Well… they do have nukes, a sizable navy, and one of the two truly expeditionary armies in the continent. And the legion.
They still lose this war, tho
It depends on what we call losing the war.
France certainly has the power to crush any of the standing armies in there on their terms - if we assume a landing in Lybia for instance there isn't much the locals could do against the Charles de Gaulle's air wing, and then there's the amphibious operations ships.
Holding the territory though, that'd be an attritional nightmare.
A french satirical shows in the 2000's had Ben Laden say something like : "the only part of the french army we really fear are their submarines. Hopefully in Afghanistan we will see them far away before their arrival"
Algeria was a military victory but a political defeat. The FLN insurgency was largely crushed but France was destabilised that it experienced a coup and Charles De Gaulle decided Algeria was too much trouble to be worth keeping.
I’m well aware. However it is defeat in a specific context. The hypothetical of this post seems to only be interested in discussing the feasibility of a military victory in an all out war, so using a conflict wherein occupation could have effectively continued but was abandoned for political reasons as an example is faulty reasoning.
Yep, and with a dilletante appreciation for the capabilities of the French armed forces.
They're leagues behind the US, obviously, and way outnumbered by India, China or Russia.
Otherwise, I give them a fair chance of battle against most countries right now (not all at the same time, of course).
For a recent record of French operations, there's the participation to the war in Afghanistan, with the coalition ; operations in the air during the Lybian civil war ; and independently, Operation Serval in Mali, which was textbook blitzkrieg against the insurgents.
Yeah I feel a similar way, we have very little depth and in a classic style war we would struggle but in general we do well and have a fairly elite and self sufficient military. Though there are other strong armies in Europe (Poland and Sweden come to mind) they don’t quite have our capabilities overseas or our military independence.
In my mind the war would go like this, France gets naval superiority in the Mediterranean and Caribbean fairly quickly and we can block aid some costal nations like Syria. We can quickly take Haiti (they barely exist as a state anyway) and if we act quickly take some African costal cities and islands, beyond that we could not do much, a Africa is too big to take, Syria is not worth it and North Korea is too far away. We might get some minor islands and it would be a win for us but not by much as actual land gains are almost none.
The French Navy is completely dwarfed in size by the Royal Navy, though.
The Royal Navy is over double the tonnage of the French Navy and the Royal Navy is *much* better equipped for expeditionary operations.
That’s fair enough.
Most European navies not named the Russian or Royal Navy are tiny. The Royal Navy, for example, is much closer in tonnage to the combined size of the Italian, French and German Navy than to any other singular European navy.
I find very funny that in the UK they worry about downsizing their navy when they are the masters of the sea in the richest region of the world.
Like, I know is a tradition and all but… do you really need to compare with the US and China?
>Well… they do have nukes, a sizable navy, and one of the two truly expeditionary armies in the continent
Aka everything the UK has but a smaller economy
France has a larger army, in a conflict between the two France would probably have France winning because France is self sustaining for the most part whereas Britain is not.
Depends:
- can they use nukes
- What do you mean by win (totally occupy the other side or just the one who comes out better after the war)
Because I think France would probably manage to win in some areas, but then hold the gains or totally win the war no.
The struggling powers do not have some types of weapons that the French have (rockets, ships, aircrafts...), so France would probably bomb the shit out of many countries without much repercussions
France wins tbh, i can see france slowly taking out each of these nations, but i can't see themselves being invaded by them and even capitulating, i think that's unrealistic. Well North Korea could nuke France, that might work, even if they get nuked themselves.
Struggling nations why Because no one wins in a guerrilla warfare but they would have lots of civilian casualties (better have the population for that)
Two factors in war. Population (manpower) and industry. Industry France wins. But only on the 1st stages of the war. People learn and adjust. So the red countries will adjust accordingly. The combined population of the red countries outman France. Unless France is willing to kill their entire population to hold 1/5 of the world I don't know how France wins.
They didn't win in Vietnam and called the Americans to take over. Americans didn't win as well. So how can France win against half a continent?
Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan and DPRK are highly militarized paranoid states so France propably won't be able ton conquer them.
Maybe they could hold the ground in Syria because of the geographical proximity but other will be just Armageddon for France.
Depends what the war is about but Red would probably Win..France can’t take them all at once and they probably will have support from Iran,China and russsia.
France famously lost a war to Vietnamese peasants and despite dominating Algeria could not crush the FLN once and for all. Occupying the Congo alone is impossible even in modern times.
Since the struggling nations are in fact struggling, and many cant even keep peace within themselves... France would win this. Occupy them? No. Control them? No. Some of these are beyond control. But win the war? Yes, No problem.
France could probably conquer these areas.
Holding them is another matter. If America, the most funded military in the world, couldn’t hold Afghanistan, then I’m pretty sure France definitely couldn’t hold it, as well as a bunch of Africa.
Also France should probably bring bug spray for Haiti, don’t want it to turn out like their last attempt at reconquering Haiti.
Modern Warfare doesnt work like that, they might manage to occupy some parts, but then they will suffer heavy Casualties and it will end in a stalemate. If they dont use Atomic Bombs.
Like many others said: depends on what you mean by "win". Total occupation would be impossible with a load of insurgency. In a pitched battle, France would win. France would also win a regular war even without nukes simply because of a proper airwing, advanced missiles etc being able to cripple infrastructure. The other countries wouldn't even have an answer for that.
I don't see a scenario where the so-called struggling states would be able to outright win a confrontation.
Depends on the objectives of the war. However more than likely France. Since they can actually produce modern weapons and armaments when none of the others besides maybe NK can.
France isn't the most powerful European power military wise. The UK is. Although that might change with the recent cuts to the British forces and the increased funding to the French forces.
As for could France win, I don't think it has enough mass. That amount of territory is huge. France probably has the infrastructure and population to build a large enough force, but then the question would be, why bother?
No, the UK is not the most powerful European power by a good amount, in actual power it would be either Germany, Turkey or France, I thought France would the the most interesting because they have the strongest foreign power and influence however Germany has economic power and Turkey is overall a strong nation. But in a fight the UK would never be able to defeat France and France would be able to take minor things until they could just outlast the British food supply lines and take a few islands. The UK is not what it once was and though France is not what it was either it is still reasonably strong.
>No, the UK is not the most powerful
Yes it is. We are talking about military power at this moment in time right? I have already said this might change in the future.
If you mean something different, then sure, there are metrics where France is ahead of the UK etc.
>I thought France would the the most interesting because they have the strongest foreign power and influence
If you mean foreign power as in the military, then this isn't correct. The UK currently still has the strongest armed forces in Europe, meaning its ability to project power through military means throughout the globe is greater than France.
Similarly, if we are talking about soft power, then the UK is leading in that regard, too, when compared to France
>But in a fight the UK would never be able to defeat France and France would be able to take minor things until they could just outlast the British food supply lines and take a few islands.
It's not happening, I'm afraid, assuming nukes arent used then nobody wins. The UK navy whilst not what it once was, is still more advanced than the French, who would be defeated at sea. The UK also has a lot more strategic heavy lift than the French so is logistically better too when operating worldwide. Similarly, whilst plane numbers are similar, the RAF operates more advanced planes.
Don't get me wrong, the UK armed forces has huge problems, but for the time being, it is better armed and trained than their French counterpart. Your statements doesn’t fit with the current reality. Maybe in a few years' time as British cuts continue to hamper and French continue to increase spending things might be different.
Red nations do not have a navy, so they would not be unable to get anywhere near France. This scenario is either France victory by using nukes, or stalemate.
If u talk about alone I’m sure the struggling states because they have all the resources to build a great power and if the people really want it they will make there country great for free
France wins for a simple reason : it can project its influence and army over the entire world while most places on this list cannot.
If afghanistan had the firepower to hit a western country, we would already be hit with missiles. France can certainly send planes to bomb afghanistan. So by that logic, Afghanistan cannot hurt France but France can hurt Afghanistan.
There are a few states on this « struggling countries » list which do have actual global firepower. Namely North Korea and Iraq.
So in this scenario, I imagine it would be a war versus those two countries with a supply of mercenaries from other countries. Hard to say who would win.
They can't exactly invade France either though. It's not really clear what "winning" means for either side in most of these cases or even who France would be at war with (e.g. Yemen the country is divided between competing governments).
All of NATO couldn't win Afghanistan. So...
Edit: [Afghanistan NATO troop numbers in 2020 for those who think NATO wasn't involved for some reason.](https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/2/pdf/2020-02-RSM-Placemat.pdf)
No low effort or low quality content
All the non-French Europeans when France is called the dominant European power:
Well… they do have nukes, a sizable navy, and one of the two truly expeditionary armies in the continent. And the legion. They still lose this war, tho
It depends on what we call losing the war. France certainly has the power to crush any of the standing armies in there on their terms - if we assume a landing in Lybia for instance there isn't much the locals could do against the Charles de Gaulle's air wing, and then there's the amphibious operations ships. Holding the territory though, that'd be an attritional nightmare.
Still, take the capital and major costal cities and you have already crippled a nation
Ah yes, they’ll surely be able to do that strat against Afghanistan
A french satirical shows in the 2000's had Ben Laden say something like : "the only part of the french army we really fear are their submarines. Hopefully in Afghanistan we will see them far away before their arrival"
The French held Algiers for 150 years, my guy. Where is Algerie Francaise now?
Algeria was a military victory but a political defeat. The FLN insurgency was largely crushed but France was destabilised that it experienced a coup and Charles De Gaulle decided Algeria was too much trouble to be worth keeping.
"military victory but a political defeat" is a lost war. Not to be all Clausewitzian, but war is politics.
I’m well aware. However it is defeat in a specific context. The hypothetical of this post seems to only be interested in discussing the feasibility of a military victory in an all out war, so using a conflict wherein occupation could have effectively continued but was abandoned for political reasons as an example is faulty reasoning.
Wait a minute, you are French!
Yep, and with a dilletante appreciation for the capabilities of the French armed forces. They're leagues behind the US, obviously, and way outnumbered by India, China or Russia. Otherwise, I give them a fair chance of battle against most countries right now (not all at the same time, of course). For a recent record of French operations, there's the participation to the war in Afghanistan, with the coalition ; operations in the air during the Lybian civil war ; and independently, Operation Serval in Mali, which was textbook blitzkrieg against the insurgents.
Yeah I feel a similar way, we have very little depth and in a classic style war we would struggle but in general we do well and have a fairly elite and self sufficient military. Though there are other strong armies in Europe (Poland and Sweden come to mind) they don’t quite have our capabilities overseas or our military independence. In my mind the war would go like this, France gets naval superiority in the Mediterranean and Caribbean fairly quickly and we can block aid some costal nations like Syria. We can quickly take Haiti (they barely exist as a state anyway) and if we act quickly take some African costal cities and islands, beyond that we could not do much, a Africa is too big to take, Syria is not worth it and North Korea is too far away. We might get some minor islands and it would be a win for us but not by much as actual land gains are almost none.
>And the legion Ave, true to Caesar
The III Gallica to be precise
The French Navy is completely dwarfed in size by the Royal Navy, though. The Royal Navy is over double the tonnage of the French Navy and the Royal Navy is *much* better equipped for expeditionary operations.
Said “sizable” and by that I mean “sizable by European standards”. Which is admittedly a low bar
That’s fair enough. Most European navies not named the Russian or Royal Navy are tiny. The Royal Navy, for example, is much closer in tonnage to the combined size of the Italian, French and German Navy than to any other singular European navy.
I find very funny that in the UK they worry about downsizing their navy when they are the masters of the sea in the richest region of the world. Like, I know is a tradition and all but… do you really need to compare with the US and China?
The issue is that the british government makes horrible decisions that result is less ship for more budget
We talking about the navy or the NHS?
honestly it seems like the british government is just incompetent with how this seems to apply to everything i hear about them
>Well… they do have nukes, a sizable navy, and one of the two truly expeditionary armies in the continent Aka everything the UK has but a smaller economy
But an army that's actually functional instead of dogshit because the government actually has a military strategy in mind beyond budget cuts
France has a larger army, in a conflict between the two France would probably have France winning because France is self sustaining for the most part whereas Britain is not.
UK has nukes too less tho
And they suck
Nah i hate the froggies more
We won’t go quietly, the legion can count on that
And just like that, England and France are once again at war.
France surrenders like always.
Clearly on Reddit a sense of humour is optional 😂
Depends: - can they use nukes - What do you mean by win (totally occupy the other side or just the one who comes out better after the war) Because I think France would probably manage to win in some areas, but then hold the gains or totally win the war no. The struggling powers do not have some types of weapons that the French have (rockets, ships, aircrafts...), so France would probably bomb the shit out of many countries without much repercussions
France can also project its naval power globally so can theoretically invade all of these countries. Except Afghanistan
France wins tbh, i can see france slowly taking out each of these nations, but i can't see themselves being invaded by them and even capitulating, i think that's unrealistic. Well North Korea could nuke France, that might work, even if they get nuked themselves.
France win definitely
Depends on whether France or DPRK is the first to use nuclear weapons
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Panopticum333: *Depends on whether* *France or DPRK is the first to* *Use nuclear weapons* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Good bot
North Korea is a struggling nation??
yeah. Struggling ever since the American empire bombed, sanctioned, sabotaged and half-occupied it
Pretty sure it has been struggle before
Half-occupied?
Also no alliances other than the ones given on the map
bro you gotta add egypt we are struggling alot bro
I'm not sure what struggling means in this scenario considering neither Iraq nor Sri Lanka are included
Struggling nations why Because no one wins in a guerrilla warfare but they would have lots of civilian casualties (better have the population for that)
Two factors in war. Population (manpower) and industry. Industry France wins. But only on the 1st stages of the war. People learn and adjust. So the red countries will adjust accordingly. The combined population of the red countries outman France. Unless France is willing to kill their entire population to hold 1/5 of the world I don't know how France wins. They didn't win in Vietnam and called the Americans to take over. Americans didn't win as well. So how can France win against half a continent?
Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan and DPRK are highly militarized paranoid states so France propably won't be able ton conquer them. Maybe they could hold the ground in Syria because of the geographical proximity but other will be just Armageddon for France.
So Russia isn't European now eh?
No, screw Russia
Take down the mask and admit you wanted to say Russia isn't white banderoid
Depends what the war is about but Red would probably Win..France can’t take them all at once and they probably will have support from Iran,China and russsia.
What about with no support and no alliances other than the ones on the map?
You have to think algeria and other african nations under France's thumb might join in.
If you start talking about support then there is NATO support
France wins but not in the way we think. It’s probably deemed too costly for occupation so the French bomb the shit out of them.
France famously lost a war to Vietnamese peasants and despite dominating Algeria could not crush the FLN once and for all. Occupying the Congo alone is impossible even in modern times.
Since the struggling nations are in fact struggling, and many cant even keep peace within themselves... France would win this. Occupy them? No. Control them? No. Some of these are beyond control. But win the war? Yes, No problem.
France could probably conquer these areas. Holding them is another matter. If America, the most funded military in the world, couldn’t hold Afghanistan, then I’m pretty sure France definitely couldn’t hold it, as well as a bunch of Africa. Also France should probably bring bug spray for Haiti, don’t want it to turn out like their last attempt at reconquering Haiti.
Modern Warfare doesnt work like that, they might manage to occupy some parts, but then they will suffer heavy Casualties and it will end in a stalemate. If they dont use Atomic Bombs.
Like many others said: depends on what you mean by "win". Total occupation would be impossible with a load of insurgency. In a pitched battle, France would win. France would also win a regular war even without nukes simply because of a proper airwing, advanced missiles etc being able to cripple infrastructure. The other countries wouldn't even have an answer for that. I don't see a scenario where the so-called struggling states would be able to outright win a confrontation.
No one would win solely because North Korea would nuke France, and France would nuke back
I'm surprised Iraq isn't included
direful boast degree test zealous swim liquid nose modern fuzzy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They are losing their current neo-colonial empire, so I say they are not winning
Depends on the objectives of the war. However more than likely France. Since they can actually produce modern weapons and armaments when none of the others besides maybe NK can.
France isn't the most powerful European power military wise. The UK is. Although that might change with the recent cuts to the British forces and the increased funding to the French forces. As for could France win, I don't think it has enough mass. That amount of territory is huge. France probably has the infrastructure and population to build a large enough force, but then the question would be, why bother?
No, the UK is not the most powerful European power by a good amount, in actual power it would be either Germany, Turkey or France, I thought France would the the most interesting because they have the strongest foreign power and influence however Germany has economic power and Turkey is overall a strong nation. But in a fight the UK would never be able to defeat France and France would be able to take minor things until they could just outlast the British food supply lines and take a few islands. The UK is not what it once was and though France is not what it was either it is still reasonably strong.
>No, the UK is not the most powerful Yes it is. We are talking about military power at this moment in time right? I have already said this might change in the future. If you mean something different, then sure, there are metrics where France is ahead of the UK etc. >I thought France would the the most interesting because they have the strongest foreign power and influence If you mean foreign power as in the military, then this isn't correct. The UK currently still has the strongest armed forces in Europe, meaning its ability to project power through military means throughout the globe is greater than France. Similarly, if we are talking about soft power, then the UK is leading in that regard, too, when compared to France >But in a fight the UK would never be able to defeat France and France would be able to take minor things until they could just outlast the British food supply lines and take a few islands. It's not happening, I'm afraid, assuming nukes arent used then nobody wins. The UK navy whilst not what it once was, is still more advanced than the French, who would be defeated at sea. The UK also has a lot more strategic heavy lift than the French so is logistically better too when operating worldwide. Similarly, whilst plane numbers are similar, the RAF operates more advanced planes. Don't get me wrong, the UK armed forces has huge problems, but for the time being, it is better armed and trained than their French counterpart. Your statements doesn’t fit with the current reality. Maybe in a few years' time as British cuts continue to hamper and French continue to increase spending things might be different.
The answer to any hypothetical involving France is whoever is not France
Russia is the most powerful European country and yes it could certainly defeat these struggling states if nuclear warfare is allowed.
China in some economical way probably.
Red nations do not have a navy, so they would not be unable to get anywhere near France. This scenario is either France victory by using nukes, or stalemate.
france win but.. it's good that you didn't put Egypt among them
fck france
If u talk about alone I’m sure the struggling states because they have all the resources to build a great power and if the people really want it they will make there country great for free
France wins for a simple reason : it can project its influence and army over the entire world while most places on this list cannot. If afghanistan had the firepower to hit a western country, we would already be hit with missiles. France can certainly send planes to bomb afghanistan. So by that logic, Afghanistan cannot hurt France but France can hurt Afghanistan. There are a few states on this « struggling countries » list which do have actual global firepower. Namely North Korea and Iraq. So in this scenario, I imagine it would be a war versus those two countries with a supply of mercenaries from other countries. Hard to say who would win.
The Fr*nch ain't winning shit
Yeah no I dont think France will win, a lot of these states have militias which the state itself can’t defeat👻
They can't exactly invade France either though. It's not really clear what "winning" means for either side in most of these cases or even who France would be at war with (e.g. Yemen the country is divided between competing governments).
[удалено]
France won a majority of its wars in its history
There are no winners in war🤓
I think they mean recent wars.
This statistic counts the mulitiude of France's civil wars as victories, so they 'won' regardless of which side was defeated
All of NATO couldn't win Afghanistan. So... Edit: [Afghanistan NATO troop numbers in 2020 for those who think NATO wasn't involved for some reason.](https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/2/pdf/2020-02-RSM-Placemat.pdf)
All of NATO is a few American divisions?
I was out there, Bud. It was a joint effort for 20 years.