This is all a matter of record.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I went with what has been published on the subject. France did not do any ‘sneaky sales of tech’ to Argentina which was the original claim. Mitterrand was supportive of the UK.

Regan urged Thatcher to abandon plans to retake the Falklands and hand over the Islands to a third party peace keeping force.

Bob, I didn't mention sneaky sales, I just pointed out they were helping both sides, the French had a team on the ground helping the Argentinian air force load and arm the Exocet missiles.

 

[west didsblue]

You do know the Pacific is pretty big. So out of interest what is the strategic military importance of several hundred tiny French islands that arnt military installations in the pacific that are nowhere near the South China Sea or China, infact they are further away from China than Australia?

Noumea Airbase and Faa'a Airbase, both with runways of over 10,000 feet are two more military facilities than we've got in the region. There's also some naval bases.

 

[BobKowalski]

Bob, I didn't mention sneaky sales, I just pointed out they were helping both sides, the French had a team on the ground helping the Argentinian air force load and arm the Exocet missiles.

Agreed you didn’t. The poster I replied to mentioned ‘sneaky sales’ which was what I disputed.

I don’t dispute there were French nationals on the ground who no doubt received a nice wedge for helping out, but this was not the official French position and contrary to what the French Govt wanted. There was zero advantage to the French Govt in keeping a foot in the Argentine camp, whereas the gratitude of UK Govt was much more beneficial.

Thatcher in her memoirs (if I recall) and Nott the Defence Sec. were fine with the French response. Thatcher was more disappointed with the initial US response.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Agreed you didn’t. The poster I replied to mentioned ‘sneaky sales’ which was what I disputed.

I don’t dispute there were French nationals on the ground who no doubt received a nice wedge for helping out, but this was not the official French position and contrary to what the French Govt wanted. There was zero advantage to the French Govt in keeping a foot in the Argentine camp, whereas the gratitude of UK Govt was much more beneficial.

Thatcher in her memoirs (if I recall) and Nott the Defence Sec. were fine with the French response. Thatcher was more disappointed with the initial US response.

The French would say that wouldn't they.
Agree with last sentence.