為什么法國能在二戰(zhàn)的勝利者中獲得平等的地位？

joeri1505
One big factor in that is the fact that France was a traditional superpower.
France had been one of the most powerful countries in the world for litteral ages.
Basically all the people at the negotiations litteraly grew up with the concept of France being a superpower cemented in their minds.
Also, dont forget that the invasion of France wasn't just a French defeat.
The British army was in France too and they only managed to escape at Dunkirk, thanks to the rearguard of the French.
And then there was that small incident where the Brits sank a large part of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir.
If diplomatic relations were to be normalised, it would be crucial to treat France according to its own perceived status.
Besides Europe itsself, the French colonial empire was also rather large.
Returning all these teritories to French rule would almost automatically return France to a position of authority.


其中的一個重要因素是，法國是一個傳統(tǒng)的超級大國。
法國一直是世界上最強大的國家之一。
基本上，所有參與談判的人都是伴隨著法國是超級大國的概念長大的。
此外，不要忘了入侵法國不僅僅是法國的失敗。
英國軍隊也在法國，多虧了法國人的殿后，他們才能在敦刻爾克逃跑。
接著發(fā)生了一個小事故，英國人在摩爾-凱比爾擊沉了法國的大部分艦隊。
如果外交關(guān)系要正常化，根據(jù)法國自身感知的地位來對待法國將是至關(guān)重要的。
除了歐洲本體，法蘭西殖民帝國也相當龐大。
讓所有這些國家回到法國的統(tǒng)治之下幾乎會自動讓法國回到權(quán)威地位。

MaterialCarrot
They also had a post war role to play as Germany's Western neighbor and a part of the Western alliance against the USSR that became NATO (for a while).


他們還在戰(zhàn)后作為德國的西方鄰國，并作為西方聯(lián)盟對抗蘇聯(lián)的一部分（有一段時間）。

UCDent
France was expected to be the European continental stalwart against a Soviet move against the west after WW2 taking pressure off of Britain before Germany and Italy could be reformed, rebuilt, and included.


法國被期望成為歐洲大陸的中堅力量，以對抗蘇聯(lián)在二戰(zhàn)后對西方的行動，在德國和意大利被改革、重建和納入之前減輕英國的壓力。

LoganGyre
I would also add that they were also very much supporting other countries with supplies and intel to help slow the Germans advance. I definitely agree that the sinking of the french Navy was a major political issue they were trying to resolve but I feel like the US put a ton of push into propping up france to prevent Russia from consuming all of europe after the war as well.


我還想補充的是，他們也非常支持其他國家的物資和情報，以幫助減緩德國人的進攻。我絕對同意，法國海軍的沉沒是他們試圖解決的一個重大政治問題，但我覺得美國在支持法國方面投入了大量的力量，以防止俄國在戰(zhàn)后吞噬整個歐洲。

elcabeza79
I definitely agree that the sinking of the french Navy was a major political issue they were trying to resolve
Really? They collaborated with the fascist enemy, but were still offered the chance to turn over the ships peacefully with the promise they wouldn't be used against them, and they still chose chose to engage the British in battle instead.
This is an issue the French needed resolved after the Allies liberated them from the fascists? Really?


你是認真的嗎？他們當時與法西斯敵人合作，但仍有機會在保證不對他們使用的情況下和平地交出船只，而他們?nèi)匀贿x擇了與英國人交戰(zhàn)。
結(jié)果這是法國人在盟軍將他們從法西斯手中解放出來后需要解決的一個問題？認真的嗎？

LoganGyre
So the way it was Explained in my class was that the french gov had officially surrendered and part of the agreement was to not hand over the ships to the allies. So knowing he couldn't legally attack the Brits, but not wanting to violate the orders, the commander chose to allow for the ships to be destroyed on purpose.
As far as to why this upsets the french? They bore the brunt of the the physical damage for much of the war and were bitter about having more losses lumped on them by their allies. Adding insult to injury the allies managed to insult the french multiple times by accident. Its been awhile since Ive read about it so im leaving out some details for sure.


我在課堂上得到的解釋是，法國政府已經(jīng)正式投降，協(xié)議的一部分是不把船只交給盟國。因此，指揮官知道他不能合法地攻擊英國人，但又不想違反命令，就選擇了故意讓這些船被摧毀。
至于為什么這讓法國人不高興？在戰(zhàn)爭的大部分時間里，他們首當其沖地遭受了物質(zhì)上的損失，并且對他們的盟友把更多的損失加在他們身上感到很痛苦。更加雪上加霜的是，盟國還設法多次意外地侮辱了法國人。我已經(jīng)有一段時間沒有重新閱讀相關(guān)書籍了，所以肯定會遺漏一些細節(jié)。

quijote3000
They didn't "chose to engage the british". The british attacked.
And the promise was made before the british attack that their ships wouldn't be taken by the germans. When the Germans finally decided to get all the french ships that were left, the french navy actually sank them before giving them to the germans


他們并沒有"選擇與英國人交戰(zhàn)"。是英國人發(fā)起的進攻。
而在英軍進攻前，他們已經(jīng)承諾過自己的船只不會被德國人搶走。當?shù)聡俗罱K決定接管所有剩下的法國船只時，法國海軍實際上在把它們交給德國人之前就把船搞沉了。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

LightningDustt
Not to mention the French efforts to aid the allied cause didn't stop with the capitulation of mainland France. The Free French and the French resistance were a thorn in Hitler's side all the way through the war


更不用說法國援助盟軍的努力并沒有因為法國本土的投降而停止。自由法國和法國抵抗組織在整個戰(zhàn)爭期間都是希特勒的眼中釘。

capt_blackadder11
The French army was better equipped , had superior aircraft and was actually more mechanized than the Wehrmacht.


法國軍隊裝備更好，擁有優(yōu)越的飛機，實際上比德國國防軍更機械化。

Whitetiger2819
As much as I like to fight the common misconception about the ‘inferior french army’, it needs to be said that the french Air Force was absolutely ill prepared to fight the wermarcht. As Antoine Saint-Exupéry wrote, the pilots were ready to fight, but the supplies, planes and orders did nothing to help them do their jobs. That and the Luftwaffe outnumbered the french and British artifice in terms of modern aircraft by a comfortable margin. So much that by the fall of France, the pilots were scapegoated for having left the brave infantry to fend of the Germans alone...


盡管我喜歡與"劣質(zhì)的法軍"這種普遍的誤解作斗爭，但需要說的是，法國空軍絕對沒有做好與德國人作戰(zhàn)的準備。正如安托萬-圣-?？颂K佩里所寫的那樣：飛行員們已經(jīng)做好了戰(zhàn)斗準備，但物資、飛機和命令卻無助于他們完成任務。這一點，以及德國空軍在現(xiàn)代飛機方面的數(shù)量比法國和英國都要多得多。以至于到了法國淪陷的時候，飛行員們被當作替罪羊，因為他們把勇敢的步兵留給了德國人，讓他們獨自抵御德國人的進攻......

Sholoto
Better Tanks has well


還有更好的坦克

AndrewTyeFighter
One on one a French tank might be better, but the vast majority lacked radios and couldn't communicate or coordinate like their German counterparts.


法國坦克可能更好，但絕大多數(shù)坦克缺乏無線電，不能像德國坦克那樣通信或協(xié)調(diào)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

flapjack3285
They also had smaller crews so they were overworked, especially the tank commanders. The Char B1 which was a beast was also slow. It doesn't matter how thick your armor is or how power your gun is if you can't catch the enemy or you can't refuel because they were able to run roughshod behind your lines and captured all your fuel.


他們的坦克乘員人數(shù)也較少，所以他們都工作過度，特別是坦克指揮官。野獸一樣的的Char B1速度也很慢。如果你不能抓住戰(zhàn)機或不能加油，你的裝甲有多厚或你的火炮有多大威力都不重要，因為他們能夠在你的防線后面橫沖直撞，奪取你所有的燃料。

tomdidiot
The Char B1 is a great example of a tank that looks good on paper on the metrics people like to use (good armour, good gun, slower, but vaguely acceptable speed), but struggle because of soft, much less sexy factors (crew ergonomics, high fuel consumption and its resulting low operational range, cost)


Char B1是一個很好的例子，說明在人們喜歡使用的指標上（良好的裝甲、良好的火炮、較慢但勉強可接受的速度），這種坦克在紙面上看起來很好，但卻會由于軟性的、不那么性感的因素（乘員的人體工程學、高油耗及其導致的低作戰(zhàn)范圍、損失）而陷入困境。

southerner_too
Quite right, the French fought their tanks in penny packets, no match for the massed German tank formations, their blazing hulks littered the battlefield. It's true that the large French tanks caused real trouble for the Germans, but they were dealt with when the Germans brought up the new 88 anti aircraft guns and were fired at the tanks.


很對，法國人只有很少的人能駕駛坦克戰(zhàn)斗，比不上德國人大規(guī)模的坦克編隊，他們?nèi)紵能圀w在戰(zhàn)場上到處散落。法國的大型坦克確實給德國人帶來了真正的麻煩，但當?shù)聡苏{(diào)來新的88式防空炮并向坦克開火時，他們毫無招架之力。

frenchchierblanc
The French army was on the verge to be better equipped than the germans. Germans managed to have a very modern spearhead army, small but heavy mechanised (the rest of the army dragging behind). French army was on the defensive on a long front.
The germans attacked just before the french army was modernised. A bulk of new tanks, planes, rifles were arriving and were planned for Summer 1940.


法國軍隊的裝備馬上就要比德國人的更好了。但德國人設法擁有了一支非?，F(xiàn)代化的先鋒部隊，規(guī)模小但機械化程度高（其他部隊則比較落后）。法國軍隊在一條長長的戰(zhàn)線上處于守勢。
德國人在法軍現(xiàn)代化之前就發(fā)動了進攻。大批新的坦克、飛機、步槍陸續(xù)完工，并按計劃在1940年夏季投入了使用。

joeri1505
All true So?
People continue to forget that the british army was in France when the Germans invaded.
The French defeat was a shared defeat.


這些都是真的，所以呢？
人們繼續(xù)選擇遺忘，當?shù)聡巳肭址▏鴷r，英國軍隊當時也在法國。
法國的失敗是一次英法共同的失敗。

nuttyjawa
Joeri you seem to have some very anti British - or at least, look at the British thing going on.
The BEF was in Belgium when the Germans invaded
And no one forgets that the British were defeated just as much as the French in those early dark years.


Joeri你似乎很反感英國人--或者至少有一點反感，看看英國人當時都在干什么事情吧。
德軍入侵時，英國遠征軍在比利時。
而且沒有人忘記，在那些早期的黑暗時期，英國人和法國人一樣被打敗了。

joeri1505
I'm sorry it sounds that way, its not my intention.
I have nothing against the British and I'm certainly not trying to downplay their part in the war.
The question was why France was granted equal status after the war.
I think that it's relation with Britain played a big part in that, so thats why i reffer to situations where both France and GB were involved.
Britain's victories and achievements in the war are well known so i dont feel the need to focus on those.
France often gets portrayed as weak or unreliable.
And there are certainly some examples of the French acting less than optimal.
But there are also plenty of examples of the French acting valiantly.
AND the mishappenings between the French and the Brits were still a source of tension in europe, after the war.
So there was a clear incentive to move past these issues as soon as possible.


我很抱歉聽起來是這樣的，這不是我的本意。
我并不反感英國人，我當然不是要貶低他們在戰(zhàn)爭中的作用。
標題是為什么法國在戰(zhàn)后被授予平等地位。
我認為，法國與英國的關(guān)系在其中起到了很大的作用，所以我提到了法國和英國都參與的情況。
英國在戰(zhàn)爭中的勝利和成就是眾所周知的，所以我覺得沒有必要關(guān)注這些。
法國經(jīng)常被描繪成軟弱或不可靠的國家。
當然也有一些法國人表現(xiàn)得不太理想的例子。
但也有很多法國人英勇行動的例子。
而且，在戰(zhàn)后，法國人和英國人之間的不愉快會成為歐洲緊張局勢的一個來源。
因此，這里有一個明顯的動機來盡快解決這些問題。

Stralau
Short answer would be that the French wanted it and it was in the interests of the UK and the US.
It gave the western allies one more anti com...... vote at the table and restoring French national pride also ensured no opportunity for a com...st takeover in France, which was a possibility, or at least a concern at one stage.
The UK and US were fundamentally keen on keeping something like the status quo ante bellum, and hemming in the USSR: restoring France to great power status was a good way of achieving that, at least to some extent.


簡短的回答是，法國人希望如此，而且這也符合英國和美國的利益。
這讓西方盟國在談判桌上多了一張反共的選票，恢復法國的民族自豪感也確保了法國沒有機會被共產(chǎn)黨接管，而這在當時是一種可能性，至少在某個階段是一種擔憂。
英國和美國從根本上熱衷于保持類似于戰(zhàn)前的狀態(tài)，并對蘇聯(lián)進行圍堵：恢復法國的大國地位是實現(xiàn)這一目標的好辦法，至少在某種程度上是如此。

bangdazap
I'd add to this that France had a huge colonial empire and if there had been a com...st revolution in France they might have gained independence, further upsetting the post-war world order.


我想補充一點的是，法國有一個巨大的殖民帝國，如果法國發(fā)生了一場共產(chǎn)主義革命，他們可能會獲得獨立，這將進一步擾亂了戰(zhàn)后的世界秩序。

anarchysquid
The USSR was OK with France on the Security Council too. They may have been a capitalist democracy, but they had substantially different interests than Britain and the USA, so they could be a counterbalance to the Anglo-American alliance


蘇聯(lián)對法國出現(xiàn)在安理會上沒什么意見。他們可能是一個資本主義民主國家，但他們的利益與英國和美國有本質(zhì)上的不同，所以他們可能是對英美聯(lián)盟的制衡。

dorshiffe_2
In 1945, the french Com...ism party score 26% and socialism party 23% so the country was very close to go Com...ism. The US made everything to help the right wing (even if right wing were more pro-german during the war), they let De gaulle entering in Paris as the liberator to help him.


1945年，法國共產(chǎn)黨的得票是26%，社會主義黨的得票是23%，所以這個國家非常接近于走向共產(chǎn)主義。美國竭力幫助右翼（即使右翼在戰(zhàn)爭期間更親德），他們讓戴高樂以解放者的姿態(tài)進入巴黎，以幫助他成為法國領(lǐng)導人。

Dawidko1200
Interesting to see you say that. The version I've seen in Russian history books is that it was because of USSR's insistence that France was recognised, as the French, and de Gaulle in particular, were much less inclined towards hostility with USSR. As can be seen by de Gaulle's decision to withdraw from NATO in the 60s.
I know that both Churchill and Roosevelt had a rather unfavourable opinion of de Gaulle, while Stalin did not. During de Gaulle's visit to USSR in the 60s he spent 20 minutes at Stalin's grave.


看到你這么說很有意思。我在俄羅斯歷史書中看到的版本是，正是因為蘇聯(lián)的堅持，法國才被承認，因為法國人，特別是戴高樂，傾向于不愿意與蘇聯(lián)為敵。從戴高樂在60年代決定退出北約就可以看出。
我知道，丘吉爾和羅斯福都對戴高樂有相當不利的看法，而斯大林則沒有。在60年代戴高樂訪問蘇聯(lián)期間，他在斯大林的墳墓前呆了20分鐘。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

MaverickDago
Part of it was that the UK, while part of Europe, wasn't on the continent. Having an ally that was located on the mainland was vital. France had a history of being a powerhouse, had large oversea possessions, and if they broke towards the East, it would have screwed Europe.


部分原因是，英國雖然是歐洲的一部分，但不在歐洲大陸上。擁有一個位于大陸的盟友是至關(guān)重要的。法國在歷史上曾是一個強國，擁有大量的海外資產(chǎn)，如果他們向東方靠攏，就會使歐洲陷入困境。

Blueopus2
History - France had been a superpower for centuries prior to the war
Geography - they were neighbors of Germany and Italy and were the only strong, clearly allied power there.
Contributions after capitulation - the French resistance and the free French were major thorns in hitlers side throughout the war
Contributions before capitulation - the French army folded in just two months but did a lot of fighting in that time and suffered more casualties fighting Germany than the US did


歷史--法國在戰(zhàn)爭前的幾個世紀里一直是一個超級大國
地理--他們是德國和意大利的鄰國，是那里唯一強大的、明確的盟國。
屈服后的貢獻--法國抵抗運動和自由法國在整個戰(zhàn)爭期間都是希特勒的眼中釘肉中刺
投降前的貢獻--法國軍隊在短短兩個月內(nèi)就折戟沉沙，但在這段時間內(nèi)做了大量的戰(zhàn)斗，與德國作戰(zhàn)時的傷亡人數(shù)超過了美國。

charly06
All of this is correct but the most important reason is Churchill did everything in order for france to get that seat: Uk was a colonial power and was already thinking of post war era. having two anticolonial superpowers made him wary of uk's ability to have a say in world politics. Having a fellow colonial power at the UN security council would balance a bit this new shift in world relation


所有這些都是正確的，但最重要的原因是丘吉爾所做的一切都是為了讓法國獲得那個席位。英國是一個殖民國家，而且已經(jīng)在考慮戰(zhàn)后的問題。有兩個反殖民主義的超級大國，使他對英國在世界政治中的發(fā)言權(quán)的能力感到擔憂。在聯(lián)合國安理會中擁有一個同為殖民國家的國家，將在一定程度上平衡世界關(guān)系的這種新變化。

Jack_ofall_Trades85
Two anticolonial powers on the security council? I think you're forgetting China.


安理會的兩個反殖民主義大國？我認為你忘記了中國。

Intranetusa
This is not to diminish the role of the French resistance (and de Gaulle's own contribution in that regard), but its role in defeating Germany seems hardly at the same level as those from the other allies overall (perhaps excluding China).
France may or may not have contributed more, but I think the contributions of China during WW2 is often underestimated. The Republic of China's armies (and to a lesser extent the com...st guerillas) tied down 80% of the Japanese imperial army (over 1 million Japanese troops)...fighting in a grueling stalemate war of attrition. China was basically the Soviet unx in the far eastern front - the USA and UK were worried that if China fell, Japan would roll over the rest of the Pacific without much resistance because the fall of China would free up the vast majority of the Japanese army troops for invasions elsewhere.
Edit:
An important event was when Japan signed the Japanese-Soviet neutrality pact in 1941 because most of Japan's armies was bogged down in a stalemate in China. Imagine if the successful conquest of China in the 1930s freed up the majority of Japanese armies, which would have allowed the Japanese to not have to sign this agreement and invade the Soviet unx from the east.
Furthermore, Japan had been fighting in China since the early 1930s with the majority of its army. Imagine if China surrendered in the 1930s...which would free up 80% of the Japanese army in the 1930s to take over the rest of eastern Asia. If that happened, then Japan wouldn't have or wouldn't have the same levels of the fuel and resource shortages they had since there are significant sources of natural resources (petroleum, rubber, etc) in mainland East Asia and in SE Asia they could've taken over. For example, today Indonesia, Malaysia, and China are significant producers of oil today. Japan did manage to capture the Dutch East Indies, but this happened pretty late (around 1942) and happened after the USA had already entered the war. The USA oil embargo against Japan was also significantly due to Japanese atrocities in China...which was heavily due to their army's frustration of not making much progress and getting stalemated in China. If China rolled over and surrendered quickly, the Japanese might not even have attacked Pearl Harbor or at least not prematurely attack it as early as they did because they wouldn't have been so dependent on American oil resources or the Americans might not have embargoed them at all.
That could altered the USA entering the war at the time it did since the US entry was mainly triggered by the Pearl Harbor attack - and could've changed the events of both the European and Pacific war.


法國可能做出了更多貢獻，也可能沒有做出更多貢獻，但我認為中國在二戰(zhàn)期間的貢獻往往被低估了?！爸腥A民國”的軍隊（以及在較小程度上的共產(chǎn)主義游擊隊）束縛了80%的日本帝國的軍隊（超過100萬的日本軍隊......使其陷入一場艱苦僵持的消耗戰(zhàn)中。中國基本上是遠東前線的蘇聯(lián)--美國和英國擔心，如果中國淪陷，日本將在沒有太多抵抗的情況下翻過太平洋其他地區(qū)，因為中國的淪陷會讓日本軍隊的絕大部分部隊騰出手來入侵其他地方。
編輯：
一個重要事件是日本在1941年簽署了《日蘇中立條約》，因為日本的大部分軍隊在中國陷入了僵局。想象一下，如果在20世紀30年代成功地征服了中國，解放了大部分日本軍隊，這將使日本人不必簽署這一協(xié)議，并從東部入侵蘇聯(lián)。
此外，日本自1930年代初就以其大部分軍隊在中國作戰(zhàn)。想象一下，如果中國在1930年代就投降了......這將使日本軍隊在1930年代騰出80%的兵力來接管亞洲東部的其他地區(qū)。如果這種情況發(fā)生了，那么日本就不會有或不會有同樣水平的燃料和資源的短缺，因為在東亞大陸和東南亞有重要的自然資源（石油、橡膠等）來源，供他們接管。例如，今天的印度尼西亞、馬來西亞和中國是重要的石油生產(chǎn)國。日本確實設法占領(lǐng)了荷屬東印度群島，但這發(fā)生得很晚（1942年左右），而且是在美國已經(jīng)參戰(zhàn)之后。美國對日本的石油禁運在很大程度上也是由于日本在中國的暴行......而這又在很大程度上是由于他們的軍隊對在中國沒有取得多少進展和陷入僵局感到沮喪。如果中國迅速投降，日本人甚至可能不會襲擊珍珠港，或者至少不會像他們那樣過早地襲擊珍珠港，因為他們不會如此依賴美國的石油資源，或者美國人可能根本就不會禁運他們。
這可能會改變美國在那個時候的參戰(zhàn)，因為美國參戰(zhàn)主要是由珍珠港襲擊引發(fā)的--而且可能改變整個歐洲和太平洋戰(zhàn)爭。

CezaryC
I was just about to reply with the very same thing.
China had the second-highest number of military deaths for an Allied country, just behind the Soviets.


我正準備用同樣的話來回答。
中國是盟國中軍隊死亡人數(shù)第二多的國家，僅次于蘇聯(lián)。

coleman57
Americans never hear this (I certainly never did, until today), and I suspect people in many if not most other countries don't, either. When I was young during the Cold War, Americans didn't talk much about the Soviets' sacrifice (unless they were com...sts or sympathisers)--it only started being discussed widely after 1991.
I was aware from my parents that there was widespread sympathy for China before and during the war, but after 1949 the issue became complicated by the explicit split of China, and since both sides of that split were seen as brutal dictatorships there wasn't much appetite for casting Chiang as a hero (except by hardline anti-com...sts).


美國人從來沒有聽說過這些（我當然也沒有，直到今天），我懷疑許多甚至大多數(shù)其他國家的人也沒有。在我年輕的時候，在冷戰(zhàn)時期，美國人不怎么談論蘇聯(lián)人的犧牲（除非他們是共產(chǎn)主義者或同情者）--直到1991年后才開始廣泛討論。
我從父母那里知道，在戰(zhàn)爭之前和戰(zhàn)爭期間，人們普遍同情中國，但在1949年之后，由于中國的明確分裂，這個問題變得復雜起來，而且由于分裂的雙方都被視為殘酷的獨裁政權(quán)，所以沒有多少人愿意把蔣介石當作英雄（除了強硬的反共分子）。

Mindless-Story931
Yeah, what the shit. Japan suffered more than 3 million casualties in China. China was orders of magnitude more instrumental in victory than France.


是啊，什么鬼。日本在中國傷亡了300多萬人。中國在勝利方面的貢獻比法國要重要幾個數(shù)量級。

half3clipse
Becasue the only way France wasn't going to be one of the largest players in Europe and in the world would be to carve it up into much smaller nations. They had a colonial empire on par with the UK, and were far more powerful as a continental power.
Deciding seats based purely on the immediate post war situation would have been a fantastically foolish decision: There was no scenario in which France wouldn't be able to rapidly recover, rearm and return to it's status a great power. If France did not have a seat at the table, they would have just ignored anything to do with the UN or the Security Council and done whatever they wished regardless.
France wasn't some scrappy little nation trying to play with the big kids. They had a massive industrial base and population on par with or exceeding the other European powers. Snubbing a major nation like that could easily have resulted in France taking a more independent stance in the cold war or aiming to form it's own power bloc.


因為法國要想不成為歐洲和世界上最大的國家之一，唯一的辦法就是把它分割成許多更小的國家。他們有一個與英國相當?shù)闹趁竦蹏?，而且作為一個大陸強國，他們要強大得多。
純粹根據(jù)戰(zhàn)后的現(xiàn)狀來決定席位，將是一個極其愚蠢的決定：在任何情況下，你都不能假設法國不會迅速恢復、重新武裝并恢復其大國地位。如果法國在談判桌上沒有席位，他們就會無視與聯(lián)合國或安理會有關(guān)的任何事情，不管不顧地做他們想做的事。
法國并不是一些試圖與大孩子玩耍的小國家。他們有龐大的工業(yè)基礎和人口，與其他歐洲大國相當或超過它們。冷落這樣一個大國，很容易導致法國在冷戰(zhàn)中采取更獨立的立場，或旨在形成自己的權(quán)力集團。