France does not expel NATO

[uk 75]

A tantalising alt-history is what would have happened if France had not decided to ask US units and NATO HQ to leave its soil in the 1960s and had been as close to Washington as London and Bonn.
A government in Paris which was more Atlanticist would have given NATO both more geographical depth and extra formations with better and more integrated equipment than in our reality.
Five French Polaris SSBNs would have worked more closely with the RN and USN.
The Mirage IV might have been adopted by the RAF and both AdA and RAF ac get SRAM
The development of MRCA would have produced an aircraft much closer in appearance to the French late 60s early 70s designs.
The Brits and Germans might be using the Bugle bullpup rifle!
Well, I thought as a welcome change from the Johnson Macron show we could have some France in NATO fun.

 

[helmutkohl]

To be honest, Ive always felt that the Brits and the French should have established a common Carrier air wing force and maybe even carriers.

They both have similar ambitions in combat in distant territories and interests abroad. Could have reduced a lot of risks and share costs together. tbh Ive liked Anglo-French collaborations more than the French-German ones.

Had they stayed together, i wonder how carriers and carrier aviation would have changed. would they stay CATOBAR together? move to STVOL together?

Imagine joint Jaguar M flying off British and French carriers,
maybe Rafales now?

credit': no idea who photoshopped it, but original pic is Ducros Thierry


or maybe had they went reversed and followed the Brits to STOVL

 

[1635yankee]

What would the US have had to do to keep France in NATO? At least part (maybe all) the reason for France's exit from direct military involvement in NATO was US insistence on control over France's nuclear weapons. The US may have been able to prevent France's exit by changing that policy.

How would this affect NATO? The direct, short term effect would have been much less disruption of NATO, with the long-term effect likely to be less dependence on US hardware.

 

[Archibald]

The Jaguar M was hopeless but HARRIERS, that would be cool. Including on the Jeanne d'Arc Arromanches and PH75. And the Colbert cruiser had an helo deck too.

 

[helmutkohl]

The Jaguar M was hopeless but HARRIERS, that would be cool. Including on the Jeanne d'Arc Arromanches and PH75. And the Colbert cruiser had an helo deck too.

why do you think Jaguar M was hopeless

and do the French call it Jaguar or Haguar?

 

[Archibald]

A booooire !!! (driiiink !)

It was tested on the Foch in 1971-73. What really bothered the French Navy was
- it was underpowered, even with afterburners
- the said afterburners were worse than the Crusader one, and the deflectors could not cope with it
- it needed a brand new and expensive wing
- on top of that, a major crack was found in one engine bay
- cooperation had made it more expensive, and money was scarce - number of airframes had already dropped from 100 to 71 even before all the issues above.

That was a little too much for the French Navy. They dropped it and started looking for alternatives - Skyhawks, Corsair II, S.E plus a possible naval F1 and Harriers.

 

[Michel Van]

There were several reason for DeGaulle to quit NATO
two of them:
He needed NATO until France hat Nuclear Strike force
The other in case Of nuclear War, Paris would be obliterate by Soviets nukes hitting the NATO Installation in city.

But had History went other direction...

February 9, 1961 An IL-18 plane carrying Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, Leonid Brezhnev.
At the time he was acting as the nominal head of state of the Soviet Union, returning from a state visit of Guinea Republic,
The plane was attacked by three French Vautour fighter jets over Algeria.
One of the Vautours fired tracer bullets at the plane intended as warning shots, which unfortunately hit the plane killing all onboard in a fatal crash.
The French Foreign Ministry deeply apologised, but said that Brezhnev's plane strayed into French Algerian airspace. Major political tensions occurred.
The Soviet Union was calling this an act of war. Socialists and Communists within and outside the French Government cried murder,
Regarding it as a political assassination.
Amid the controversy Prime Minister Michel Debré and French Minister of Defense Pierre Guillaumat resigned from office in Disgrace.

Tensions between the Soviet Union and France where higher than they had ever been since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917,
Although that was quickly to change, The Soviet Union put a Ultimatum to France !
Extradite those Responsible of this political assassination to Soviet Union or else they threatened to attack France !
the possibility of a third world (nuclear) war was imminent.
While De Gaulle refused in passionate speech to Nation, it was hopeless, France had Nuclear bomb prototypes, but no delivery system for them.
Kennedy declared DEFCON 2 and mobilised the NATO forces in case the Soviets really was preparing to attack, while the U.N try to defuse the situation.
But before the situation escalated to a full war, Michel Debrè sacrificed him self, by going to Soviet embassy in Paris and giving himself up,
he was transported in Diplomatic Box to Moscow and trail in 1962 and sentenced to life in Prison.
France ended up after this crisis deeper in NATO as De Gaulle wanted
While the British made demands: joining the European Economic Community in exchange for full support for France in NATO.

 

[zen]

The French....how do I put this nicely.....had issues with the US after liberation. By the 1950s this was already becoming a problem.

For France to stay in NATO, it likely needs to feel it has both a greater say and allies to support it's position.
Such UK-France alliance was severely strained from the end of Suez. There is more but my memory is imprecise on the details....

France staying in, exerts a host of effects.
Consider as am example that the TSR.2 was originally supposed to operate from austere French airfields as well as from Germany and the UK.

 

[Archibald]

France tried to buy land-based Polaris with Germany and Italy in the F-I-G alliance circa 1957 thus before De Gaulle return.
This already failed over the dual-key NATO control; even the moribund IVth Republic did not liked this idea.
Kennedy has little affection for De Gaulle and the feelings were mutual. The Europeanists (the two Deans : Archeson and Rusk) felt independant deterrents were dangerous and unuseful. GB and France included: they wanted NATO MLF Polaris for Europe.
At Nassau GB had to fight for being granted some control over them. A similar proposal to De Gaulle received a negative answer.

 

[Archibald]

There were several reason for DeGaulle to quit NATO
two of them:
He needed NATO until France hat Nuclear Strike force
The other in case Of nuclear War, Paris would be obliterate by Soviets nukes hitting the NATO Installation in city.

But had History went other direction...

February 9, 1961 An IL-18 plane carrying Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, Leonid Brezhnev.
At the time he was acting as the nominal head of state of the Soviet Union, returning from a state visit of Guinea Republic,
The plane was attacked by three French Vautour fighter jets over Algeria.
One of the Vautours fired tracer bullets at the plane intended as warning shots, which unfortunately hit the plane killing all onboard in a fatal crash.
The French Foreign Ministry deeply apologised, but said that Brezhnev's plane strayed into French Algerian airspace. Major political tensions occurred.
The Soviet Union was calling this an act of war. Socialists and Communists within and outside the French Government cried murder,
Regarding it as a political assassination.
Amid the controversy Prime Minister Michel Debré and French Minister of Defense Pierre Guillaumat resigned from office in Disgrace.

Tensions between the Soviet Union and France where higher than they had ever been since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917,
Although that was quickly to change, The Soviet Union put a Ultimatum to France !
Extradite those Responsible of this political assassination to Soviet Union or else they threatened to attack France !
the possibility of a third world (nuclear) war was imminent.
While De Gaulle refused in passionate speech to Nation, it was hopeless, France had Nuclear bomb prototypes, but no delivery system for them.
Kennedy declared DEFCON 2 and mobilised the NATO forces in case the Soviets really was preparing to attack, while the U.N try to defuse the situation.
But before the situation escalated to a full war, Michel Debrè sacrificed him self, by going to Soviet embassy in Paris and giving himself up,
he was transported in Diplomatic Box to Moscow and trail in 1962 and sentenced to life in Prison.
France ended up after this crisis deeper in NATO as De Gaulle wanted
While the British made demands: joining the European Economic Community in exchange for full support for France in NATO.

After one year the Soviets called De Gaulle and supplicated him "that Michel Debre is such a jerk, please take it back... we can't stand him anymore." If you think McNamara was an arrogant prick, Debre was worse.
It would be a bonanza for France and a plague for USSR !

 

[Michel Van]

It would be a bonanza for France and a plague for USSR !

means they would offer him gift-wrapped to the soviets ?

 

[zen]

Difference on The Bomb, is UK had been intimately involved from the get go, while France had not. So the offer and what it meant were different things to the UK and France.

 

[uk 75]

The Rafale and Harrier look so right in those markings.
I knew we would have some Summer Fun with this thread.
My inspiration as usual is my love of Polar Bears.
A German Polar Bear called Flocke living in Antibes with a Russian Polar Bear called Rasputin has successfully
reared THREE cubs. Normally the third one dies. Now she has moved to the UK to Yorkshire. European cooperation as it could be!

Watch polar bear mum and 3 cubs arrive at Yorkshire Wildlife Park

Mum Flocke and her triplets Indiana, Yuma and Tala latest arrivals at Doncaster zoo

www.examinerlive.co.uk

 

[alertken]

CDG did not take France out of NATO, but out of various forums, and required removal of US AW over which he had no launch control (I am unaware of yankee #3: US wanting control of French-indigenous AW: US is not known to have sought that on UK's). He would have retained US Visiting Forces, iron-only, but US would not so commit. One is allowed to suspect that defence a tous azimuts (launching N,S,E,W) was, ah, notional. It is recorded that Dean Acheson, sent to brief him as Cuba worsened, reached for recce images and was told to stop: your word is enough: we are with you - he said that before Mac did.

zen's issues on Liberation. I have 2 other reasons for (what we perceive as) Anglosphobia:
* Manhattan team Frenchmen briefed CDG 7/44; WSC 25/3/45 denied him access;
* Mrs.Churchill arguing with him over Adm Darlan, 28/11/42 (both: D.T.Thorpe,Eden,03,Chatto, Pp.308, 275).
If CDG indulged in puerile spite...that would be non-Statesmanlike - at that level people have to talk with those they would rather not. But as he was a Statesman, towering, might he genuinely have believed he could bridge East-West, to the benefit of us all? UK's H.Wilson had such thoughts.

We have no open access to the actualite of target planning, inter-operations planning: it is entirely possible that a gradual deterioration towards high DEFCON could have found France next to other NATO muskets. What is, I suggest, clear is that the dismal failure of NATO to standardise munitions was not eased by France putting itself at evident distance. The Defence burden would have been less, efficiencies more, if pols. could have made some of those NBMRs work.

 

[Archibald]

Yep the infamous NATO withdrawal was a partial one - btw, that Sarkozy in 2007 put back in place, what De Gaulle had left.
(don't forget Sarkozy is barely half the size in De Gaulle, even with his arms raised ROTFL)

CDG may have bad rememberance of WWII related to Churchill (a little) and FDR (a LOT !!!) but in case of WWIII indeed, no hesitation for a split second - Moscow would go up in smoke.

He was realistic about France resources and independance on the world stage.

He wanted its own independant nukes for a simple reason.

If NATO failed and the Soviets where on the Rhine with a bridgehead, then

- it was "back to 1870" (Sedan) "back to 1914" (miracle on the Marne, maybe, but on a lucky hairbreadth) and "back to 1940" (Sedan again damn it, in a carbon copy of 1870 - except even worse, because Nazis replaced Bismarck and they did not left after seizing Paris, as they had done in 1871 - instead the country collapsed Azincourt style, 1415 = 1943, an absolute shameful collapse of a country, dignity included, and morale, too)

In 1940 the Germand bridgehead in Sedan had not been destroyed, with cataclysmic consequences over the next 5 years.

De Gaulle had witnessed the disaster first hand, since Montcornet is not that far away.

Fast forward to a similar situation is, say, 1967, except with Soviets in place of the Germans
Will France collapsed against, FOUR time in a century ? hell no, we don't go.

In the words of Ripley "nuke the goddam thing from orbit, it's the only way to be sure".

But will the American blow the planet to save France ass ? TBFH, I can understand they don't want, not if no nukes have been shot across Germany.

But France can't be invaded, so "nuke the bridgehead" - this will make the soviets think, maybe...

 

[Michel Van]

oh yes De Gaulle really fear that Germany would return to their bad habit of warmonger.
That change as Adenauer came to private visit and welcome De Gaulle in french
the starting moment of French German friendship

 

[uk 75]

I always enjoyed the General's humour and common sense as far as the Brits were concerned. Events usually proved him right even up to the present.
But the military of both countries have done some things right.

 

[Archibald]

De Gaulle reason for an independant deterrant boiled down to a situation where NATO Armies in Germany would collapse against sheer number of Soviet soldiers and conventional weapons.
Now the soviets have a big bridgehead on the Rhine and are preparing to cross into France.
Remember: no nuclear weapon has been fired by any side, nobody dared to shoot not even a single tactical nuke.

Unfortunately, on conventional weapons alone, the Soviet colossal numerical superiority prevailed.

Now it's give or take: neither NATO nor the French alone can stop the soviet juggernault and crush the bridgehead with conventional weapons.

Would the americans and British be willing to drop a tactical nuke on that bridgehead to wipe it out ?

No, because of escalation - the risk of blowing the planet. I can understand nobody want to end the world to save France's ass.

Except this has France screwed, fourth time in a row since 1870.

In such pretty extreme situation, the gist of the idea is to drop a french tactical nuke on the Soviets as a warning shot to show our country determination - assuming all the consequences.

Either the Soviets get the message and stop, either they carry on and get a second tactical nuke right on their bridgehead. Alternately: a M1 missile from a submarine to either Leningrad or Moscow. So far it is only TARGETED, not LAUNCHED.

Feel free to take the risk at our own expense.

And blame Pierre Gallois for the idea !

Pierre Marie Gallois - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[zen]

Hmmmm ironies here.

Letting Soviets take bite after bite out of Western European states is "feeding the crocodile" and only makes each successive position weaker.

Second point is Soviet doctrine allowed tactical use under senior tactical command. Hence the absolute panic over Kennedy's threat during Cuban Missile Crisis.

Third point, UK would act as it would be intolerable to have Soviet forces on the other side of the Channel.

But fourth point hit France once they start detailed planning for nuclear weapons use.....and realise there will be no limited use.

 

[Arjen]

The fourth point also applies to the Soviets. Deterrence.

 

[Archibald]

Force de dissuasion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The strategic concept behind the Force de Frappe is one of countervalue, the capacity to inflict so much damage on a potential (and more powerful) adversary's population that the potential adversary will be deterred from attacking, no matter how much destruction it can inflict (mutual assured destruction). This principle is usually referred to in French political debate as dissuasion du faible au fort ("deterrence of the strong by the weak") and was summarised in a statement attributed to de Gaulle himself:

Within ten years, we shall have the means to kill 80 million Russians. I truly believe that one does not light-heartedly attack people who are able to kill 80 million Russians, even if one can kill 800 million French, that is if there were 800 million French.

General Pierre Marie Gallois said, "Making the most pessimistic assumptions, the French nuclear bombers could destroy ten Russian cities; and France is not a prize worthy of ten Russian cities".

In his book La paix nucléaire (1975), French Navy Admiral Marc de Joybert explained deterrence:

Sir, I have no quarrel with you, but I warn you in advance and with all possible clarity that if you invade me, I shall answer at the only credible level for my scale, which is the nuclear level. Whatever your defenses, you shan't prevent at least some of my missiles from reaching your home and causing the devastation that you are familiar with. So, renounce your endeavour and let us remain good friends.

 

[Michel Van]

Either the Soviets get the message and stop, either they carry on and get a second tactical nuke right on their bridgehead. Alternately: a M1 missile from a submarine to either Leningrad or Moscow. So far it is only TARGETED, not LAUNCHED.

Feel free to take the risk at our own expense.

And blame Pierre Gallois for the idea !

You forgot the Mirage IV Bomber with there Mirage IV Tankers
who had to fly into Soviet union and nuke a target (getting home was a issue do lack return fuel)

and the French MRBM like SSBS S1 to S3

 

[1635yankee]

The Jaguar M was hopeless but HARRIERS, that would be cool. Including on the Jeanne d'Arc Arromanches and PH75. And the Colbert cruiser had an helo deck too.

why do you think Jaguar M was hopeless

and do the French call it Jaguar or Haguar?

Thy French word for "jaguar" is, shockingly, "jaguar." In French, "j" is pronounced approximately as the sound starting the second syllable of the word "measure" (at least in my regional variety of English, Northeastern American) or as one would pronounce "zh".

Of course, it would be pronounced "ha-guar" in Spanish.

 

[uk 75]

Discussion in another thread about Anglo French VSTOL prompted me to resurrect this thread.
Flexible response worked for Germany because it delayed the use of tactical nuclear weapons on German soil and forced NATO to try and defend the FRG as far forward as possible.
The Brits never really liked this. They relied on nuclear weapons to compensate for the shortcomings of BAOR and still expected to fall back to the Weser.
France for reasons described above in this thread disliked flexible response as it opened up a repeat of 1870 or 1940 with the Red Army driving on Paris.
Someone else who disliked Flexible Response was Curtis Le May. He saw US weakness over Berlin and then the Cuban Missile Crisis.
So instead if Richard Nixon had narrowly beaten Kennedy and become President, a world resting on instant nuclear response might well have survived.
Nixon and Kruschev knew how to play the game. No Berlin crisis (Nixon would have quietly sold out Berlin and let the wall go up. He would have caved on the Turkish and Italian Jupiters and got the Russians out of Cuba in return).
A decade of cunning men with Nixon, DeGaulle, Wilson and Erhardt and Kruschev.
Some nice weapons get built.

 

[1635yankee]

One of the reasons, if not the major reason, for France's semi-withdrawal from NATO was that the government wasn't willing to place its nuclear weapons under US control.

The most obvious change is that NATO wouldn't have to find new digs in Brussels.

 

[alertken]

CDG was a towering Statesman, so it is improbable that any residual resentment at his treatment by WSC/FDR as second class would, alone, have caused him to eject US Forces from France and to downgrade his involvement in NATO ops. planning. His stated reason was refusal of US to give France a cast-iron go/no go say in AW launch from French soil - dual key on US-owned, US-operated AW.

May I say one does not have to be a raving loon to understand that. UK fudged that same issue from 195(?1) with an Agreement in the sense of consultation if poss.* If...CDG had chosen the same fudge, benefit to everyone but the Sovs could have been deep and long. He chose to compound the sovereign-independence of AW use with do-my-own thing more widely affecting West-East relations. It is arrogant to believe I, alone, can resolve conflict, I can be trusted moderator resolving disputes. Macron is doing that today, Ukraine. UK PM Wilson tried in 1965, SE Asia and was told by LBJ to take a running jump off the nearest cliff. Hang together, for separately we will all surely hang.

So my A to the Q: what if US and France had not endured trust issues after 1966, is that a solid Front of the Civilised might have eased some of the subsequent flashpoints - local Strongmen believed the West would be divided, so ineffectual.

(* edit, 22/5: A.Pierre,Nuc.Politics,OUP,72,P.136: WSC/Truman, 7/1/52: "when circumstances permitted". reconfirmed by {later PMs/Pres}. JFK/Mac 6/62 gave {that "Gentleman's Agt" to consult) world-wide applicability). (Pierre was ex-US State Dept: he comments: "Gent.Agt peculiar to the intimate (UK/US) relationship on defence matters". My take: this is the trust that was eroded in 1966: Trump eroded it, too. I hope Putin has restored it.)

 

[Pioneer]

Perhaps a derivative of the GIAT Industries AuF1 turret, armed with a FH 70 155mm howitzer might have been fielded by Britain, West Germany and Italy instead of the SP 70 SPH program.....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Michel Van]

There option overlook

British Mirage
The French proposed Mirage III-K and IV-K for RAF with British engines
the fuselage stretch for engines and more fuel, also option for British to build aircraft themselves.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I have to ask WHY would the UK buy Mirage? The F-111K did not happen anyway so even if Mirage was a realistic option, it would more likely than not be cancelled or not proceeded with as with the F-111K.

 

[1635yankee]

I have to ask WHY would the UK buy Mirage? The F-111K did not happen anyway so even if Mirage was a realistic option, it would more likely than not be cancelled or not proceeded with as with the F-111K.

The Mirage (except the Mirage IV), even with UK-specific modifications, was likely much cheaper than the F-111K. On the other hand, the I don't think the UK looking for a single-seat day fighter with limited day attack capability, so why would they buy the Mirage any case?

Now, a joint buy of an improved Crusader may have been useful for both the RN and the Aeronavale

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

There option overlook

British Mirage
The French proposed Mirage III-K and IV-K for RAF with British engines.
the fuselage stretch for engines and more fuel, also option for British to build aircraft themselves.

I have to ask WHY would the UK buy Mirage? The F-111K did not happen anyway so even if Mirage was a realistic option, it would more likely than not be cancelled or not proceeded with as with the F-111K.

There are two possibilities.

The first is the Avon powered version of Mirage IIIO that was proposed for Australia to equip the RAF's FGA and FR squadrons which would be built instead of the Hunter FGA.9 and FR.10. This might make the RAAF buy Avon powered Mirage IIIs too and the RNZAF might buy some to replace their Canberras instead of the Skyhawks that they actually bought.

The second is the Spey powered Mirage IIIK which @Michel Van mentioned. It would be developed instead of the P.1154 which was intended to replace the Hunter FGA.9 and FR.10.

In both cases the aircraft would have to be built in the UK and the manufacturing licence would have to include the right to sell the aircraft to specified countries which would include all of the Commonwealth.

I think the RAF wouldn't want the Spey-powered Mirage IV either. It's either Buccaneer, a developed Buccaneer, F-111K or TSR.2.

 

[Archibald]

If France does not expels NATO, then it keeps part of its air defense umbrella and as such, the Mirage F2 two seat strike bird carries on after 1966 - instead of the interceptor F3, then the scaled down F3 with an Atar called the Mirage F1.

Israel in passing wanted the F2 rather than what became the Mirage V & Nesher.

 

[zen]

F2 but for the lack of V/STOL meets NMBR.3......In circumstances of P.1154 cancellation. The F2 is very attractive, and potentially cheaper to operate than F4.

 

[Archibald]

And it has a VG clone to land even slower and shorter...

 

[zen]

Hmmmm....
What happens if UK buys F2 for MRI Strike platform?
200-ish aircraft....presumably with Spey or Medway turbofan.

France with similar numbers for strike?
F3 derivative?
Carrier compatibility tests?

IOC might be 1968....maybe earlier?
What does this do to supersonic trainer?
Puts a different emphasis on AFVG from the beginning. Since F2 and F3 solve the medium range needs and fighter needs, potentially carrier aircraft needs.
AFVG can conventrate on becoming a Anglo-French Tornado.
Presumably Mirage IV retired in 1970's as AFVG comes into service?

Seems to be a decent option for a Starfighter successor. Would a license international build of Mirage G or F2+ have Germany and Italy as partners?