Why Are We Relying On The French For Defence
President of the Republic reviews the new Anglo-French rapid reaction force, Brits to the left, French to the Right
This is not to to go well on past performance irrespective of the fact that we have spent most of the the last thousand years fighting the French, we don’t speak the same language and have slightly different ways of going about national defence.
The British have traditionally defended their home soil like cornered dogs, the French have had a tendancy to throw the towel in and wait for others to come along and give them a hand to get their homeland back, then change history and say they liberated themselves (yes-you DeGaulle)
Col Tim Collins who knows a bit or two about fighting, said when he was on operations with the yanks in kosovo they got their man, cooperating with the french was a nightmare, they could not communicate in the field and invariably their target was tipped off and got away.
I’d rather employ more South Africans, Fijians and Ghurkas if we are are going to rely on foreigners for defence.
Sid Philpott
-
November 4, 2010 at 13:46 -
Because Cameron and his government are treasonous dogs, in the pay of the Vatican controlled EU, aka the EU, simple.
-
November 4, 2010 at 14:09 -
After the armistice with Hitler, and the establishment of the Vichy regime, many in the new government wanted to declare war on Britain. They viewed that Britain would have its neck wrung like a chicken in a few weeks, and they wanted to be on the winning side.
Few realise that Britain fought a full blown war on the ground, the sea, and air, with the Vichy French in places like Syria.
Elsewhere in Africa, after futile attempts to persuade them to align with the Free French, we reluctantly fought against the Vichy Colonial Forces.
After the war, of course EVERYONE was a member of the resistance!
I suspect that Britain will ever be Perfidious Albion to the French, never to be trusted.
The French supplied the Argentinians throughout the Falklands war with Exocet missiles which inflicted severe damage to our ships. They also had their French engineers working on Argentinian aircraft so they could continue killing our men.
Perfidious France! -
November 4, 2010 at 15:07 -
In the interests of balance, can I suggest that the Dunkirk evacuation was a success thanks not only to the brave souls who navigated the little boats in and out but also to the French who defended the port while we escaped.
Judging by the way in which we English quietly acquiesce to every assault on our freedoms, I’m far from sure that if we’d been in the same hopeless position as the French found themselves after our departure in 1940 – alone and facing immeasurably superior odds – we, too, wouldn’t have chosen surrender. What I am sure of is that had we fallen under German rule, we’d have produced our own ‘Vichy’ opportunists and, in the event of liberation,we’d have re-written history to a greater extent than we have already done so.
Thanks to the English Channel and Barbarossa we were spared invasion. Courage alone – however admirable – is not always enough.
-
November 4, 2010 at 15:37 -
No country that shares its armed forces with another country can be considered a proper country. We really are just a region of Europe now. It’s called betrayal.
-
November 9, 2010 at 22:11 -
Or NATO. Doesn’t everyone know that we have pooled our Trident and Polaris missiles with America since 1970? If this treaty weakens the grip of the defence industry – buy our stuff that doesn’t work properly at our prices or we’ll close our factories down – it’s a good thing.
-
-
November 4, 2010 at 22:02 -
“Why Are We Relying On The French For Defence”
Well would you want to rely on them for Attack?
-
November 5, 2010 at 12:44 -
The Bretons don’t think in quite the same way as The French. And a lot of them actually were in The Resistance or The Maquis. There are a large number of small shrines to atrocities around here.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }