Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

UK:

  1. Trident missile.
  2. M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System.
  3. AgustaWestland Apache
  4. Boeing E-3 Sentry.
  5. Raytheon Sentinel

some other examples

In contrast, France isn't nearly as reliant on USA. Why did UK prefer to become so reliant on US-made equipment? Were there historical diplomatic or political forces at work?

share|improve this question
    
Your Question presupposes as fact something that you should first determine, by analyzing the weapons procurement of France's military. Even if it turns out that France does not purchase major weapons systems from the U.S., given today's global economy some degree of sourcing (parts or know-how) from the U.S. is almost inevitable. –  Eugene Seidel May 30 '13 at 19:22
5  
I count 68 types on your "laundry list", excluding the various historical flights. Only 15 of those are marked as of US origin in whole or part, which is a long way short of "most". Browsing the list of modern British Army equipment - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equipment_of_the_British_Army - also reveals a wide range of sources; some home-grown, some American, and many others. –  Nigel Harper May 30 '13 at 20:51
    
I'm willing to accept the premise as given, based on the diplomatic history of the countries going as far back as deGaulle. I have re-worded the question to solicit answers about this diplomatic history, which the current answers already address. –  Tom Au Jun 2 '13 at 14:11
    
Just a note, USMC uses British VOTL, probably most known in popular culture -- Harriers. –  Voitcus Jun 25 '13 at 19:42
    
Another note: UK developed Chobham Armour is definitely used by the US on the Abrams and a derived version is used on the V22 Osprey (and was used around the Pilot on a version of the Huey). It's likely that the Leclerc and Leopard 2 also use a development of Chobham (although, this is unconfirmed - understandably) –  Kobunite Jun 26 '13 at 8:27
show 3 more comments

3 Answers

up vote 6 down vote accepted

From my French point of view, I would like to add a few things to Mark's post.

First, the UK and France were rival countries for a long time (the UK is often referred in French as our “greatest enemy”).

After the WW2, the moral impact of the war made those countries to choose ways to protect themselves from another war. However, their responses were quite different.

  • The UK chose to pair up with the real winner of the WW2, the USA. There are great ties between these countries (one of them being language) and from that time, the UK and the US have very similar exterior policies (the UK followed the US into the 2nd war in Irak and France did not) and they seem to form partnership (see the relations between Thatcher and Reagan).
  • France thought the priority was reconstruction and security for the people. Thanks to the Marshall Plan's money, European countries were able to rebuild themselves and were pushed (by the US) to team up (though the US did not anticipate that the alliances between the European countries were to become a big union which is now an economical concurrent). Therefore, the two nations (France and West Germany) which were the most chocked by the war began to maintain a relationship with the idea that a strong relationship will prevent them from attacking each other forever.

Their paths were then very divergent. The UK was (and is still) perceived as being both in and out of the European Union at the same time and from the very beginning of this union. For instance, the UK tried to create its own union to compete with the EEC (the organization which preceded the EU), the EFTA (note that the UK is ironically no longer part of this association).

When De Gaulle was president he fought till his death against the UK entering the EEC because he thought the US' influence on them would be damageable for the union and the future showed that he was quite right, the UK often views the EU as an economic union instead of an organization of countries seeking to make their voice count. This lead to some hard times between France and the UK, e.g. the well-known quotation from J. Chirac (at that time France's PM) about M. Thatcher: “What does that housewife want more? My balls on a tray?” (original: “Mais qu'est-ce qu'elle me veut de plus cette ménagère ? Mes couilles sur un plateau ?”). Thatcher had a very harsh policy towards the EU, she notably said “I want my money back”, and this sentence can explain a lot about the UK's vision of the EU.

Now, that said, to get back into the topic, France built itself inside of Europe and towards the goal of avoiding another European war at any cost. France, mostly because of De Gaulle's complex relationships with the US (Roosevelt did not trust him (fr) during the WW2 and the AMGOT did not ease their relations) did not trust the US in any domain.

De Gaulle made some decisions about NATO (because he thought that this organization aimed more at protecting the US than at protecting all the other countries inside of it) that pushed all foreign military forces to leave France's territory. Like Mark wrote, the UK and France were both inside of NATO during the Cold War but France was far from playing with only one side.

So, France built big companies (Thales, EADS) to create weapons by itself (and France is one of the biggest weapons exporter) and with the help of other countries of the European Union (Airbus and Eurocopter come from those partnerships) in order to keep its independence (and avoid some problems which could come from buying weapons from a foreign country, like espionage).

On the other hand, the UK maintain a relationship of trust with the US (Special Relationship) and rely on this country for their weapons. From the Cold War, France and the UK learned that they were not the World's ruling countries anymore (the Suez Crisis is a good example of this, as the US pushed the UK and France to give up on their ambitions). USSR and the US became what we call in French “les gendarmes du Monde” (the policemen of the World). Suez Crisis had a great impact, the UK decided to follow the rules imposed by the US most of the time when France chose to distance itself from the US and NATO.

To sum all this up:

  • The UK knows that their power is not the one they had before the WW2 and chose to team up with the US in what is now known as the “Special Relationship”.
  • Given US' dominance over the world and its policy, France chose to distance itself from the US and to rely on itself and on peers like the countries in the European Union (which, for some of them, may have the same state of mind) for its protection.

Disclaimer: I tried to remain objective, I know that both the UK (WW1 & WW2, acquiring the A-bomb…) and the US (WW1 & WW2, the Marshall Plan…) helped France and the French people a lot, but this answer has to be put in the right context and some political decisions were made out of mistrust.

NB: Sorry for this long post which can be quite French-centered and contain mistakes.

share|improve this answer
    
Fantastic answer - for me it would be marginally better if you mentioned British armaments companies, such as BAE as a balance to Thales, EADS. Also, it might be worth mentioning all those times the British, French and Germans teamed to gether (or tried too) such as with the Horizon CNGF and NFR90 and Eurofighter programmes. Still Fantastic answer @Asche. –  Kobunite Jun 26 '13 at 8:31
1  
Just a side note, UK was always main opponent of USA too before WW1. This was the only country USA feared of (Monroe's doctrine was not used against British possessions in America, like Canada, Honduras, Barbados, Guyana etc), and this is still the only country to capture and burn Washington. But of course, this was long time before ww2. Thanks for your great answer! –  Voitcus Jun 26 '13 at 9:42
add comment

You might want to reivew the history of the NATO alliance, Charles De Gaulle, and the special relationship.

In particular

Immensely patriotic, de Gaulle and his supporters held the view, known as Gaullism, that France should continue to see itself as a major power and should not rely on other countries, such as the United States, for its national security and prosperity.

France made a strategic decision that it would be self-reliant.

Update in response OP's request for clarification on why the British didn't think about self-reliance.

The British did consider self reliance. Ultimately you can do more with the resources of two countries than you can with the resources of one. Furthermore UK policy was set in the context of a conflict between the NATO alliance (where the UK was a major player) against the Warsaw Pact alliance.

Finally, a review of history would indicate that alliance and cooperation have figured promiently in UK (and commonwealth) foreign policy. Alliance is a successful strategy for the UK.

share|improve this answer
    
OK. That is good. But why didn't British think about their self-reliance? –  BROY Jun 1 '13 at 5:47
    
The French have a lot of international cooperation as well, they just tend to be the major party in those ventures, thus seen as the creator, where the British often are a minor partner and thus not recognised as the creator except by those in the know. –  jwenting Jun 4 '13 at 5:53
add comment

France has a lot of major (part) foreign weapons systems. It too operates E-3s, and prior to that E-2s for example.
And many of the British systems are historically part British, developed either as joint ventures with other countries, produced under license in the US, or substitution British systems for part of the equipment in a system (the RAF's F-4 Phantoms for example employed British built engines and weapons systems, the Trident missiles employ British warheads and guidance systems, the Apaches employ part British systems and are UK built under license, etc. etc.). This is not dissimilar to many French systems which are often built together with Germany, Spain, and/or Italy.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.