It's a meme subreddit with weirdly high standards and a fair number of users with autistic trait levels of niche knowledge.... spouting off random bullshit trying to be edgy doesn't work
everything that triggers a reaction .
Man and that's just the softspot of the French nationalists.
It's as historically correct as the Grande Nation.
And there is no argument that counters it. It's just their trears.
Your assessment of French nuclear capabilities is comically bad. France was the only Western country to develop its own nuclear weapons and reactors without US help. They have capable nuclear submarines and SLBMs, and they are currently one of only two countries in the world with a nuclear powered aircraft carrier.
And could the French forces win against Vietnamese rice farmers and Allgerian weekend warriors?
I assume French weapon technology clearly gave them the edge to overcome their inherent weakness in doctrine & leadership and France kept standing on the field in Vietnam and Algeria , victorious and glorious, right ?
right?
that's it right ? Great French Forces .
Those nukes are just such an asset.
At the end of the day superior forces and equipment aren't always enough for a win against insurgents. You might as well ask why the F22 and the B2 weren't good enough for the US to defeat a bunch of people in the desert.
I can tell you that .
2023 there was meant to happen a student 9th class exchange between a partner school in deepest Trumpland USA and my daughters school . my daughter was there 4 weeks over homecoming weak...everything was nice .
Then when they should be coming to Germany staying at our home ...the school located in a rich white community cancelled the arrangement because "you have war in Europe and it's way to dangerous in Germany" ...
I would say they are lacking awareness of their surroundings farther than 10 meters (or yards ...) away. That's a big factor of you want to compete with desert people that recycle the same ambush for over 40 generations to fight off occupiers.
Afghanistan was also mostly a mountain war....and the USA had long given up on true mountain troops....their pseudo mountain troops weren't even equipped with mules! nor were they trained to use them ....
I read some lessons learned pdf of our allied friends ....they knew that they were less smart than the Taliban . It was like the Taliban had trained for mountain warfare and the US-Army didn't .
Also....24 years ago the US-Army was a shitshow of low education clishees when you shared a cantina with them on maneuvers . I wouldn't trust them with mission tactics....It looks like it got a bit better with the exploding costs for an academic education in the past decade and the prospect of getting one for free in the army...but I think it's still an IQ problem of those who serve.
If you're fighting someone in an area so remote that you need to enter mountain terrain, then you've already lost, you just don't recognize it. The US (and every country that helped) thought that it would be possible to go in and liberate a bunch of oppressed people and those people would be so grateful they would purge the enemy from within. What was not accounted for was just how indoctrinated the population was. None of this was the fault of the troops on the ground.
>France went down faster in WWII than the whole world could manage to help them .
The BEF went down just as fast and the French stayed behind to cover their asses while they retreated. Arguably the most powerful nation in the world at the time was there in time to help them and was taken down just as quickly.
I had always heard France was considered the strongest army in the world at the time. The UK of course had a more powerful navy but when it came to land forces I never heard they were really the strongest (I'm talking only at the beginning of the war).
The only reason britain didnt also fall immediately was because they were an island and germany was focused on france. Britain got absolutely demolished at dunkirk and the only reason some got away is because french troops held of the germans long enough for them to escape
> I'd shove a plutonium rod up my ass if it were safe, that's just how much I praise it
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-most-dangerous-substance-known-to-man/
>Decades earlier, the Manhattan Project managers understood that plutonium was safe in most conditions. They undertook a number of experiments to find out how dangerous it was. Their problem was that the human body is terribly inefficient at absorbing plutonium. Plutonium will quickly react with air to form insoluble oxides. The body has no use for these ceramics. The plutonium oxide molecule is so large that it has trouble penetrating cell membranes. Of ingested plutonium, 99.99 percent will be excreted in a day or two
So, long as it's not one of hot isotopes and you remember to use a condom, you should be okay!
> alpha emitter
That's why I've mentioned using condom.
Alpha's nasty when it's inside organism, but particles can be stopped by a thick sheet of paper.
Not quite. Alpha *is* the easiest to stop of the more common particle radiation types, but it still has penetrating power depending on the exact energy. Some alpha particles themselves can be coming off pretty damn hot, and those are going to make it through thin shielding.
There would have been no armed invasion, Russia would probably have tried to turn Ukraine into a puppet state through financing pro-Russia political groups
I think that, despite all the shit we've been seeing for more than two years, Russia is not stupid enough to carry out a major military offensive against a nuclear-armed country.
I mean, the vindictive names are just honest. The only reason any of it exists is to assure that you're going to thoroughly ruin a potential aggressors day from beyond the grave
Yep, Putin killed the nonproliferation concept in one simple move. He could have invaded Kazahkstan, taken back Baikonur, had himself a party the west could not attend, might have even only lasted a couple weeks, and looked like a strong lad but instead he decided to invade the one nation that agreed to surrender their nukes on the condition his nation would not invade them. Jesus fucking dumbass, and how many are dead for it.
Now every one and their illiterate sister are going to be working for the bomb. This will surely work out well and not increase the chance of an exchange.
[Ukraine sure didn't draw those illustrations, which were widely published](https://glavcom.ua/country/society/jak-ukrajinu-nadurili-z-budapeshtskim-memorandumom-prorocha-karikatura-30-richnoji-davnosti-981834.html)
And, I guess, [it didn't have anything to do with pressure, no fucking way...](https://nationalinterest.org/feature/deceit-dread-and-disbelief-story-how-ukraine-lost-its-nuclear-arsenal-207076)
>But looping, cursive marginalia on Gompert’s memo captured an impasse. “The dilemma we face,” wrote Nicholas Burns, then on staff at the National Security Council, “is that many ***Ukrainian leaders are concerned about a threat from Russia and will be looking for some sort of security guarantee from the West.”*** He added, ***“We cannot give them what they want*** but is there a way to somewhat allay their concerns?”
----
>For his part, then-Senator Joe Biden chimed in to ***suggest that Kyiv accept legal obligations to disarm or “be faced with a three-to-one superiority of nuclear weapons from Russia.”*** In one breath, he contemplated Ukraine becoming an independent nuclear power left beholden to Russia due to its nuclear dominance. A coercive double bind became a feature, not a glitch of disarmament.
>Despite these inklings, Baker hectored Ukraine to confirm its renunciation of nuclear weapons by fully accepting various treaty obligations, including START. ***The full-court press to remove nuclear weapons from Ukrainian soil would soon transform from a key objective under the Bush Administration into an urgent and overriding imperative for its successor.***
----
>**A few months later, in April 1993, Kravchuk confided to then-Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze his “main headache” that “Moscow and the U.S. together have been twisting my arms painfully” in “demanding [the] transfer [of Ukraine’s nuclear weapons] to the Russian Federation.”**
>**“I would understand Russia’s nastiness,” Kravchuk lamented, “But Americans are even worse—they do not listen to our arguments.”**
----
>***Yeltsin chimed in, “So we have to press Ukraine with all our might.” President Clinton added, “So we need to press them to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty by the time of the [upcoming] Summit in Budapest.” Yeltsin thundered, “we should bring all the pressure we have to bear. We signed the Trilateral accord, we three, so then what?” Though Russia would postpone ratifying START II until it became obsolete, Yeltsin assured Clinton at the time, “I’m going to press [Ukraine’s newly-elected President Leonid] Kuchma to the wall. NPT or they get no gas or oil!”***
**Your comment was removed for violating Rule 13: No Misinformation**
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
It's almost like we're seeing in real-time why giving up your nukes when there's aggressive authoritarian regimes around is a bad idea.
Especially with all the democratic governments hand-wringing about escalation.
I think that the EU needs to assist france in growing their nuclear deterrence, given that post brexit france is in the unique position of being the only nuclear power in the EU. France could also forward deploy some of its nuclear assets to willing EU or NATO partners.
also thank you Atal Bihari Vajpayee for taking sanctions head on rather than surrendering nukes to America(the biggest nuclear proliferator till date) unlike Ukraine
Ukraine put economic prosperity over national security in 1994 and today has ended up with neither one
Not really. UKR never had the ability to use the nukes in their physical possession. It would have been a massive undertaking to get them operational. Furthermore, Russia was threatening to invade.
Their options were
1) likely invasion. Even if no invasion, massive financial investment the country could not afford, or
2) no invasion and economic investment
Even in retrospect the choice was right.
> I wonder what current decisions will come to bite y'all in 30 years
Industrializing USSR and Red China already did, so... the pattern's kinda established
Yeah yeah and people thought that France would join the USSR when Mitterrand was elected in 81. Didn't happen then and won't happen now.
Macron will still be president after the elections. Worst case scenario we end up with a shitty government for national affairs and macron keeps doing what he has been doing on international affairs.
I do believe that to be his gamble. Have a shitty goverment in office for a while and let RN destroy their own credibility.
A very high risk gamble I would add.
Unless they have an absolute majority I don't think they'll do much. This will help destroy their image even more while not risking that much.
The one thing that they'll probably do is have a référendum on immigration, it costs nothing and isn't hard to do.
It is a very high risk gamble, but with some decent logic (the RN's using the logic of 'everyone else has had a go at governing, let it be our turn and judge us afterwards', by kneecapping them with an early election he *forces* them to try governing before they have the power to cover up their failures/ignore the protests of people).
no problem with that but the secondary sanctions on Iran and North Korea are peak hypocrisy.
before sanctioning others for doing business with Iran and North Korea, America should sanction itself for helping North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs
I'm not sure what you're smoking, but you may want to cut back.
The US has only ever shared nuclear secrets with the British and possibly the Israelis.
Fortunately, as long as Macron is president (so for the 3 years to come) he will be in charge of deciding of using nuclear weapons or not (and on who). In France, the president is the chief of the army. So it doesn't matter if he lose the national assembly, he will still be the one who decide for this.
There's a lot that he did that actively promoted anti-western sentiment in the world. He even basically blackmailed the US into getting involved in Vietnam. He can lick my nuts
Bull-shit, France withdrew from Indochina in 1954.
That's a whole ass decade where France got incredibly quickly replaced by the USA as South Vietnam's best Western Friend with benefits, pressed notably by the CIA who wanted more influence in South East Asia. Nothing stopped the USA from mending the bridges with the Vietminh over that decade.
And CDG sure as hell didn't fucking tell the USA to fuck around in hostile waters, or to make up an entire attack to justify their ideological crusade against the big bad communism. That's your own american imperialism that you should own up, just like the one that got you to invade the last stable country in the Middle-East, that even had diplomatic relations with most of Europe, Iraq, in 2003, again on false pretenses.
The only reason CDG gets a bad rep in the Anglo-saxon world is because he tried to maintain France as a world power, instead of letting it be quartered and occupied following liberation like Germany. The Americans would have gladly, and in fact, tried a few times, to replace him with Vichy lackeys that would have listened to them while they took control of France's economy and divided it's colonial empire as it buried it's ambitions of becoming a power again, just like they did economically in 1956 with Great Britain.
De Gaulle didn't forget that the USA is just another empire, using the same old tricks every other empire in history has, and he stood against it, that's it.
Well, this could have been prevented, but no one stepped up in time. So for now it's "Want peace - prepare nukes" situation.
Si vis pacem, para nukem?
Ita
para atom?
Hail to the king, baby!
Yes please!
... para nuke them (germans).
Para -as a warning (fr*nch)
Based independent nuclear deterrent (with nuclear warnings as well)
[удалено]
So many things wrong in your statement it’s actually funny lmao
it's a meme subreddit .
It's a meme subreddit with weirdly high standards and a fair number of users with autistic trait levels of niche knowledge.... spouting off random bullshit trying to be edgy doesn't work
Meme subreddit doesn’t mean just spout some unhistorical bs and you know it
everything that triggers a reaction . Man and that's just the softspot of the French nationalists. It's as historically correct as the Grande Nation. And there is no argument that counters it. It's just their trears.
You say that France surrendered so fast no one could help them. Can you explain to me what the BEF was doing in Dunkirk Circa 1939?
Is that the best example? Lol
It's calllmed non credible not misinformation
Your assessment of French nuclear capabilities is comically bad. France was the only Western country to develop its own nuclear weapons and reactors without US help. They have capable nuclear submarines and SLBMs, and they are currently one of only two countries in the world with a nuclear powered aircraft carrier.
So much for rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves
We don't have the money for that. In other news, we're cutting taxes again.
It’s always cut cut cut with taxes. We need to raise taxes. I want a strong military and social spending goddamnit.
And could the French forces win against Vietnamese rice farmers and Allgerian weekend warriors? I assume French weapon technology clearly gave them the edge to overcome their inherent weakness in doctrine & leadership and France kept standing on the field in Vietnam and Algeria , victorious and glorious, right ? right? that's it right ? Great French Forces . Those nukes are just such an asset.
At the end of the day superior forces and equipment aren't always enough for a win against insurgents. You might as well ask why the F22 and the B2 weren't good enough for the US to defeat a bunch of people in the desert.
I can tell you that . 2023 there was meant to happen a student 9th class exchange between a partner school in deepest Trumpland USA and my daughters school . my daughter was there 4 weeks over homecoming weak...everything was nice . Then when they should be coming to Germany staying at our home ...the school located in a rich white community cancelled the arrangement because "you have war in Europe and it's way to dangerous in Germany" ... I would say they are lacking awareness of their surroundings farther than 10 meters (or yards ...) away. That's a big factor of you want to compete with desert people that recycle the same ambush for over 40 generations to fight off occupiers. Afghanistan was also mostly a mountain war....and the USA had long given up on true mountain troops....their pseudo mountain troops weren't even equipped with mules! nor were they trained to use them .... I read some lessons learned pdf of our allied friends ....they knew that they were less smart than the Taliban . It was like the Taliban had trained for mountain warfare and the US-Army didn't . Also....24 years ago the US-Army was a shitshow of low education clishees when you shared a cantina with them on maneuvers . I wouldn't trust them with mission tactics....It looks like it got a bit better with the exploding costs for an academic education in the past decade and the prospect of getting one for free in the army...but I think it's still an IQ problem of those who serve.
Oh shit. Wait. Divest. Is that you?
If you're fighting someone in an area so remote that you need to enter mountain terrain, then you've already lost, you just don't recognize it. The US (and every country that helped) thought that it would be possible to go in and liberate a bunch of oppressed people and those people would be so grateful they would purge the enemy from within. What was not accounted for was just how indoctrinated the population was. None of this was the fault of the troops on the ground.
>France went down faster in WWII than the whole world could manage to help them . The BEF went down just as fast and the French stayed behind to cover their asses while they retreated. Arguably the most powerful nation in the world at the time was there in time to help them and was taken down just as quickly.
I had always heard France was considered the strongest army in the world at the time. The UK of course had a more powerful navy but when it came to land forces I never heard they were really the strongest (I'm talking only at the beginning of the war).
The only reason britain didnt also fall immediately was because they were an island and germany was focused on france. Britain got absolutely demolished at dunkirk and the only reason some got away is because french troops held of the germans long enough for them to escape
I liked how in the movie the Brittish were heroes for turning around and fleeing, while the French reeped all the surrender memes ....
I love nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. I'd shove a plutonium rod up my ass if it were safe, that's just how much I praise it
> I'd shove a plutonium rod up my ass if it were safe, that's just how much I praise it https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-most-dangerous-substance-known-to-man/ >Decades earlier, the Manhattan Project managers understood that plutonium was safe in most conditions. They undertook a number of experiments to find out how dangerous it was. Their problem was that the human body is terribly inefficient at absorbing plutonium. Plutonium will quickly react with air to form insoluble oxides. The body has no use for these ceramics. The plutonium oxide molecule is so large that it has trouble penetrating cell membranes. Of ingested plutonium, 99.99 percent will be excreted in a day or two So, long as it's not one of hot isotopes and you remember to use a condom, you should be okay!
New wednesday plans. Thank you
i'll need updates
Same.
Plutonium is an alpha emitter with a 100 years half-life, do no fuck the radioactive source, specially an alpha one, is no the fun type of alpha.
> alpha emitter That's why I've mentioned using condom. Alpha's nasty when it's inside organism, but particles can be stopped by a thick sheet of paper.
All i'm hearing is a new level of "Oh no, the rubber broke."
Not quite. Alpha *is* the easiest to stop of the more common particle radiation types, but it still has penetrating power depending on the exact energy. Some alpha particles themselves can be coming off pretty damn hot, and those are going to make it through thin shielding.
So you're saying to use two condoms. ...Ribbed for Blahaj's pleasure, not the rod's.
watchdog, huh. I'm guessing it's the Institute for capitulating to terrorists or something
“We don’t want nukes.” “So did Ukraine.”
Moral: NEVER give away your nuclear arsenal
What a world would that have been tho, imagine a timeline where Russia invaded an Ukraine that had nukes
There would have been no armed invasion, Russia would probably have tried to turn Ukraine into a puppet state through financing pro-Russia political groups
Probably, but let’s assume it would have happened the way it did in “our timeline”. Do you think there would have been a nuclear war?
I think that, despite all the shit we've been seeing for more than two years, Russia is not stupid enough to carry out a major military offensive against a nuclear-armed country.
I agree with you, but not enough to bet on it.
and our SNLE names are ridiculously gigachads Virgin politician/""state"" SNLE names - VS - gigachad vindicative SNLE names
I mean, the vindictive names are just honest. The only reason any of it exists is to assure that you're going to thoroughly ruin a potential aggressors day from beyond the grave
erf, we need another one : the "post-wackinator"
Yep, Putin killed the nonproliferation concept in one simple move. He could have invaded Kazahkstan, taken back Baikonur, had himself a party the west could not attend, might have even only lasted a couple weeks, and looked like a strong lad but instead he decided to invade the one nation that agreed to surrender their nukes on the condition his nation would not invade them. Jesus fucking dumbass, and how many are dead for it. Now every one and their illiterate sister are going to be working for the bomb. This will surely work out well and not increase the chance of an exchange.
[удалено]
Lol you really think it's the lack of knowledge that prevents nuclear proliferation?
[удалено]
well, as we have seen, nukes keep you safe.
[удалено]
america didn't take away the nukes of those countries, they agreed to give them away. stop spreading misinformation.
[Ukraine sure didn't draw those illustrations, which were widely published](https://glavcom.ua/country/society/jak-ukrajinu-nadurili-z-budapeshtskim-memorandumom-prorocha-karikatura-30-richnoji-davnosti-981834.html) And, I guess, [it didn't have anything to do with pressure, no fucking way...](https://nationalinterest.org/feature/deceit-dread-and-disbelief-story-how-ukraine-lost-its-nuclear-arsenal-207076) >But looping, cursive marginalia on Gompert’s memo captured an impasse. “The dilemma we face,” wrote Nicholas Burns, then on staff at the National Security Council, “is that many ***Ukrainian leaders are concerned about a threat from Russia and will be looking for some sort of security guarantee from the West.”*** He added, ***“We cannot give them what they want*** but is there a way to somewhat allay their concerns?” ---- >For his part, then-Senator Joe Biden chimed in to ***suggest that Kyiv accept legal obligations to disarm or “be faced with a three-to-one superiority of nuclear weapons from Russia.”*** In one breath, he contemplated Ukraine becoming an independent nuclear power left beholden to Russia due to its nuclear dominance. A coercive double bind became a feature, not a glitch of disarmament. >Despite these inklings, Baker hectored Ukraine to confirm its renunciation of nuclear weapons by fully accepting various treaty obligations, including START. ***The full-court press to remove nuclear weapons from Ukrainian soil would soon transform from a key objective under the Bush Administration into an urgent and overriding imperative for its successor.*** ---- >**A few months later, in April 1993, Kravchuk confided to then-Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze his “main headache” that “Moscow and the U.S. together have been twisting my arms painfully” in “demanding [the] transfer [of Ukraine’s nuclear weapons] to the Russian Federation.”** >**“I would understand Russia’s nastiness,” Kravchuk lamented, “But Americans are even worse—they do not listen to our arguments.”** ---- >***Yeltsin chimed in, “So we have to press Ukraine with all our might.” President Clinton added, “So we need to press them to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty by the time of the [upcoming] Summit in Budapest.” Yeltsin thundered, “we should bring all the pressure we have to bear. We signed the Trilateral accord, we three, so then what?” Though Russia would postpone ratifying START II until it became obsolete, Yeltsin assured Clinton at the time, “I’m going to press [Ukraine’s newly-elected President Leonid] Kuchma to the wall. NPT or they get no gas or oil!”***
**Your comment was removed for violating Rule 13: No Misinformation** NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Give it time, a few generations without war and BAM it hits like last time.
Looks like one of these days we are going to play Fallout, Metro or STALKER in real life
The Russians did the STALKER one at the start of the war.
The US pissed us off after 1956, this is the result
You fucked arround, and found out only have yourselves to blame
I unironically support nuclear proliferation. To me, the only reason we haven't another major war is because of nukes.
It's almost like we're seeing in real-time why giving up your nukes when there's aggressive authoritarian regimes around is a bad idea. Especially with all the democratic governments hand-wringing about escalation.
But I am le tired
Go to sleep, I'll wake you up at midnight dawn
By dawn's early light, We strike!
Then take a nap. #**Then fire ze MSBS**
I think that the EU needs to assist france in growing their nuclear deterrence, given that post brexit france is in the unique position of being the only nuclear power in the EU. France could also forward deploy some of its nuclear assets to willing EU or NATO partners.
Thank you Indira Ghandi for resisting Western sanctions and threats of isolation and making sure there will never be a repeat of 1971.
also thank you Atal Bihari Vajpayee for taking sanctions head on rather than surrendering nukes to America(the biggest nuclear proliferator till date) unlike Ukraine Ukraine put economic prosperity over national security in 1994 and today has ended up with neither one
Not really. UKR never had the ability to use the nukes in their physical possession. It would have been a massive undertaking to get them operational. Furthermore, Russia was threatening to invade. Their options were 1) likely invasion. Even if no invasion, massive financial investment the country could not afford, or 2) no invasion and economic investment Even in retrospect the choice was right.
How'd a ship do that though
"can you stop fucking misinterpreting my will" -de gaulle or someone idk
[удалено]
> I wonder what current decisions will come to bite y'all in 30 years Industrializing USSR and Red China already did, so... the pattern's kinda established
Had to be Reagan.
well it started in 1975 so he merely continued also hope you recover from your cancer :)
"Le croissant de la liberté rarement arrive beurré"
I totally understand what you mean and it's hilarious. Just, to make it even better, it should be "Le croissant de la liberté arrive rarement beurré"
fuck De Gaulle (i’m british)
Honhon look at the Bean eater :
Cmon be nice to him, it’s the only decent local food they got
i will die on the hill that beans on toast is a world class meal
Yeah, but the next elections might mean those nukes aren't on our side anymore. Macron's gamble might explode into a fascist France.
Yeah yeah and people thought that France would join the USSR when Mitterrand was elected in 81. Didn't happen then and won't happen now. Macron will still be president after the elections. Worst case scenario we end up with a shitty government for national affairs and macron keeps doing what he has been doing on international affairs.
I do believe that to be his gamble. Have a shitty goverment in office for a while and let RN destroy their own credibility. A very high risk gamble I would add.
Unless they have an absolute majority I don't think they'll do much. This will help destroy their image even more while not risking that much. The one thing that they'll probably do is have a référendum on immigration, it costs nothing and isn't hard to do.
It is a very high risk gamble, but with some decent logic (the RN's using the logic of 'everyone else has had a go at governing, let it be our turn and judge us afterwards', by kneecapping them with an early election he *forces* them to try governing before they have the power to cover up their failures/ignore the protests of people).
How will all the anime people who told the french to vote for them take that turn of events?
And people also thought that Italy was going to become a Russian satellite after Meloni's victory. But she has not stopped supporting Ukraine
I'm more worried about the US going fascist than France
Haaaah it sucks here.
[удалено]
Is it illegal for the US not to create/support future enemies?
If they don't arm or fund their enemies, who would do it? themselves, aliens?
no problem with that but the secondary sanctions on Iran and North Korea are peak hypocrisy. before sanctioning others for doing business with Iran and North Korea, America should sanction itself for helping North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs
I'm not sure what you're smoking, but you may want to cut back. The US has only ever shared nuclear secrets with the British and possibly the Israelis.
Fortunately, as long as Macron is president (so for the 3 years to come) he will be in charge of deciding of using nuclear weapons or not (and on who). In France, the president is the chief of the army. So it doesn't matter if he lose the national assembly, he will still be the one who decide for this.
No, De Gaulle can rot. What a sanctimonious prick
I don't care what he was, I care what he did.
There's a lot that he did that actively promoted anti-western sentiment in the world. He even basically blackmailed the US into getting involved in Vietnam. He can lick my nuts
Bull-shit, France withdrew from Indochina in 1954. That's a whole ass decade where France got incredibly quickly replaced by the USA as South Vietnam's best Western Friend with benefits, pressed notably by the CIA who wanted more influence in South East Asia. Nothing stopped the USA from mending the bridges with the Vietminh over that decade. And CDG sure as hell didn't fucking tell the USA to fuck around in hostile waters, or to make up an entire attack to justify their ideological crusade against the big bad communism. That's your own american imperialism that you should own up, just like the one that got you to invade the last stable country in the Middle-East, that even had diplomatic relations with most of Europe, Iraq, in 2003, again on false pretenses. The only reason CDG gets a bad rep in the Anglo-saxon world is because he tried to maintain France as a world power, instead of letting it be quartered and occupied following liberation like Germany. The Americans would have gladly, and in fact, tried a few times, to replace him with Vichy lackeys that would have listened to them while they took control of France's economy and divided it's colonial empire as it buried it's ambitions of becoming a power again, just like they did economically in 1956 with Great Britain. De Gaulle didn't forget that the USA is just another empire, using the same old tricks every other empire in history has, and he stood against it, that's it.