France Foreign Policy and Diplomacy

In ww 1 and 2 usa played no role.

What r u smoking? During the war the U.S. mobilized over 4 million military personnel and suffered 110,000 deaths, including around 45,000 who died due to the 1918 Spanish influenza outbreak (30,000 before they even reached France). Even with "only" 65K combat related deaths, they played a big role.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_in_World_War_I

Whose planes bombed Germany, Italy & whose troops fought in N. Africa, Italy & stormed Normandy & Pacific islands, before racing toward Berlin & Japan?
W/o US land-lease help, the Gr. Britain & USSR would have needed longer time to defeat the Nazis.

Btw neither WW 1 nor 2 were biggest wars in europe
The 30 years war was far worse and devastating

Combine WWI & II + the Soviet-Finnish & Spanish Civil Wars in Europe (which also included most of the Western USSR) & the result is more devastating than all the prior wars there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

Tsavo Lion wrote:

In ww 1 and 2 usa played no role.

What r u smoking? During the war the U.S. mobilized over 4 million military personnel and suffered 110,000 deaths, including around 45,000 who died due to the 1918 Spanish influenza outbreak (30,000 before they even reached France). Even with "only" 65K combat related deaths, they played a big role.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_in_World_War_I

Whose planes bombed Germany, Italy & whose troops fought in N. Africa, Italy & stormed Normandy & Pacific islands, before racing toward Berlin & Japan?
W/o US land-lease help, the Gr. Britain & USSR would have needed longer time to defeat the Nazis.

Btw neither WW 1 nor 2 were biggest wars in europe
The 30 years war was far worse and devastating

Combine WWI & II + the Soviet-Finnish & Spanish Civil Wars in Europe (which also included most of the Western USSR) & the result is more devastating than all the prior wars there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

You obviously have no clue about the 30 years war.

Compare these figures: Total: 8,000,000 dead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

It is also one of the deadliest conflicts in history,with an estimated nine million combatants and seven million civilian deaths [16M] as a direct result of the war, while resulting genocides and the resulting 1918 influenza pandemic caused another 50 to 100 million deaths worldwide. 66-116M Total https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

Total dead on all sides:~73M
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

of which 26.6M Soviets & 6.9M to 7.4M Germans & their allies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Nazi_Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#USSR

Around 6 million Polish citizens perished during World War II:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_Poland

So, at least 55.5M mil. & civilians died just from combat in both WWs in Europe, or by 47.5M, 6.9 times more than in the 30 Year War.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Compare these figures: Total: 8,000,000 dead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

It is also one of the deadliest conflicts in history,with an estimated nine million combatants and seven million civilian deaths [16M] as a direct result of the war, while resulting genocides and the resulting 1918 influenza pandemic caused another 50 to 100 million deaths worldwide. 66-116M Total https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

Total dead on all sides:~73M
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

of which 26.6M Soviets & 6.9M to 7.4M Germans & their allies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Nazi_Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#USSR

Around 6 million Polish citizens perished during World War II:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_Poland

So, at least 55.5M mil. & civilians died just from combat in both WWs in Europe, or by 47.5M, 6.9 times more than in the 30 Year War.

Again, you have no clue about the 30 year war. Population was much lower then. Entire regions got depopulated. It took almost 200 years for europe to recover from that, but only 15 years from WW I and II.

Population was much lower then. Entire regions got depopulated. It took almost 200 years for europe to recover from that,..

Ur argument is way out of proportion:
The Thirty Years' War was a war fought primarily in Central Europe between 1618 and 1648. ..Casualties were overwhelmingly and disproportionately inhabitants of the Holy Roman Empire, most of the rest being battle deaths from various foreign armies. ..20 percent of the total population of Germany died during the conflict and there were losses up to 50 percent in a corridor between Pomerania and the Black Forest. In terms of proportional German casualties and destruction, it was surpassed only by the period of January to May 1945 during World War II. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

A recent estimate by the American historian Jan De Vries set Europe’s population (excluding Russia and the Ottoman Empire) at 61.6 million in 1500, 70.2 million in 1550, and 78.0 million in 1600; it then lapsed back to 74.6 million in 1650., or only 3.4M less.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Europe/Demographics

U still got a lot to learn, young man!

The thing is that the 30 years war was in central Europe so no one of any importance was affected...

The First World war should not have been called a world war... it was a conflict in Europe, the Second world war does qualify as a world war but the Anglo propaganda that states it was from 1941 to 1945 is amusing... the Chinese might say it started in 1932, while a German might say it started in 1918...

GarryB wrote:The First World war should not have been called a world war... it was a conflict in Europe, ...

Not only: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#Asia_and_the_Pacific

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Population was much lower then. Entire regions got depopulated. It took almost 200 years for europe to recover from that,..

Ur argument is way out of proportion:
The Thirty Years' War was a war fought primarily in Central Europe between 1618 and 1648. ..Casualties were overwhelmingly and disproportionately inhabitants of the Holy Roman Empire, most of the rest being battle deaths from various foreign armies. ..20 percent of the total population of Germany died during the conflict and there were losses up to 50 percent in a corridor between Pomerania and the Black Forest. In terms of proportional German casualties and destruction, it was surpassed only by the period of January to May 1945 during World War II. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

A recent estimate by the American historian Jan De Vries set Europe’s population (excluding Russia and the Ottoman Empire) at 61.6 million in 1500, 70.2 million in 1550, and 78.0 million in 1600; it then lapsed back to 74.6 million in 1650., or only 3.4M less.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Europe/Demographics

U still got a lot to learn, young man!

Again you prove my superiority. Your own link says what i said.

That 30 years war was the worst. Thag WW I did not reach its impact and WW II only for a short peak of 5 months reached its intensity.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

Aristide wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Well, they include the 2 biggest wars in Europe, 2 in E. Asia/Pacific & 2 in N. America; if taken together, it's an absurd to call all 6 of them "not real".
Be more careful in ur characterizations next time! They r objectively  not true & subjectively offensive.

In ww 1 and 2 usa played no role.

Btw neither WW 1 nor 2 were biggest wars in europe

The 30 years war was far worse and devastating

talking about french accomplishments in warfare, don't forget the Battle of Agincourt  (in 1415), part of the Hundred Years' War, where a  numerically superior french army lost quite badly against the Englishmen.

If i remember correctly there where huge mistakes from the french side and in addition a large part part of the frenchmen surrendered after losing a big chunk of the leadership, even if they still had the superior numbers. I don't remember all the details,  though.

Some wars you win, others you lose.

[quote="Aristide"]

Tsavo Lion wrote: In terms of proportional German casualties and destruction, it was surpassed only by the period of January to May 1945 during World War II[/i]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

Again you prove my superiority. Your own link says what i said.

That 30 years war was the worst. Thag WW I did not reach its impact and WW II only for a short peak of 5 months reached its intensity.

U have a big problem in reading comprehension: if it "surpassed proportional German casualties and destruction from January to May 1945" compared to the 30 Year War aftermath, then ur statement about it is false. Go get ur head examined!

Tsavo Lion wrote:

GarryB wrote:The First World war should not have been called a world war... it was a conflict in Europe, ...

Not only: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#Asia_and_the_Pacific

Hahahahahaha... Tsavo... please... don't confuse Britain and France and the US using WWI as an excuse for stealing German colonies around the world as being anything to do with WWI... it is the same in the middle east... when the colonial powers had a meeting and decided that they were going to divide up all of little bits of territory Germany had laid claim to up until that point amongst themselves...

If you are going to include that sort of crap then the Vietnam war was a continuation of the Vietnamese fighting off first French and then Japanese and then French again and then American/Aussie/Kiwi/Canadian colonial rule.

..don't confuse Britain and France and the US using WWI as an excuse for stealing German colonies around the world as being anything to do with WWI...

Since the German U-boats operated in both the Far East and South East Asia, the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean and North Seas, as well as in the American & Arctic waters, on that fact alone it was a World War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-boat_Campaign_(World_War_I)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-boat_Campaign_(World_War_I)#American_waters

Besides, the Japanese & Brazilian navies were also involved:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-boat_Campaign_(World_War_I)#Japanese_participation

..the Vietnam war was a continuation of the Vietnamese fighting off first French and then Japanese and then French again and then American/Aussie/Kiwi/Canadian colonial rule.

in a way it's very close to the truth. The ROK became a fe-facto US/ UN military colony with local dictators in charge, until mass protests ended their rule- the same would have continued to happen in S. Vietnam had the North Vietnamese failed to unite their country.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Aristide wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote: In terms of proportional German casualties and destruction, it was surpassed only by the period of January to May 1945 during World War II[/i]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

Again you prove my superiority. Your own link says what i said.

That 30 years war was the worst. Thag WW I did not reach its impact and WW II only for a short peak of 5 months reached its intensity.

U have a big problem in reading comprehension: if it "surpassed proportional German casualties and destruction from January to May 1945" compared to the 30 Year War aftermath, then ur statement about it is false. Go get ur head examined!

No, you dont know what proportional means. In that 5 months the level of 30 year war was reached in intensity and surpassed but ended quickly. Germany had less casualities in WW II than Poland and even less than Latvia.

The point stands, 30 years war was most devastating war in middle europe history.

In that 5 months the level of 30 year war was reached in intensity and surpassed but ended quickly.

when it ended isn't relevant.

Germany had less casualties in WWII than Poland and even less than Latvia.

Not true:
Germany lost 6,630,000 to 8,680,000; Poland lost 5,620,000 to 5,820,000; Latvia lost 230,000:
http://www.centre-robert-schuman.org/userfiles/files/REPERES%20%E2%80%93%20module%201-2-0%20-%20explanatory%20notes%20%E2%80%93%20World%20War%20II%20casualties%20%E2%80%93%20EN.pdf

The total figures must be compared, not from selected areas & time periods.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

In that 5 months the level of 30 year war was reached in intensity and surpassed but ended quickly.

when it ended isn't relevant.

Germany had less casualties in WWII than Poland and even less than Latvia.

Not true:
Germany lost 6,630,000 to 8,680,000; Poland lost 5,620,000 to 5,820,000; Latvia lost 230,000:
http://www.centre-robert-schuman.org/userfiles/files/REPERES%20%E2%80%93%20module%201-2-0%20-%20explanatory%20notes%20%E2%80%93%20World%20War%20II%20casualties%20%E2%80%93%20EN.pdf

The total figures must be compared, not from selected areas & time periods.

As usual you are wrong.
Dude give it up. I always laugh.

Since the German U-boats operated in both the Far East and South East Asia, the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean and North Seas, as well as in the American & Arctic waters, on that fact alone it was a World War.

US boats operated around the world during the Vietnam war... does that make it WWIII?

Desert Storm pretty much included all world major powers... was that WWIII?

German U boats were hunting British and French and American shipping... their attacks outside of Europe were mere incidents rather than war.

Besides, the Japanese & Brazilian navies were also involved:

So. Doesn't mean WWI was anything more than a war in Europe.

The point stands, 30 years war was most devastating war in middle europe history.

But nobody of any importance died.

As usual you are wrong.
Dude give it up. I always laugh.

He is perfectly correct in that regard... proportion is used to tell lies and reduce the impact and effect of numbers most people can't get their heads around...

In the western propaganda tinted glasses 6 million jews killed is a tragedy and cannot be questioned or talked about... the 20 to 30 million Soviets killed is a statistic because based on population more people died in some other country with a tiny population that distorts the numbers in our favour.

Lets ignore the fact that Latvia fought on both sides and did a fantastic job murdering many of those jews in cold blood... most of which were unarmed women and children and old men, but it diminishes what the Soviets did so lets keep putting it out there...

As usual you are wrong.

just because u say so? it's u that been proven wrong so many times I've lost count; as Deng Xiaoping said, "seek truth from the facts", i.e. not from dogmas, assumptions & ideological cliches.

Dude give it up.

it's about time u take this advice & apply it to urself 1st before giving it to others!

don't confuse Britain and France and the US using WWI as an excuse for stealing German colonies around the world as being anything to do with WWI...German U boats were hunting British and French and American shipping... their attacks outside of Europe were mere incidents rather than war.

By the same token, in WWII, the IJN subs also operated in the Indian Ocean & off the US W. Coast; the IJA attacked & occupied all those UK, French & Dutch colonies in E/SE Asia + the US garrisoned Philippines, while the Germans fought the British after occupying France & Holland. The USN subs & planes engaged & bombed the Japanese & Germans at the same time. The Japanese had relevant plans & were waiting for Moscow & later Stalingrad to fall before attacking the USSR in the Far East. Both the US & USSR, not to mention the UK, Free France, Canada & Australia/NZ considered Nationalist China as an ally.
In this context, do these events on the opposite sides of Eurasia make the term "WWII" also wrong?

I have news for you. Nobody in France or western europe cared about jews killed in WW II. Its remember folklore. Used to gain political gains in other areas.

The USSR as well plays little to no role. France had relative small damage during WW II compared to WW I.

In a way France also has a very different role than UK or Germany. We dont stand in one group or nations. We play in each team, and see where we can gain most.

Now we want EU nuclear weapons.

What many dont realize is, that the current politics work for us. UK is busy with BREXIT. Germany is led by a political Zombie.

When France speaks about Europe, we mean France.

At the moment we also plan to improve relations with Russia.

Our enemy is China. Our rival is USA. And that principle is not dependend on who is president. Macron and Le Pen have same opinion about that. French foreign politics were never shaped who ruled
France.

We see alot of investment and acticity in our pacific regions. New Caledonia and Polynesia get much investments, both in civil and military.

New Caledonia is implemented full scale in our defense and at same time alot is done to protect nature and environment there.

Mined areas are reforested with native trees, areas are protected and harsh laws implemented to protect this amazing place.

It will also have nuclear weapons stationed there in near future. Protect the south pacific against China and secure Australia and New Zealand.

Since the referendum made clear that it stays France, we will see some great investment there. Same can be said about French Polynesia

The USSR as well plays little to no role.

if it was so, u would be speaking German now.

Now we want EU nuclear weapons.

u already have nukes, & no1 will give u theirs.

At the moment we also plan to improve relations with Russia. Our enemy is China.

Russia won't improve relations with Paris at the expense of her relations with Beijing. W/o good relations with China, forget it.

It will also have nuclear weapons stationed there in near future. Protect the south pacific against China and secure Australia and New Zealand.

those nukes won't magically improve their China export oriented economies. What else can France offer them that China can't?

[quote="Tsavo Lion"]

Russia won't improve relations with Paris at the expense of her relations with Beijing. W/o good relations with China, forget it.

Not at the expense certainly, Russia doesn't build relations with one country at the expense of another
But it won't interfere with building good relations with France either.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

The USSR as well plays little to no role.

if it was so, u would be speaking German now.

Now we want EU nuclear weapons.

u already have nukes, & no1 will give u theirs.

At the moment we also plan to improve relations with Russia. Our enemy is China.

Russia won't improve relations with Paris at the expense of her relations with Beijing. W/o good relations with China, forget it.

It will also have nuclear weapons stationed there in near future. Protect the south pacific against China and secure Australia and New Zealand.

those nukes won't magically improve their China export oriented economies. What else can France offer them that China can't?

As usual you understood nothing.

1. I do speak German. I speak 3 languages. My own french, english plus a bit German. Oh and a bit Kanaky. I was not talking about wW II but that dead of USSR are not a big topic in western europe.

2. France is only nuclear power in EU. By EU nuclear weapons, we mean a program that widens our arsenal.

3. You obviously dont know Australia well. They hate the chinese. Chinese are seen as very negative in Australia, as enemy in many areas and more and more hostilities arise. What France can offer? Nuclear protection in the future war im the pacific, which will happen anyways.

I was not talking about wW II but that dead of USSR are not a big topic in western europe.

but Russia is, & that's why Macron wants better relations with her.

2. France is only nuclear power in EU. By EU nuclear weapons, we mean a program that widens our arsenal.

the Germans will want them too, as then for all intents & purposes the EU will=France.

3. You obviously dont know Australia well. They hate the chinese. Chinese are seen as very negative in Australia,..

What makes u think they don't hate u behind ur back?
The Mongols, Burmese & Vietnamese also hate them but they can't remove themselves from under the PRC's economic domination.

What France can offer? Nuclear protection in the future war im the pacific, which will happen anyways.

If need be, it would be the UK, with which they have much closer ties, that will offer protection to Australia & NZ by directly deploying nukes, etc. Down Under. The RN has 2 aircraft carriers while the FN has only 1.
The US "protected" the Philippines since 1945 but just recently they started to cut mil. ties after concluding a big investment deal with China: https://www.asiatimes.com/2020/02/article/duterte-delivers-deathblow-to-us-philippine-ties/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-philippines-alliance-dying-123841

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3050833/ending-philippines-us-military-pact-will-affect-south-china-sea

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/world/asia/philippines-united-states-duterte.html

Tsavo Lion wrote:

I was not talking about wW II but that dead of USSR are not a big topic in western europe.

but Russia is, & that's why Macron wants better relations with her.

2. France is only nuclear power in EU. By EU nuclear weapons, we mean a program that widens our arsenal.

the Germans will want them too, as then for all intents & purposes the EU will=France.

3. You obviously dont know Australia well. They hate the chinese. Chinese are seen as very negative in Australia,..

What makes u think they don't hate u behind ur back?
The Mongols, Burmese & Vietnamese also hate them but they can't remove themselves from under the PRC's economic domination.

What France can offer? Nuclear protection in the future war im the pacific, which will happen anyways.

If need be, it would be the UK, with which they have much closer ties, that will offer protection to Australia & NZ by directly deploying nukes, etc. Down Under. The RN has 2 aircraft carriers while the FN has only 1.
The US "protected" the Philippines since 1945 but just recently they started to cut mil. ties after concluding a big investment deal with China: https://www.asiatimes.com/2020/02/article/duterte-delivers-deathblow-to-us-philippine-ties/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-philippines-alliance-dying-123841

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3050833/ending-philippines-us-military-pact-will-affect-south-china-sea

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/world/asia/philippines-united-states-duterte.html

The end effect will be like japan in WW II. A big war in pacific is inevitable so it will be good to be prepared.

In this context, do these events on the opposite sides of Eurasia make the term "WWII" also wrong?

WWII was not limited to Europe... it was a truly global war so should have been called WWI... what we called WWI should have been called the four year war of europe.

The USSR as well plays little to no role. France had relative small damage during WW II compared to WW I.

Yeah, they changed sides faster than a cheese eating surrender monkey would...

At the moment we also plan to improve relations with Russia.

I expect your wish could come true because the only reason there are bad relations with Russia is because the west are a bunch of .

Of course knowing the EU you will fuck it up by demanding that Russia admits to all its past crimes like killing that nobody in the UK and shooting down planes they didn't shoot down and of course invading the Ukraine but never actually taking Kiev even after years of supposed interference... and Putin will say he wants better relations but not on those terms and France will either drop that shit and just normalise relations and start making money again or it will get all prissy and claim there is no communicating with criminals that wont admit they are criminals...

Our enemy is China. Our rival is USA. And that principle is not dependend on who is president. Macron and Le Pen have same opinion about that. French foreign politics were never shaped who ruled
France.

And that will be your problem going forward because as far as Russia is concerned China is ready to do business and the EU and the US are not... China is not the problem... the west is... mainly coming from the US, but the EU is just a mouthpiece of the US anyway.

It will also have nuclear weapons stationed there in near future. Protect the south pacific against China and secure Australia and New Zealand.

Ahhh fuck off... we are not fucking idiot drones like the french or british or american public... nuclear weapons are a threat not a guarantee of peace... they would be an escalation and a huge step in the wrong direction and France is arrogant and ignorant to the opinions of others to put them here anyway... despite how counter productive they are.

Since the referendum made clear that it stays France, we will see some great investment there. Same can be said about French Polynesia

For how long...

Russia won't improve relations with Paris at the expense of her relations with Beijing. W/o good relations with China, forget it.

From a Russian perspective the EU and China and the US are all potential trade partners... Russia is not best buddies with any of them and none of them have Russias back, but of the three the US is the worst and the Chinese are the easiest to work with and deal with... the EU is unreliable and needs permission from the US even to build ships and pipelines...

2. France is only nuclear power in EU. By EU nuclear weapons, we mean a program that widens our arsenal.

Now the UK has left I rather suspect Germany will start wanting nuclear weapons now too...

3. You obviously dont know Australia well. They hate the chinese. Chinese are seen as very negative in Australia, as enemy in many areas and more and more hostilities arise. What France can offer? Nuclear protection in the future war im the pacific, which will happen anyways.

Yeah, they are some of the most racist around... only South Africans and the Dutch are worse/more open about it.... but they also make a lot of money sending coal and other materials to China... China is a major export customer of Australia and they know that too, so the racist banter about skin colour and the shape of the eyelids will be toned down in public while those links are working.

What makes u think they don't hate u behind ur back?

Of course they hate the French... and the Germans... they tend to mock the british more than hate them... you will hear them talk about whinging poms... they like to beat them at cricket and rugby the most.

I am not a great fan of sport... as far as I am concerned I would rather play than just sit and watch... really don't understand the western culture of sitting on your ass watching other people play a game... they even watch video games being played by others... weird... but I do like to see the English win the Ashes Cricket series against Australia.

The end effect will be like japan in WW II. A big war in pacific is inevitable so it will be good to be prepared.

No it isn't... with the new silk routes China is creating trade between China and Europe wont be able to be cut with a naval blockade... but even if you could China has a large enough internal market that it could survive indefinitely being completely blocked off... which is not going to happen anyway.

China does not need to expand out into the Pacific looking for resources to steal... the military damage and the economic damage would exceed any resources they could acquire putting them in a much worse position than they are in now with sanctions.

Of course most of the sanctions are coming from the US, which will make China more independent of the US and its control... which is good for China in the long term... eventually the US will no longer dictate to anyone... eventually the EU will grow a pair and the UK might gather together its former commonwealth as a united group with power... or it might just shrink to nothing... either way the wests current power will radically diminish and to be clear its actual power is much less than its perceived power appears to be even today... everything it touches seems to go south... Syria to get rid of Assad, Libya to get rid of Gaddafi, Iraq to get rid of Saddam, Afghanistan to get rid of the Taleban and Al Quada... the result is enormously boosted Russian and Iranian presence in Syria, Gaddafi and Saddam gone but Libya in chaos spewing refugees into Europe, and Iraq largely sympathetic to Iran and growing more anti western every day... and justifiably so... and of course Afghanistan is the same old same old... no American miracle of peace and democracy after over a decade of war and death...

Seems everything the west touches these days turns to shit.