True. But how many will really think about this, unless they have some reason to (being, say, European, or in some way connected with the American defense industry).
Example: how many americans have a clue what the BAOR was, or even that sort of commitment to NATO? It cuts the other way, too. The french absence from NATO just isn't the sort of thing that gets brought up whenever the image of cheese-eating surrender monkeys comes up. It's more or less a non-issue. French integration in the NATO structure will mean a few more references in technothrillers and such, but in the end little would change. The european allies tended to get overlooked in those media, anyways.
More than you think. I have friends who were stationed in Germany during the Cold War, and I have heard their stories regarding NATO troops.
And if the reality is changed the perception stops being reinforced. Various pundits and leaders altitudes are changed, and this does filter down to those who look up to them.
One could argue that this is the only image that matters. But I still fail to see how a less powerful france will circumvent this image.
It is so bizzare to me that being a member of an alliance translates to less powerfull in your mind.
The French cannot fight a war of attrition with the Soviets, true. But if the Red Army marches to the Rhine, does the Force de Frappe simply cease to exist? One of, if not the cornerstone of French defense policy during the Cold War was that they would be able to guarantee their security against anybody.
Of course not. BUt would France being willing to end the world in order to free Germany from Soviet occupation? Or would they be forced to accept the fait accompli? And adjust their foriegn policy according to the new balance of power?
West Germany transferred to the East Block, Nato broken, France findlandized...
Soviet Victory conditions met.
I see that there is a distinction. But I don't see how a France that does not take ownership of its own security will dispell the perception of it as a pushover.
But by not being a member of the alliance that truely provides it's security, France is not "taking ownership of its own security", it is getting a free ride.
Even if you argue that closer ties mean a better image in America, it doesn't mean that France will be as helpful an ally as IOTL, and it doesn't mean that it will follow the American party line all the time (see germany during the 2nd gulf war).
If Cold War plans included France as strategic depth, than France is being vastly more helpfull than OTL.
And which ally does follow the American Party line all the time? Even the British told us to pound salt when we asked for troops during the Vietnam War. They aren't considered surrender monkeys.
And as soon as that sort of disagreement crops up, so do the stereotypes, bolstered by a weaker french military.
Why is it weaker than OTL?
the French were capable of keeping themselves secure. If they happened to be separated from the Russian hordes by Germany and the American Army, then that is fortuitous geopolitics. But if America is not in Europe for the sole purpose of defending France, then France does not need to subsume itself to American interests
Ahh, but if those fortuitious geopolitics put the Germany and America armies between France and the Red Army, thus providing, at the very least greatly increased security for France, then helping with that would be
in French interests, as well as American, Germany, British, ect.
That's what collective security is about.
And undermining America leadership, which was needed for NATO, is harming French interests.
Possible. If it gets noticed. An integration into the NATO structure might be recognized in the west, but would hardly end the image.
It would be a huge step in the right direction, at least.
The french made it perfectly clear that, if threatened, they would fight and would not be worth the effort needed to defeat.
I wasn't convinced. And I don't know if the Kremlin was convinced, either. If they weren't then the deterrant value of that postion was lost.
And you really should consider mine.
Oh, I am, and am trying to understand it. But
in the context of the OP, I suspect my POV is more relevant.
Even though I don't so much buy the "surrender monkey" sterotype, as judge France's past policies as irresponsible.