France Rejoins NATO

[rcaf_777]

Here the news article

http://www.france24.com/en/20090311-france-nato-command-structure-wider-role-troops-charles-de-gaulle?ppcseid=4004&ppcsekeyword=NATO+France&mmtctg=1287417542&mmtcmp=22645472&mmtmt=5&mmtgglcnt=0&gclid=CL7u9Mfom5oCFQQrFQodbRnu-A

my question is would this happen in as the Twilight 2000 War dragged on?

[pmulcahy11b]

I don't know if there would have been time for treaty-signing, but that's one of the V1 timeline's serious shortcomings -- I simply can't imagine the Soviets and Pact forces invading Western Europe and the French doing basically nothing about it. They would be in as much danger as the rest of Western Europe, they would be bombed like everyone else, and (since the beginning of the war was 1996), they would be facing a third invasion in one century. I think that even if the French weren't officially NATO in T2K, they would have fought alongside the rest of us against the Soviets and Pact forces.

[Fusilier]

Absolutely not. They occupied the Rhine and defeated the Dutch. Going that far suggests they are in it only for their own national survival. Taking advantage of the fact they are once again a superpower (in an updated comparison) helps them pave the way for the Trav.2300 situation where they are the top dog.

[Mohoender]

It can't as it never left it. It remained entitled to the entire treaty and would have comply. The ground for France not getting in the twilight war lies in the fact that (v.1 to v2.2), the warsaw pact is not the obvious aggressor. Western Germany is (poor German: WW1, WW2 and WW3...).

On that ground, no NATO member is entitled to comply.

Today, France is simply joining the combined command again. Which, IMO, is not going to change anything at all.

As an exemple, France is part of NATO in Afghanistan. That's normal as this is a war against Al Qaida. Al Qaida launched an attack on US and, as a result, became an aggressor to all NATO members. Thereofre, all NATO members are entitled to join.

[Fusilier]

That's not true Mohoender. France withdrew from NATO in 1996.

[kato13]

That's not true Mohoender. France withdrew from NATO in 1996.

I think we are confusing canon with real life in this disagreement.

[Fusilier]

I think we are confusing canon with real life in this disagreement.

I'm talking about Twilight2000... what are you all talking about?

[kato13]

Well the original post was regarding France rejoining the NATO command structure. I think Mo was commenting that France never left NATO in real life, they just left the command structure.

[Fusilier]

Ohhh.

[Mohoender]

Yes, I hadn't read the all thing. Oops, sorry.

However, in T2K I don't understand why France withdraws from NATO (not at the given point). It has no reason to do so (that is also true for Italy) as no NATO member is entitled to get into the twilight war. As I pointed out, Germany is the agressor and, therefore, no treaty member is bound by the treaty. That's an entirely different matter for the Warsaw Pact when it comes to the European theater (Romania is effectively a traitor).

Nevertheles, the french position in T2K is plausible and fits the game well (IMO). Actually, I'm not using it in my game : instead, france betrays its alliance when the first nukes start to fall and sign a separate peace with Moscow (probably a revenge from someone who was born belgian:D ).

Anyway, in all cases I see even less ground for France to get back in NATO at any given point. France finally declares war to NATO (and in its case, every NATO member has to declare war to France). Hey, the french attacked Germany, Netherland and Canada (That is when France should withdraw from NATO, when it becomes an aggressor). Moreover, it probably represents a threat to NATO shipping almost on every see. That can also make the french involvement in the Middle East doubtfull but, after all, the situation is a mess and, by 2000, NATO must have become meaningless.

[Webstral]

I see France's withdrawal from NATO in 1996 as a typically French move. The French put French interests first. I'm not castigating the French for doing so. Unlike many Americans, I don't believe that our allies have to be our lap dogs. Whatever one believes about the Gallic insistence on maintaining independence of action, I believe the French withdrawal from NATO in 1996 makes perfect sense--from the French point of view. West Germany's invasion of the DDR with NATO standing on the sidelines can be seen as a local action. Lamentable, oui. Deserving of nuclear action against France? Non. When US forces cross the border, however, the West German invasion of East Germany becomes a NATO invasion of Pact turf. Someone in the French hierarchy clearly concludes that there is less chance of Soviet nuclear attack on French targets if France is neutral than if France is still a part of the Atlantic Alliance.

Sadly, I rather doubt the French attempts at neutrality buy them much. EMP will affect France as much as any other Western European nation. Most French electricity is nuclear derived. That's a problem in a nuclear environment. It's also hard to see that the Soviets would permit French industry to survive in an East-West nuclear exchange intended to put the West out of the fight.

Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

Just an aside Kato -- I read Webstral's last reply to this thread an hour and a half ago, just after checking my email and then coming here. However, the email notice of Webstral's reply just got to my inbox.

[kato13]

Just an aside Kato -- I read Webstral's last reply to this thread an hour and a half ago, just after checking my email and then coming here. However, the email notice of Webstral's reply just got to my inbox.

Email can, in rare circumstances, bounce around for days before being delivered. If anyone else is having problems with emails from this site let me know.

Paul I will be sending you an email from the server immediately after posting this. PM me if there are problems.