4 ms·
> I long thought their strong Gaullist stance on sovereignty was a bit silly in today's world There is very good reasons why De Gaulle was always a bit doubtf
by adev_ 7mo ago
> I long thought their strong Gaullist stance on sovereignty was a bit silly in today's world
There is very good reasons why De Gaulle was always a bit doubtful about American military protection and why post-war France put a strong emphasis on military sovereignty.
That has nothing to do with any French stubbornness or a so called French anti-American feeling.
The main reason is that De Gaulle experienced the fact American leadership can be untrustworthy first hand.
When he was the leader of the exiled French force during the 40s, Churchill supported him.
Meaningwhile Roosevelt refused to give him any support and actively acted to make him replaced by a puppet, General Giraud. Mainly because it was better aligned with American interests to setup a puppet state in France on the longer term.
The situation changed only later when it became pretty obvious that Giraud was antisemite, an openly nazi collaborationist and a pretty poor politician.
Only then, America started to support De Gaulle officially. Initially only indirectly through the relation between De Gaulle and Eisenhower.
- chneu 7mo agoYou can always trust americans to do the right thing after we have tried everything else. Never trust america unless our last option is the one you want. Otherwise, let us stubbornly do it wrong until we come around.
- jacquesm 7mo agoI can't wait.
- rhubarbtree 7mo agoI don’t think that aphorism is actually true. What’s the right thing that’s going to follow being complicit in Gaza and bombing Iran?
- archdang 7mo agoI think it was a quip strategically designed to make the Americans feel better about themselves even as it clearly puts them down, and to become an aspiration at least. In some sense the history of the US is about unleashing a powerful idea and always falling inshort of living up to it.
- pseudohadamard 7mo agoIt was even more than that. In the late 1930s the US told France not to worry about those aggressive Germans next door, if things go pear-shaped we'll stand by you, you can rely on us to help defend you. This is why France went with its own nuclear deterrent, among other things.
- morgoo 7mo agoUkraine gave up their nukes due to American assurances as to Ukraine's defence.
- heraldgeezer 7mo agoNot this talking point again... I am very pro Ukraine, but those nukes where never "Ukranian", they where Soviet nukes, staffed and manned and made by Russia. This is like if USA puts nukes in Sweden under NATO, are they suddenly Swedish nukes? No.
- vrganj 7mo agoNah, this is like if the US puts nuke in California and the US falls apart. Are they Californian nukes or DC nukes? Possession is nine-tenths of the law...
- heraldgeezer 7mo agoWell, does it matter if California never had the staff/manpower to use them, and they were all administered & maintained by DC staff?