Discussion avec un vétéran de l’US Army

J’ai pour habitude de publier mes photos sur Reddit et Instagram. Pour discuter de mes explorations avec d’autres passionnés. Pour me créer une légitimité dans les milieux de la photo et de l’urbex. C’est ainsi qu’un utilisateur de Reddit a commenté la photo ci-dessous et qu’il s’en est suivi un long échange. Sur la guerre en Ukraine, l’OTAN et le Pacte de Varsovie, entre autres. Nous n’étions pas d’accord sur tout, mais c’était l’opportunité de discuter avec une personne d’un horizon personnel, professionnel et géographique très différent du mien.

J’ai longtemps hésité à publier ici cette discussion. Parce que ce site a pour vocation première d’être un portfolio. Parce que mes questions et les témoignages du vétéran se transforment rapidement en opinions. Parce que ces celles-ci seront forcément dépassées par le cours des événements. Parce que la mienne n’a strictement rien d’exceptionnel en soi – juste celle d’un individu lambda de son époque. Parce que nous nous retranchons finalement derrière.

Et puis, je me dis que ce dialogue est suffisamment rare sur les réseaux sociaux pour ne pas le laisser se noyer dans leur flux incessant. Enfin, bien qu’étant une goutte d’eau dans un océan, la promesse initiale d’Internet n’est peut-être pas tout à fait morte : celle de pouvoir discuter avec le monde entier.

Bonne lecture.

Photo extraite de l’article Hanté

Expedition37

Love the shot- I bet it was a trip visiting and shooting that place. A place designed to defend a country that was simply bypassed with advances in technology and strategy.

__beral__

Thank you! There are lots of places like this in my region, so the journey was more about exploring the fort than finding it. The strategy behind the Maginot Line was that the Germans wouldn’t violate Belgium’s neutrality and that the Ardennes were considered impassable by tanks. Unfortunately, the fascist leader decided otherwise.

Expedition37

When I was in the army as an Armor Officer, I was stationed in Germany for four years and had the opportunity to visit the Ardennes. As a man who’d spent a lot of time on tanks, I can imagine why that terrain was considered impassable. If I’d had to make that trip though the Ardennes, I would have felt lucky if three of my four tanks just made it through the journey.

__beral__

Were you in the American occupation zone in West Germany? Did the Ardennes still seem difficult to cross in the 1980s? It must have been pure madness in the 1940s.

Expedition37

I was there in the late 90s after Germany was reunited. There was still lots of contrasts between what had been East and West Germany but our mission had changed from the Cold War. The US troops still left in Germany at the time were being employed in the peacekeeping operations in the Balkans- Bosnia, Macedonia, and later- Kosovo and Albania.

The terrain in the Ardennes would be what the army called « slow-go » terrain for armored vehicles. Passable with good crews, but you would expect some vehicles to be lost during the movement. It’s easy to slip off a road and throw a track- after that the vehicle is not available until you recover and repair it. And during an event like that- sometimes the vehicle rolls over, killing the crew. There were many times in my career that I was very concerned for my life and my men’s lives when we were training in « slow-go » terrain.

But it is doable. I shot this one from the turret of my tank during a training exercise in Germany in similar terrain. On a map, this terrain would seem impassable to armored vehicles in WWII. But skilled crews can make it through.

__beral__

Thank you very much for sharing your story! I read and hear a lot of bellicose comments from civilians, while those from veterans are always more measured, and yours helps to put into perspective what happened more than 80 years ago.

So you lived through the Balkan War, the last war in Europe before the one Putin started in 2014. The stress of dealing with snipers must have been terrible, right

Given how difficult it still is to move around in slow-moving terrain, it must have been very dangerous in the 1940s. So it took very little for the French armies to repel the Germans, at least temporarily, and to reorganize themselves.

Expedition37

I saw ground combat during Operation Desert Storm, and watched men on both sides die- but Bosnia was worse than that. In my area during Desert Storm it was hard fighting (TV coverage and books downplay the reality of the ground combat in that war- the government wanted to bury the Ghosts of the Vietnam War, so the reporting was very controlled and sanitized for a captive audience.) But it was a fight between armies with no civilians where I was.

We were in Bosnia to stop the killing- but even with us there it went on. The end of that war came because all sides were too attritted to keep fighting- but their underlying hatred was still there. After the cease-fire, arguments were settled with grenades thrown into outdoor cafes. Houses burned. Children out playing in fields died by stepping on mines. The list goes on.

It took a mental toll on all of us. Hearing reports, day after day, of more people dying despite our efforts. We lost men there too, and had three captured by the Serbs near the border of Macedonia. It was hell to pass by entire villages that had been ethnically cleansed- seeing the evidence of what happened there. They eventually had to start rotating us out for some R&R- just to keep us going.

I felt like I was living through a movie about the final days of WWII. To actually be in Europe in the 90s, and see this- it was not something I imagined would ever happen again. But it did.

Many of my friends fought in Desert Storm and later went to Bosnia or Kosovo. Everyone agrees that being a peacekeeper in Bosnia or Kosovo was far worse than the war.

F6Collections

What happened to the men the Serbs captured?

Expedition37

From the « Los Angeles Times », May 2nd, 1999- « BELGRADE, Yugoslavia — President Slobodan Milosevic freed three captured U.S. Army soldiers today and sent them homeward with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who had lobbied for their release as a step toward ending 39 days of NATO bombing.

The soldiers were brought to the Yugoslav army press center in downtown Belgrade on the 33rd day of their captivity and turned over to Jackson’s delegation of American religious leaders.

The leaders, seated across a large room, stood and applauded as the soldiers were led in to witness a formal signing of their release by Lt. Gen. Blagoje Kovacevic, the Yugoslav army’s deputy chief of staff. »

I was an officer in the 1st Infantry Division when they came back. They’d been captured by breaking our standing orders, so they were not seen in a very good light- especially since they surrounded without putting up a fight. And they even made public statements about how well they were treated as POWs.

There was a small ceremony (which I and most of the officers were not allowed to attend) where they were awarded the POW medal. A few days later they were flow back to the US and chaptered out of the army. No one wanted them to continue to serve- giving up without putting up a fight, and then speaking up for people we were at war with was breaking the code of being a good soldier.

__beral__

I can’t imagine how crazy it must have been, even during the fighting between two armies during the Gulf War, and even more so among the population in Bosnia. I know people who fled the atrocities in the Balkans, and even three decades later, they still haven’t recovered. Did you receive psychological counselling after everything you went through? It started again with Putin, on the one hand with the invasion of Ukraine, and on the other with provocations by regularly entering the airspace of several countries. What do you think about this from a military strategy point of view?

Expedition37

I didn’t get any counselling until many decades later. I was in the « old school » army of the 80s-2000s. Many of the men who trained me were combat vets from the Vietnam War. The attitude was simple- you were either a guy who could go on after an op and get ready for the next one- or you couldn’t. So you’d best be a guy who could go on and get ready for the next one.

I don’t really have an opinion on Ukraine these days. This is a war for a new generation- I already had mine.

But as a general rule, I’m strongly against most wars. I’m not a pacifist- sometimes war is the right course of action. But if you decided to go to war I believe in the « Powell Doctrine » (Named after General Colin Powell.)

– Only go to war if your objective is well defined and attainable through war.
– When you go to war use overwhelming force and do the job quickly.
– Don’t go to war unless you have a plan on how to end it quickly and go home. Don’t fight forever wars.

__beral__

Sorry for asking you so many questions, but I rarely get the chance to talk to military veterans, especially American ones.

I understand what you mean when you say that the ghosts of Vietnam had to be buried during the Gulf War, especially when the orders came from Vietnam veterans. On top of that, the psychological distress of those who returned had to be ignored. In relation to the criteria you cite from the Powell doctrine, it seems clear that the situation is set to become bogged down, since neither side will want to give ground. Or we could be heading towards a new Cold War, as is beginning to be the case with the provocations by Russian aircraft in various airspaces.

Expedition37

After the war, I knew very little about what had happened. There was no internet or cell phones then- the only information we got was from letters from home and an occasional newspaper or magazine that was passed around. So combat soldiers like me and the other men (it was all men then) who experienced war in Desert Storm only knew about the events that they saw and experienced, or heard about over a tactical radio transmission. We knew nothing more.

When I left the army (for the first time- I was enlisted first. Went to college and went back in for a second tour as an officer.) I became an avid student of military history. I wanted to know what had happened during my war that I knew nothing about. So I began to read the books about Desert Storm.

When I read the books about Desert Storm, I realized that I needed to understand what had happened during the Vietnam War. And to understand that war, I needed to understand the Korean War. So I spend four years reading and studying war- starting with mine and working back in time to the middle ages.

The situation in the Ukraine is very much an od mix of World War I and current technology. The lines are set, dug in deep and in depth- very much like WW I. Massed used of armored vehicles starting in WW II and continuing to Desert Strom switched war to a era of using a base of fire and maneuver element to move into positions that allowed you to engage and kill the enemy- « Maneuver Warfare. » All armies did this in WW II- some effectively, other not. This was the still the plan for the Cold War, and we proved its effectiveness in Desert Strom.

But modern technology- drones for attack and surveillance, extremely precise artillery and rocket systems, multiple modes of instant communication, etc- has ended the historical phase of Manoeuvre Warfare. It is now impossible to mass the amount of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, artillery pieces and the logistics needed to support such a force, that will allow you to break through a well established defensive position. They will simply be destroyed as they attempt to assemble in preparation for an attack.

So the war in Ukraine is a stalemate that will be decided through attrition. Neither side can mount an effective attack at the scale required for a break-through. It’s now just a meat-grinder. Small gains and losses of ground will happen over and over- but not at a scale that will change the overall war. Men will die, vehicles will be destroyed, money will be spent in the Billions and more- to no effect.

It will only end when both sides have lost too much and spent too much to continue. Then there will be a negotiated settlement focused on who will gain control of this or that piece of mostly worthless ground.

Then a new generation of peacekeepers will come in to do the same thing I did in Bosnia.

__beral__

Was it the command’s intention to keep the soldiers in the dark? When you returned as an officer after studying history at university, how was this viewed by your command? I played American football in a club, and there were several soldiers among us who used to say, “To think is to disobey.” But I don’t know if that mindset is universal.

Your insights into the different war strategies are very interesting. I wasn’t aware of how they have evolved since the last century. So we are now in a new form of warfare, with multiple vectors, all very precise, but with highly variable performance and capabilities, making them difficult to counter effectively? It reminds me of the Iron Dome over Israel, whose protective missiles cost much more than the rockets fired at it. And then, as you write, a few drones costing several hundred dollars are now enough to destroy several tanks worth several million, or even more in the case of bombers.

If I understand correctly, it would take a few more months or years to reach attrition on both sides, with the outcome being either a compromise or urban guerrilla warfare as in Bosnia?

Expedition37

I’ll number my responses for clarity.

1. There was no intention to keep us in the dark- I knew everything I needed to know to accomplish my mission. I didn’t need to know the strategy of the Air Force, or what units hundreds of miles away were doing. You know your job, your unit’s mission, and the mission of the next level up the chain of command- so you can adapt to changing conditions as they happen and still accomplish the mission if your leaders are killed and you have to step up and take command.

2. I don’t know who you were talking to, but “To think is to disobey” is not the American way of war. I was trained from the moment I got to my first unit (the 82nd Airborne Division) that I must always « adapt and overcome » to accomplish the mission. This is the real key of the American army’s success (when they are employed following the Powell Doctrine, and not in a forever war with no clear mission) is the ability of junior NCOs and Officers to adapt to the conditions, make their own decisions and do what is necessary to accomplish the mission.

Watch the TV series called « Band of Brothers » and you will see 1 and 2 in action.

3. My career path- enlisted to NCO to cadet to officer was uncommon. So much so they called us « Mustangs » and « gunslingers. » I had instant respect form enlisted soldiers and NCOs. They respect officers who came from the ranks much more than those who didn’t. The reaction from my commanders was mixed. I intimidated some them and they treated me poorly for it (I had the respect of the men and they didn’t.) But that backfired because the men would just trust me more when they saw a poor commander disrespecting an officer that they respected. Other commanders (those who’d been in combat and had the respect of the men) recognized my experience and leveraged it to the max.

4. Most American’s are sick of sending money to the Ukraine. Eventually the flow of arms and money to the Ukraine will stop- and they will be forced to negotiate a settlement. Without US aide- the Russians will overrun them- even good defensive positions mean nothing when you have no ammunition. I don’t expect any continued resistance after that- the young, well-trained men needed for partisan resistance or determined urban fighting are long dead.

__beral__

I was in an American football club in France, and the soldiers were cadets, so they probably didn’t have the same latitude as an officer to carry out their mission. I have always been a pacifist in the vast majority of cases, except in cases of resistance and liberation wars, such as we have unfortunately seen many times in Europe. There are no military personnel in my family or among my friends, so what you write enlightens me about how the army works, at least the US Army. Obviously, I’ve seen a lot of movies and TV series about war, but I’m changing my Hollywood perspective, so thank you again for your testimony.

I understand the fact that you rose gradually through the ranks earned you the respect of the enlisted men and non-commissioned officers. This is often the case in all professions when you come from the bottom and don’t forget it. That’s the difference between white-collar and blue-collar workers. So, was your university background in history useful to the command when you became an officer? Were you able to propose strategies based on what you had learned? And did you spend your entire career in the army, or did you change careers at some point?

Without discussing all the reasons that led to the invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the war since 2022, I see it as a return of fate linked to humiliation. France humiliated Germany in 1918 with the highly vindictive Treaty of Versailles, which contributed to the rise of German nationalism and, consequently, the rise of Nazism. When the Eastern Bloc fell, the Warsaw Pact was broken, and NATO should have been too, but we considered that Russia had become too moribund to ever recover. Putin is a dictator, but he is supported by the Russian people because he carries the hope of former glory, albeit largely coated in propaganda. Because, despite the harshness of life during the Soviet period, the USSR was feared and respected. Angela Merkel understood this vengeful mindset of the Russians, probably because she grew up in East Germany. She regularly invited Putin to European meetings and considered him a counterpart. Since Merkel’s departure, Putin has not received the recognition he hoped to continue to receive, so he has turned to other allies (China, Iran), and it will become very difficult to find a balanced compromise for Ukraine.

Expedition37

I understand your opinions, but I disagree about the disbandment of NATO at the end of the Cold War. Europe would have plunged into chaos if there hadn’t been some type of formal arrangement that contributed to stability backed up with the power of the US military in Europe at the end of WW II.

That’s not an option, it’s fact. That’s exactly what happened in Yugoslavia. (And the other examples I will give.)

Tito was able to hold together a country made up of many different peoples, cultures, traditions, political views etc. But as soon as he died- the Balkans fell into chaos. Some places managed a peaceful exit, but others sought to attain their goals through orchestrated violence. And the end was a hellscape that only stabilized when peacekeepers from NATO and other countries (including France) stepped in to stabilize the situation. (I have two NATO campaign medals.)

Without NATO, Europe would be the 3rd world right now. We’ve been bankrolling European stability for decades. If every country in Europe had been spending their own money to defend themselves- none of the progressive social systems in Europe would exist. You can’t spend money on universal healthcare if you must prioritize your national spending on maintaining a standing, well equipped military. You can’t produce enough wealth to do both.

And spending money on defense (or offence) would have happened. I’ve studied European history- it’s centuries of conflict. The only time Europe was stable before NATO was when another powerful organizing force was there to stabilize the region- the Roman Empire. Without an exterior force, Europeans always end up going to war with each other.

But it’s not just Europe that always tends towards violence. All you need to do is to study the history of Central and South America, East Asia, the Middle East and Africa from the 1960’s through now to see what happens when there is no governing body present to stabilize a region. It’s always the same- war, conflict, death, dictators, revolutions, proxy wars etc.

I don’t mean this in any way to sound offensive, but without NATO, you would not be alive to hold your pacifist views. Your family would not exist in its current form- someone would have died in some war, or your grandparents, father or mother would never had met.

You can’t meet a woman, fall in love and have children if you are laying on the ground on some battlefield, looking skyward while your life fades away from a bullet wound.

PT 1: I haven’t mentioned this until now, but I served with the French during Desert Storm. Look up « Division Daguet » on Wikipedia, and scroll down the page until you see the organization section. You will see this:

2^nd Brigade, 82^nd Airborne Division

– 1st Battalion, 325th Infantry Regiment (Airborne)
– 2nd Battalion, 325th Infantry Regiment (Airborne)
– 4th Battalion, 325th Infantry Regiment (Airborne)
– 2nd Battalion, 319th Field Artillery Regiment (Airborne) (105 mm howitzers)

I was with 4th Battalion, 325th Infantry Regiment (Airborne) during Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

(Again, I mean no personal insult by this- it’s just truthful reporting of history- please keep that in mind as you read what I’ll write.)

The French army was the worse I’ve ever worked with- and I’ve worked with troops from many countries, including Russian soldiers in Bosnia. The French Foreign Legion was a band of criminals from across the world- undisciplined and ineffective at even simple tasks like using the terrain to cover movements.

The Commander of 4th Battalion came back from the French briefing on their plan for the attack and told us all that, « It was the most fucked up plan in the history of military planning. We are going to ignore their orders and fight our way. »

During the combat, 2nd BDE, 82nd was the main effort while the French covered the left and right flanks of our advance. Lightly armed paratroopers attacked prepared defenses manned by a veteran unit from the Iran/Iraq war while the French (in armored vehicles) covered our flanks.

It was cowardice at the institutional level. The French armor should have led the advance and we should have handled the combat once the tanks broke though. But that wasn’t what happened. We attacked- they avoided combat.

Our dislike of the French turned into all-out hatred on the second day of the Ground War. A man near me was critically injured and needed MEDVAC by helicopter if he was going to survive. A French Puma helicopter arrived on site- hovered for a moment- then left without landing or taking the wounded man to get the medical treatment.

Cowardice at the highest level. The crew should have been court martialed for cowardice, stripped of rank and awards and jailed.

I photographed it all-

PT 2: After an eternity, and American helicopter landed and took the man onboard. He died before he got to the hospital. The crew of that French Puma were cowards with blood on their hands.

__beral__

Having never joined the army and having little knowledge of military culture, I can’t really respond to your comment on this subject. What I do know about the Foreign Legion is that it’s an assault troop generally made up of non-French criminals who are sent to do the dirty work that others don’t want to do, or that France doesn’t want to take responsibility for. I am therefore surprised that they were asked to participate in a coordinated, particularly international, plan in a conflict of such magnitude, but then again, I know very little about it.

Expedition37

I understand your background and views well and don’t assume you would have much knowledge on the joint French/American part of the war. It is almost entirely unmentioned in books about Desert Storm, and I’ve only found one good book on it- « 100 Miles from Baghdad: With the French in Desert Storm » written by James J Cooke. He was a reseve army officer who spoke fluent French, was a college processor focusing on France’s history, and served as the liasion between the French Command group and the American troops under French command. He documented the events and people in the command group.

The situation was complex. The French people were very split on what the French role should be- should they be limited to defending Saudi Arabia, or participate in the attack? There was strong support for both views in Fance at the time.

I met many more French soldiers than just the Foreign Legion. Across the board, they were terrible soldiers. Their rifles were rusty, and their ammunition corroded- they didn’t know the basics of maintaining their own gear that their lives were dependant on. American soldiers are trained in their job, but they also receive training on combat medical procedures, communication procedures, land navigation, how to call in artillery fire- and many more tasks. Every French soldier made it clear that they only knew their job, and nothing more. A radio operator did not know combat medical treatment. A tank driver knew nothing about how to load the tank’s cannon. An infantryman didn’t know how to call in artillery. They were very specific and very small cogs in the machine of war.

I believe that the French commanders chose their plan of attack- placing the US troops in the most danger, and limiting the French to operating on both flanks as a way to balance the sentiment in French along with the realization that their force was poorly trained and prepared. If the attack led to high casualties- it would be Americans who would die- not the French. And I watched that happen with my own eyes as French pilots chose to avoid danger at the cost of an American life.

It was in no way surprising. Of all the armies at the time- only the French had no historical experiece with fighting an offensive battle with a mix of armored vehicles and light infantry like paratroopers. They were routed in the opening days of the German attack on France in WW II- and never fought in major battles after France was liberated. And all of their post-war combat experience (in places like Indo-China) were colonial battles fought at small scales.

When you mix the political division in France, with a lack of experience in offensive operations, along with poorly trained troops/criminals- the only option was to have the Americans take the lead in the attack and avoid risks- like MEDEVACing that dying soldier.

So that’s what they chose to do.

__beral__

Despite my lack of knowledge about the military, what you say doesn’t surprise me at all. The little I’ve read or heard about it pointed to a glaring lack of funding, and the little I’ve experienced confirmed it. Starting with my generation, there was no longer compulsory military service, but just a day spent at a military base, during which the army explained what they do and—above all—had us do reading, writing, and math exercises, as if we were 7-year-olds, to identify those who were struggling. In the very specific case of the day I experienced—and I won’t generalize—the soldier spent the day complaining about the lack of budget, fuel costing more for the army than for civilians, etc. Despite all that, I understand this disinvestment in this part of the army, when we also have nuclear weapons and air and naval delivery systems that are very expensive for a country of 60 million people. There were choices to be made, and they made them this way.

And then there’s this fear of public opinion and this relative disobedience even within armed operations, which is part of our DNA, for better or for worse. I’ve been following rugby for years, and we’re feared for our very unpredictable behavior. We can lose to Italy—one of the worst teams in rugby—and then a week later rout the All Blacks—the best team. Since you lived in Europe and spent a few days in France, you must have heard of the Astérix comic books—not the live-action movies, only one of which is any good. They sum up the French mentality very well overall, especially the first few albums.

But to return to the French army, I really can’t go any further in this discussion, since I know very little about it and would risk saying something wrong.

__beral__

I am fully aware of the military protection that NATO has provided to Europe, but if I talk about dissolving NATO, it is because it is an organization that was created during the Cold War and should have ended with the end of that conflict. It should have been replaced by another organization with similar stability objectives. I say stability and not imperialism, because while NATO has certainly contributed greatly to the reconstruction and stability of Europe (Marshall Plan), it has done so in exchange for US domination and the spread of North American culture. And then there is the promise made to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch to the east” after the fall of the Eastern Bloc. However, NATO broke its word with its eastward expansion (Poland, the Baltic states, etc.). This betrayal fueled Russian resentment toward the West, which Putin has been exploiting since he came to power. I’m not saying that there are good guys and bad guys in this story, but that geopolitics is always highly complex. There are no friends or enemies, only common interests or not. And that we should have continued to build common interests with the Russians (particularly economically), instead of putting missiles under their noses and treating them like losers in a war in which there could be no winners or losers.

When it comes to having progressive social systems, including healthcare, I believe that this is a fundamental right, just like the right to drink, eat and have a place to live. I cannot understand how it can be normal to go bankrupt to treat cancer, how billions of dollars in profits can be made from people’s need for healthcare, until one of these billionaire bosses is murdered in the street in New York to highlight the failure of the system. I’m not saying that our system in France is perfect, far from it, but healthcare should not be reserved for the wealthy.

As for Europe being the third world without NATO’s help, I think you’re going a bit too far. It’s human nature to kill each other, and more broadly animal nature, even the nature of all living beings. A tree that captures more light than those around it and shades them will cause them to wither. A wild animal will always seek to take over the territory and resources of others. So do humans. We are technologically advanced animals, but animals nonetheless. The countries you mention that have a tendency toward violence are the entire world except North America, so I would say that North America is an exception. You very quickly established a federal structure that maintains a semblance of cohesion between the different states, whether in the United States or Canada, something we are still unable to do in Europe. This is somewhat the case economically, but still far from being the case militarily. Things are moving slowly in peacetime and have accelerated somewhat since the first invasion of Ukraine in 2014.

Don’t worry, I don’t find anything offensive in what you said, and I hope the same goes for what I said. It’s cool to be able to discuss such complex topics with people who are thousands of miles away and immersed in a culture that’s different from mine.

Expedition37

Before I reply, I would like to say that I’m very much enjoying this conversation. How it has grown from a single photo! This alone shows that in a world dominated with video, still photos hold so much power to make people think.

I don’t disagree at all with your beliefs about universal healthcare. I support both universal healthcare, and as AI expands and as jobs will vanish- Universal Basic Income. My point was that European countries would not have these social programs now, if they had to prioritize spending on maintaining armies after the end of WW II.

In the post-colonial era of European history, no country in Europe has natural resources available to prosper to the point where they could both maintain an army and have progressive social programs. And there was no alternative to NATO as you propose. Like you said- it is complex, and from that complexity, it is easy to see that there was no path other than NATO- alliances between European nations before WW I, the League of Nations, and the UN all failed at preventing war. Only NATO brought stabilization.

NATO did not expand by US hegemony. NATO expanded when European countries petitioned to join NATO. And were only allowed to join after meeting well defined criteria. The drive for NATO expansion was driven by European nations- not US interests. No country has ever been forced to join, and countries like France chose to leave. The expansion towards Russia was driven by European nations- not the US. I saw this myself in Bosnia when I met Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian soldiers who volunteered to join the US led peacekeeping force. They were there because they chose to be there- and wanted to demonstrate their nation’s desire to prosper under US protection from Russian aggression. They were fine men, and I would have gone to war with them without hesitation.

The US has known the cost of leading NATO since it began. Take the time to read this excerpt from President Eisenhower’s speech to the American public in 1953. He is speaking about the best and worst outcomes of Soviet and NATO expansion. The worst case is atomic war.

« The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road. the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. »

The overwhelming majority of Americans today want to stop aid to Ukraine, and have no desire for ANY war after our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are sick of war. We are sick of spending money on defending Europe, Asia and the Middle East. We hate what we see happening in Gaza. If it wasn’t for the threat posed by atomic weapons, the vast majority of Americans would want to see us cut ties with Europe and Isreal. Don’t confuse the posturing of politicians with the true desire of the American people.

__beral__

Although I am a big movie fan, I think the best shots are those that can be summed up in a single photo without losing their appeal.

There is a direct correlation between the absence of an army and economic success, as was the case with Germany and Japan, for example, since the money that does not go to one goes to the other. But this is at the expense of national sovereignty and geopolitical power, as well as technological innovation driven by armament. France chose both—to have its own armies and to provide its people with a welfare state—and it worked as long as there was a relatively equitable redistribution of wealth and rigorous management of public spending. But that’s another matter. I am also in favor of a universal basic income, which would cost less than the current system due to savings in healthcare costs related to physical and mental wear and tear caused by jobs that are only meant to put food on the table, and fewer unemployment problems because everyone would work in a field they really enjoy, without fear of filling the fridge and paying the rent. But ultra-capitalism still dominates this world and has decided otherwise.

NATO—and more broadly, military force—seems to me to be a stopgap measure when economic, commercial, and social agreements are not working. The United States remains unified because this agreement exists, as does Europe, despite the economic crises and nationalist impulses that may exist on both sides. Full and complete cooperation between the Balkan countries would probably have prevented the genocide in Bosnia. The integration of Russia into the European community after the fall of the USSR might have mitigated, without causing a collapse, the seizure of power by the oligarchs and Putin’s rise to dictatorship. 

I agree with you that it was the European countries that asked to join NATO, and not the United States that pressured them to do so. But it’s a quid pro quo. “I’ll protect you so you can focus on your economy, and in exchange, I’ll advance my pawns on the global geopolitical chessboard, and you’ll buy my weapons and technology” — Hollywood, the F35, and GAFAM are typical examples of this today. This is a form of neocolonialism, much more subtle than what we Europeans have done, since where we went by force, these are countries that are asking to be under your tutelage. However, this is not a criticism of the United States, since expansion is in the nature of all life forms.

We have been very slow to free ourselves from oil—and we will remain under its spell for several decades to come—because of its energy efficiency and abundance. French leaders in the 1960s recognized this dependence, and that of the West on OPEC, very early on and launched a nuclear program in response, but did not go far enough to free us from it completely. We continued to use uranium because our former colonies supplied it to us at low prices and because it enabled us to produce nuclear warheads, whereas thorium is found everywhere on Earth and is safer than uranium, to put it simply. This explains why the Chinese, who are much more pragmatic, have been turning to this technology for several years.

I completely agree with Eisenhower’s speech, which today would be impossible to deliver without being labeled a low-level idealist with communist tendencies. The arms race is a real calamity for the well-being of peoples, their education, their health, and their prosperity. Granted, those who want peace must prepare for war, but war must be the last resort before all other solutions, and there are many. Being armed to the teeth reduces the capacity for discussion, because if discussions bore us or do not suit us, we tell ourselves that a show of force will allow us to twist our interlocutor’s arm. Whereas by reducing the strength on both sides, discussion, compromise, and peaceful agreements become inevitable. Quite simply, it is not thanks to its army—which is non-existent—or to American protection that Taiwan has not yet been invaded by China, but because it has highly advanced technology in the manufacture of microprocessors, on which the whole world depends. Skilfully developed and sold technology is therefore worth more than all the nuclear warheads in the world.

I fully understand that the American people are fed up with seeing their money squandered on distant wars that do not concern them. In the same way that Israelis are tired of living under the constant threat of daily attacks, even though peaceful solutions exist and have been promoted for a long time. The problem lies with our leaders, whose election campaigns are partly financed by the military-industrial complex, which therefore has no interest in seeing peaceful solutions emerge on the horizon. And as long as this complex remains so powerful, it will find specious arguments everywhere to respond to the much more concrete concerns of voters (unemployment, healthcare costs, etc.).

Expedition37

We agree on most things and believe me the US wants out of oil. Where I live the countryside is filled with commercial wind farms- we are doing what we can. Every year- more wind farms pop up across my state.

Most people would gladly switch to nuclear power; the problem is with the red tape involved in any construction of a new plant- it can take decades to get one built. But there is rising pressure to change that since the massive server farms required to run AI will need massive amounts of power that we can’t provide through green energy due to current regulations.

I think nuclear power is the direction the US will go as soon as possible, but we must find ways to reduce current regulations- and people are working on that.

There’s two points I do want to make a comment on.

1. You have mentioned several times about Russia being pushed away, rather than welcomed by Europe and the US. You should really study the period after WW II and the Cold War. Russia wasn’t pushed away- they aggressively expanded communism across as much of Europe as they could and would have gladly taken it all if it was possible. I’m kind of baffled about why there seems to be this gap in your knowledge. This was the driving force that created the situation we are currently in.

Historically, before the end of WWII, after a war was over the US military was mostly disbanded and the soldiers went back home. Only a small standing army was maintained by the US after every war except WWII- and that only changed because of the very clear intentions of Russia, the USSR and Warsaw Pact to seize control over as many countries as possible and forcefully implement communism.

Based on what you’ve written, It seems that you don’t know this- and that knowledge gap has a huge impact on your thinking.

2. France can have social programs and a military because they are one of the biggest arms dealers in the world. The Paris Airshow is the premier weapons display and sales event in the world and has been for decades. And France is one of the biggest exporters of military systems in the world and has been since the 19th century.

I know this well- the artillery pieces the Iraqis shelled me during Desert Storm were made in France.

It’s a huge question to me why you keep bring up US cultural expansion and weapons sales when your own country has the biggest weapons show in the world and is a consistently the 2nd largest arms dealer in the world- only behind the US.

Your health care and social programs are being underwritten with the sales of weapons around the globe- and France has been a major arms exporter since the 19th century. France is a huge exporter of violence through arms sales.

I’m baffled by how you seem to be missing this huge part of the story of France and its ability to sustain social programs and an army (which is terrible, and largely unneeded due to its geographical location in Europe.)

These two things represent huge gaps in your understanding of the history of the world, why we are in the situation we are in, and how France prospers by exporting weapons used around the world to kill people. If you fill in these gaps- I suspect your opinions may be different. You are not just ignoring the elephant in the room- you are ignoring two elephants in the room.

Here’s the results of a couple of quick queries using Grok AI-

The big aircraft and arms show in France is the Paris Air Show (officially known as the Salon International de l’Aéronautique et de l’Espace). It’s the world’s largest aerospace and defense exhibition, held every two years at Le Bourget Airport just outside Paris. The event features displays of commercial and military aircraft, aviation technology, space systems, and defense equipment, including weapons systems from global exhibitors. It attracts thousands of industry professionals, government officials, and visitors, with aerial demonstrations, trade deals, and conferences. The most recent edition occurred in June 2025, and the next is scheduled for June 2027.

France is one of the world’s top arms exporters, consistently ranking second or third globally behind the United States (and sometimes Russia). In 2024, the country signed arms export orders totaling €21.6 billion (approximately $22.5 billion USD), marking its second-best historical performance for such contracts. This was a significant increase from €8.2 billion in 2023, though below the record €27 billion in 2022. Key drivers include sales of Rafale fighter jets, submarines, and other military hardware to countries like India, Qatar, Greece, and others. Note that these figures represent orders (contracts signed), while actual delivery values and revenue are realized over multiple years as equipment is produced and shipped. France’s share of the global arms trade was about 9.6% for the 2020–2024 period, with exports rising 11% compared to 2015–2019.

==

France has been involved in the production and regulation of military equipment since the 14th century, with early state controls on related materials like powder production in 1336 and export restrictions on saltpeter by 1540. However, organized international sales of military equipment began in the mid-19th century, around 1850, when France participated in international trade shows and made efforts to sell cannons and other armaments to countries including Russia, China, Japan, Spain, the Balkans, and South America. These early exports marked the start of France’s modern arms trade, though they faced competition from companies like Germany’s Krupp and Britain’s Vickers. During World War I (1914–1918), France significantly expanded its arms production and exported heavily to allies, employing 1.7 million people in the industry by the war’s end. In the interwar period (1919–1939), France continued exports amid global arms trade activities, with nationalization of key factories in 1936 to modernize production. Post-World War II, exports grew substantially, reaching 40% of aerospace exports by 1962 (up from 10% in 1955), and France emerged as a top global arms exporter by the 1970s, surpassing the UK. From 1960 to 1990, arms exports rose from 8% to 31% of national industrial exports, driven by sales to countries like Israel, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

__beral__

Oil is not a problem in itself, since it contains enormous amounts of energy for a very controlled risk—at least as long as you’re not driving a Ford Pinto. Joking aside, the solution will come from an energy mix tailored to the application. For example, oil for long-distance travel in personal vehicles, electricity via batteries for short to medium distances, nuclear power for large infrastructure, etc. Thorium power plants would be reliable enough to be deployed in large numbers across an entire territory, and its half-life is much shorter than that of uranium and other materials, meaning there is less risk of long-term pollution in the event of an incident. Regulations are there to protect people and nature, and any deregulation—whether economic or industrial—inevitably has dramatic social and environmental consequences.

I am clearly not a supporter of the USSR, which was nothing more than a dictatorship disguised as proletarian power. However, when it collapsed, it should have been accompanied by international bodies to help rebuild the countries that emerged from the bloc, including Russia. Following the defeat of Nazi Germany, we did our best to clean up the Augean stables and supported Germany in its reconstruction. In my opinion, the same should have been done with Russia, to prevent it from sinking into nostalgia for the USSR.

From what I read, arms sales only represent about 1% of France’s GDP, it’s clearly a drop in the ocean in the country’s economy, so it’s not what finances our social systems and our defense. It’s the work of all French people that finances both, or at least should finance, since the redistribution of wealth is far from idyllic. The real power of this industry lies less in the economy than in the associated geopolitics, and it’s on this point that I criticize the interference of the United States in European military affairs. The Rafale took a long time to sell and is now sold only far from Europe, since many European countries prefer to buy formerly F16s, now F35s. This while the latter is still very far from being reliable, it costs a fortune to maintain and there are strong suspicions of US backdoors. This aircraft could then not be used for operations that go against American will, which would be a serious infringement on the sovereignty of the countries concerned. But this is apparently not a problem for them, since they buy American military equipment less for its intrinsic qualities than to place themselves under American protection. As with voluntary integration into NATO. In other words, trading a little freedom for more security.

All this to say that I am not unaware of the geopolitics pursued by France and its position as the second or third largest arms dealer on the world stage, but that there is a third way, outside of the ultracapitalism pursued by the United States since Reagan and the Bolshevik nostalgia supported by Putin and Jinping. This is what de Gaulle had implemented and what his successors struggle to understand, even if they all claim to be part of his legacy. The United States, Russia, and China are continent-states capable of playing the big guns on the international stage. This is not the case for Europe. We have no choice but to discuss and negotiate, which is also our greatest advantage.

Expedition37

As far as the speard of American culture in Europe- that too was driven by Europeans, not Americans. My first job in the army required me to learn languages to collect intelligence. It was a skill I was good at. When I was stationed in Europe, I spoke German well and dressed like a European, not an America. I was often approached by people who asked me directions in German when I was visiting a city- they saw me as a German local of that city. And when I traveled to another country- I leared all the phases in the native language that would allow me to interact with people without speaking English.

I spent several nights drinking Pilsner Urquell beer in the city of Plzeň in the Czech Republic. Me and my wife were the only Americans there, and on the TV in the pub, they were playing MTv shows and American Sitcoms- to Chezecs. They didn’t know we were Americans- I ordered our drinks with the words, « Dvě piva, prosím ». 

When I visited Paris, after a long night of drinking and exploring the city, my wife and I were hungry. The only place we found to eat at that time was a McDonalds. It was packed with Frence customers- once again, only me and my wife were the only Americans there.

I have dozens of stories like this. Me and my wife traveled across Europe, and with my Military Intelligence background- I was seen as German, not an American as we traveled. I knew how to dress, what watch to wear, what shoes to wear, to carry a coin pocket and not a wallet so I had the local currancy ready to pay for my purchases in cash- all the small things you have to do to assume a new identity. I always avoided tourist traps because I wanted to experience the local culture (I studied Anthropology in college.)

Over and over I saw this pattern repeat- Amerian culture was spreading because the Europeans wanted to consume it. Not becuase it was being forced down their throats.

__beral__

The spread of American culture in Europe is the result of several factors.

Firstly, the Marshall Plan, which provided money for reconstruction in exchange for the importation of American products.

Then there was the presence of NATO bases throughout Europe, spreading the products, music, and films that GIs consumed. What’s more, all of this was completely new to us, came with the aura of liberation, and allowed many kids to make money by smuggling American cigarettes and alcohol, for example.

And then there was the American influence through its British counterpart, whose geographical proximity facilitated dissemination. Many French people in the 1960s and 1970s had British pen pals or went there to study, returning with English and American vinyl records under their arms.

Also, at the same time, there were only two possible camps, and the Americans sold the dream much better than the Soviets, especially since the United States excelled at using soft power as an ideological weapon against the USSR.

Finally, when you were born in the 1980s like me, when you were brought up on classics like Back to the Future, Terminator, and Alien, to the point where all that culture became part of your identity, it’s difficult to go back half a century to a period that even my parents reject.

Expedition37

You make some very good points. It’s an example of what I call, « the law of unintended consequences. » There was no « plan » to spread American culture- America was isolationist until they were dragged into the war by being attacked by the Japanese and Germany declaring war on the US. This forced us to get into a war we didn’t want to fight and with a small standing army in 1940- were not prepared to fight.

After we were dragged in, it took years to train and build a military structure and train millions of young men for war. That’s what put off the D-Day landing to 1944- we could not have done it before then.

We stayed in Europe to help (along with France and the UK) to stabilize the area and rebuilt it under the Marshal plan as you mentioned. And then we got stuck there once Russia, the USSR and the Warsaw Pact started aggressively expanded communism across Europe- and once they popped a nuke- we were stuck there for good- like it or not.

Eisenhower’s speech made it clear- we didn’t like it. And the one I shared was just one of many.

I studied Anthropology in college- including Cultural Anthropology. One of the things we studied was how culture spreads through Culture Clines. It’s something that happens organically and has been happening for as long as humanity has existed. (I’ll provide an explanation below.)

The spread of American culture was never planned- we were stuck in Europe once the USSR had the bomb- and then culture spread like it always does. There was no plan to spread American culture- it’s just what always happens when two cultures meet and interact.

The spread of American Culture was a product of the law of unintended consequences.

Cultural Cline:

A cultural cline refers to a gradual change in cultural traits, practices, or characteristics across geographic space. It’s the cultural equivalent of a biological cline (which describes gradual changes in biological traits across populations).

Key aspects:

Geographic gradient: Cultural traits vary gradually from one region to another rather than changing abruptly at clear boundaries. For example, language dialects might shift gradually across a landscape, with neighboring communities speaking very similar versions while communities farther apart show more pronounced differences.

Continuous variation: Unlike distinct cultural boundaries, clines show smooth, incremental changes. Think of how architectural styles, food preferences, or farming techniques might shift gradually as you travel across a region.

Common examples:
– Linguistic features that change gradually across regions (like pronunciation or vocabulary)
– Agricultural practices that adapt to gradually changing environmental conditions
– Material culture styles (pottery designs, clothing, tools) that blend and shift across space
– Social organization patterns that vary along environmental or economic gradients

Cultural clines often reflect processes like diffusion (where cultural traits spread between neighboring groups), migration patterns, or adaptation to gradually changing environmental conditions. They demonstrate that culture isn’t always neatly divided into discrete units, but can exist along continuums.

This concept is particularly useful for understanding how cultures interact and influence each other across space, rather than viewing them as isolated, bounded entities.

__beral__

I completely agree with you regarding the United States’ reluctance to participate in World War II until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The same goes for the need to remain in Europe and Asia to contain the expansion of the Soviet bloc. I also agree with you on the notion of a cultural cline explaining the spread of the American way of life in Europe. But before this spread could occur, there had to be contact. This contact took place in various ways. As mentioned previously, the most direct was through GIs stationed at NATO bases who sold cigarettes, alcohol, and vinyl records to teenagers. Another route was through French high school and university students in the United Kingdom, who returned home with vinyl records under their arms. However, all of this is just a drop in the ocean compared to the soft power produced by the United States to directly promote its ideology. This article from the University of Geneva explains it very well:

https://www.unige.ch/campus/numeros/143/le-soft-power-nexiste-pas

Its conclusion could not be clearer: « Cultural diplomacy has been an important vehicle for the Americanization of the United States and the rest of the world. It has been used to give cultural unity to a fragile, patchwork country, but also to export and justify a social project that aims to be a model for the rest of humanity. The link between cultural diplomacy and the American political project is obvious here. And its rise is inseparable from that of democratic messianism between World War I and the end of the Cold War.“ However, this moment seems to have marked the end of the historic mission assigned to cultural diplomacy, and its decline since then suggests that at the beginning of the 21st century, the United States no longer considers itself a model to be exported.”

Expedition37

The thing that this article misses it that ALL countries, ideologies, religions, businesses etc. do this, and have been for as long as civilization has existed. This is not unique to the US.

The Romans didn’t create their empire only through military strength- they did it by promising stability, free commerce, standardized laws and safe roads to travel on.

Before WW II there were Marxist and Communist organizations around the world spreading the promise of a workers paradise and equality to people who felt oppressed by a capitalist system.

There were NAZI party members in the US before we entered the war; spreading the carefully crafted messages created by Joseph Goebbels to make the movement appeal to a world wide audience.

Christianity spread because it appealed to marginalized people- slaves, women and others with the message that God Loved them all equally- and they would be rewarded in heaven no matter their position on Earth.

Buddhism spread though the message that all peoples can break free from the cycle of the four universal pains all people experience- birth, illness, aging and death- if they followed the teachings and practices and improved their Karma.

Every nation on Earth has a national anthem that projects the ideals of their country and why it is so good.

Every Company has a logo and and advertising team to craft messages to sell their products.

Every cult has a charismatic leader who spreads their own message to grow their following.

The list is endless. Thinking that this is a US only tactic is to ignore what you see with your own eyes, and what you will find with an open minded study of history; not just of empires and wars- but of all of human endeavors.

__beral__

I agree with you that soft power is not unique to the United States. As you explained, it dates back at least to the Roman Empire, and I would even say to the earliest human civilizations.

Soft power avoids the use of hard power, either entirely or in part. It takes much longer than violence to reap the benefits, but it has much greater staying power.

What is unique about the United States in this regard is that it has developed a highly effective form of soft power unlike any other nation. As you wrote, it has never forced any country to join NATO. Nor to pay for movie tickets or, now, subscriptions to watch Hollywood films and series. Nor to eat fast food. Nor to wear Nike shoes.

What other countries have or have had such influence? Japan and South Korea currently, perhaps, but in the YouTube and Twitch sphere. France, still a little now, with its aura of art de vivre combining romanticism and gastronomy (I’m not far from irony). India and Nepal in the 1960s and 1970s, with the hippie movement, to put it simply. Etc. And, since the 1950s, the American dream has continued to spread throughout the world. With periods of varying degrees of happiness, of course, but always very present in the global collective imagination.

And this is clearly not a criticism on my part, since I grew up in this culture, but it’s a fact: the United States has used and continues to use soft power more than any other nation.

Expedition37

Of course the US is more effective at it than any other state- it’s baked into the entire history of the North American Continent, especially the part that became the US.

(I’m not going to go into any conversations about the rights and wrongs of how the country was made- it’s all out there for people to find.)

But North America, especially the part that became the US has always represented the idea of a « new world » were you could start fresh and build your own success no matter where you came from and what your social status was in the culture you left behind. And it was demonstrate to be true for countless millions of people since the start- and continues to be true today.

In America you could practice your religion without state interference. You could go from poor to rich based on your own efforts (along with a good bit of luck.) You could experience freedom of speech and the press- instead of living under restrictions of both. You could own firearms and use them as you- not your king or government- saw fit.

This message was not just out there as an abstract concept- it was something that was and is actually happening; from the start until today.

Every time a new territory opened up for settlement- the poor could become land owners. Every time a deposit of precious metals where discovered- people flocked here to « strike it rich. » They could dig, find gold, and become rich- instead of just being one of the lucky few who were born into wealth in the country they came from.

And it continues today. Immigrants like Elon Musk can come here and built new and wonderful things- like Tesla, SpaceX, x.com, Star link and Grok.

Does the US use soft power better than others- yes. Because the « American Dream » became true for millions of people over not just years or decades- but centuries.

Is the US perfect- of course not. Our history is full of things most Americas are ashamed of. But it’s also full of example of where we tried to fix our mistakes- like ending slavery through a Civil War, then reuniting a split county back into a nation that was again a collection of united states.

US soft power works- because it is an idea that appeals to many people because it is often true.

The soft power the Communists used during the Cold War failed because their message of a « workers paradise » turned out to be a story of oppression, imprisonment, and the deaths of hundreds of millions.

__beral__

I agree with you on the virtues of freedom of worship, freedom of expression, and freedom of enterprise, which are also pillars of Europe. As for the right to bear arms, as a European, I obviously disagree. When you were a colonist until the 18th century in what would become the United States, I understand its usefulness (protection against wild animals, self-defense to compensate for the absence of police, the fight for independence against the British army, etc.). In our time, what remains of all these threats? None. The carrying of weapons is therefore an archaism.

As a reminder, colonization is by no means a blessing for colonized peoples. We have seen the devastation wrought in sub-Saharan Africa by Europe, in the Maghreb by France, in the United States with the genocide of Native Americans and African Americans, and in the Middle East with the ongoing genocide of Palestinians. So to say that a territory was open to colonization is a euphemism for theft. Those who made their fortunes during the gold rush were not the gold prospectors themselves, but those who sold them the equipment. And while it may have been possible to become rich despite modest origins (which remains to be proven), inheritance has long since taken precedence over so-called meritocracy. How many students from modest backgrounds are there proportionally in major American universities? No more than in Europe, therefore a tiny minority, which we will nevertheless be sure to highlight in an attempt to prove that social mobility still works.

I’m not sure Elon Musk is the best example of someone who went from rags to riches thanks to the opportunities offered by the US, since he benefited from his parents’ wealth.

The American dream has certainly become a reality over the centuries, but only for WASPs, and by extension for white people. You will certainly find examples of African American, Latin American, or Asian people who have succeeded in the US, but they will remain the rare trees that hide the forest of white, non-poor people who emigrated and studied at your major universities thanks to money from mom and dad.

So, yes, in comparison, the Soviets didn’t have much to offer in terms of soft power. But that doesn’t mean that the US was and still is the El Dorado that you want to sell.

Expedition37

Again you display a huge number of gaps in your awareness of the world.

Many Europeans own firearms.

Take the Swiss for example, they are nation of marksmen. They train with firearms (civilians included) on a regular basis and hold shooting competitions constantly. (I’ve owned and shot Swiss rifles, they are fine firearms.)

If I used your line of thinking about why Americans don’t need firearms, surely the same standard should be applied to the Swiss. What dangerous animals do they have? Why on Earth would a neutral county need a nation of well trained marksman who keep rifles and ammunition in their homes? Surely they have no reason to own firearms, right? They have police for protection and face no immediate danger. They should have no reason to own and train and compete with firearms- they are neutral for Gods sake.

Or, have they maintained their neutrality because everyone knows if they move against the Swiss, they will be fighting in difficult terrain against generations of trained marksman at every point in their attack?

My next response are questions. Because you consistently display huge gaps in your knowledge- you didn’t reply to my comment about France hosting the world’s largest arms show, or that France is the second largest arms dealer in the world. You never responded to my points about Russian/ USSR/ Warsaw Pact aggressive and deadly expansion across Europe forcing the US to stay involved in Europe after WW II when our even own Presidents didn’t like it.

Over and over you display a lack of knowledge not just about world history, but about your own country- ie. being an exporter of violence and death across the world.

I’ve been to France. I lived in Europe for four years and traveled extensively- for pleasure or during the course of duty.

Have you been to the US? And how long have you lived and traveled across Northern America?

If you include the time I’ve spent in the Middle East, I’ve live outside of the US for six years. My opinions are informed by life experiences gained through rigorous study of history and years of living in different countries and on different continents.

What experience do you bring to this conversation? Be specific. I truly want to know. I want to understand how you’ve gained the knowledge and experience that your statements come from. I want to understand how people form their opinions about the US. Is it from life experiences, or from some other source?

__beral__

The right to bear arms in the US was valid for shaking off British rule as long as it only had a militia army. And the Swiss army is a militia army. This is why every man up to the age of 30 has a rifle and ammunition supplied by the army at home. And, by extension, why it is so easy to own one outside the military. The Swiss own more guns per capita than Americans, but carrying them is highly regulated. No one carries them in the street as you do in some places, and there haven’t been any mass murders like in your country for several decades. This may come across as an authority bias, but I’m talking about Switzerland because I lived there for several years. The Swiss are not the people you describe as protecting their country by force. The Swiss are the bankers of the world, and no one attacks their banks. What was true during the Third Reich is still true today.

I still have no problem acknowledging that France is a leading arms dealer and that it organizes one of the world’s largest arms fairs. I would have preferred my country to be a leader in other areas, but that’s the way it is. And since I have absolutely no influence over this, I don’t feel responsible for it in any way.

The expansion of the Warsaw Pact by force resulted in numerous deaths and population displacements, and all attempts to break away from it were violently suppressed (the Prague Spring, among others). Given that there is broad consensus on this point, I do not see why it needs to be discussed. As for the American presence in Europe at that time, it was a case-by-case basis. De Gaulle took us out of NATO and we did very well without you. West Germany was fairly well managed by the joint occupation of the US, the British, and the French. Whether that can be generalized to the advantages and disadvantages of your presence in Europe, I don’t know. You tell me.

Part of my family is from Canada and I have traveled there, but I will not generalize based on my personal experience, because there will always be someone who will argue from a position of authority that they have traveled more than me, lived more than me, and therefore their opinion is more valid than mine. I keep up to date with global geopolitics by regularly watching debates and documentaries, which provide summaries of information and analysis that no ambassador or long-term spy could accumulate over the course of their career. So, of course, in some cases, it’s not as valuable as your field experience in the army, but if we were to restrict thinking and decision-making to the military, we would have to live under the Burmese junta regime.

Expedition37

I’ve really enjoyed our conversation, but I’m going to end it. You wanted my input about military operations through the Ardennes and to get some Insight into how military forces work, and I hope you’ve learned something about that, and France’s part in Desert Storm. Those two things I’m an expert in and I hope you’ve learned something new from our talk.

But the conversation is off topic now, so it’s time for me to end it.

I’m not on social media because I hate these types of arguments- and the platforms are designed to get us fighting so we stay engaged and spend more time on their platform. And I’ve been off social media for so long- I fell into that trap out of lost mental muscle memory on knowing when to end a conversation. Which was days ago.

You stopped asking questions, and started giving options, and I fell into the trap of online fighting since I’ve been off line for so long. But now I’ve remembered why I got off social media- so I’m ending this with one last piece of knowledge for you. When soldiers part ways, they often end their conversion with « be safe. »

Thanks for the talk, and be safe.

__beral__

Thank you very much for your explanations and opinions, which were very interesting, on the various topics we discussed. We don’t agree on everything and we each have our own view of the world, undoubtedly shaped by our own cultural environment. Nevertheless, we were able to discuss things with mutual respect and attentiveness, which is quite an achievement in this day and age.

I hope you will remember this conversation fondly, as I certainly will. And, if you agree, I would like to publish this conversation on my website. So that it is not lost in the endless flood of social media, and to show that the Internet has not lost its original promise of dialogue with people from other countries and backgrounds.

I wish you all the best and, as we say in my country, “Tchao, à la prochaine !”