What do you think him?

Would you?

Absolutely Based after i read this.

France sent a warship to New York harbor in early August 1971 with instructions to bring back its gold from the New York Federal Reserve Bank. It was, after all, French President Charles de Gaulle who remained consistently skeptical about the US dollar, saying at a press conference on February 4, 1965, that it was impossible for the dollar to be "an impartial and international trade medium .

huffingtonpost.com/charles-kolb/august-15-1971_b_4284327.html

He's been on my mind recently because he absolutely, positively did not want the UK in the Common Market in Europe. Said something to the effect that Britain was too maritime and too outward-focused, not European enough. He said that if the UK got into the European community it would just lead to destruction.

LO AND BEHOLD

>Algeria
>French

Why are people so foolish in the current year?

>citation ?
t . generally interested

Why would he think France could have hegemony in a Europe that includes Germany?

Post-war Germany was a mess left to the Allies and the Soviets.

France had plans to de-industrialise Germany and make it into an agrarian farming community.

Christ, I didn't know about that
IIRC Australia wanted to do the same to Japan

>Should have kept Algeria and recognized the Algerian people as fully French.

As in at the rights of France?
If yes then lol nice "idea". There's a reason colonies denied full citizenship or equality in status in the eyes of the state.

He was right as well.

Breton Woods was a mistake, in principle it was fine [and abandoning it completely was an even bigger mistake], but using the USD it was set up to fail [Triffin dilemma] . Keynes knew this at the time, which is the whole reason he proposed the Bancor in the first place.

We should've used the Bancor, but alas, we're stuck with this instead.

Algerian demographics at that time were already quiet high.
Accepting them would have deatroyed drench culture by overwhelming the natives.
Thats basic selfpreservation and has less to do with race and more with the oldword conception of different peoples who are not only defined by race but also culture, identity and religion.

didn't really do much for the resistance

but I do give him credit on fixing the French gov't

France had wanted to reduce Germany to peasants since 1871. Simple zero-sum politics, a united Germany encompasses too many people and too many resources for France to remain on top. When studying inter-war Europe, it's difficult not to place some blame on the French for their dogged efforts to deny Germany any of the rights she wanted for herself.

What should he have done? Declared himself dictator for life?

A divided and occupied Germany, remember? Germany was a second stringer until the German unification, and after it described as the poor man of Europe until 2000. De Gaulle did everything to limit German expansion. He wanted a French slice of the occupiation, for a few years the Saar was used to directly feed French industry and a number of treaty like the Coal and Steal treaty were made specifically to ensure France could always keep an eye on Germany. Adenauer walked into it with open eyes because he wanted to file his application for Germany to rejoin the human species.

Algeria was originally a settlement colony where apartheid was practised, a bit like South Africa but slightly less brutal. De Gaulle realized that when that was no longer attainable, Algeria had no worth to France. That's why he held his famous "oil and vinegar" speech. I still believe this is the best speech to date in identifying the problem with multiculturalism, even better than the overdramatic "Rivers of blood" speech.

>hen studying inter-war Europe, it's difficult not to place some blame on the French for their dogged efforts to deny Germany any of the rights she wanted for herself.
Kek, Germany was already in max nationalism mode. This idea that Germany was punished too severely is a myth pushed and popularized by Hitler, when in reality Germany was punished too lightly. Austria and Turkey never became a problem ever again, but the still unified Germany remained a danger to all of Europe. This is why Ferdinand Foch said of the Treaty of Versailles "this is not a peace, it's an armistice for 20 years". His prediction was off by 70 days.

He was a big guy.

4u

>This is why Ferdinand Foch said
He said that because, in Clausewitzian terms, the Germans had not subordinated their will to that of their enemies'. You're thinking of 'punishing' Germany in terms of 'right' and 'wrong'. These constructs have no place in politics. We can argue endlessly about what's fair, it could not matter less. What matters is that when Germany defaulted on her loans because her economy was collapsing, France occupied German territory. When France showed up to Versailles, it demanded Germany west of the Rhine be broken up into an independent buffer state, essentially reverting the Treaty of Frankfurt. They actively plotted the breakaway of a Rhenish republic in the interwar period. Simply put, the French at Versailles were still fighting the war.

>gaullisme.net/europe-de-l-atlantique-a-l-oural.html
He was basically told during WW2 by Churchill that the UK will always choose the USA before Europe, the Sea before the Land. After that he saw the British as an American Trojan horse for the EU that's why he vetoed twice against Great-Britain

>You're thinking of 'punishing' Germany in terms of 'right' and 'wrong'. These constructs have no place in politics.
I'm indeed saying there are right and wrong decisions, but not morally. I'm saying that the Clausewitzian terms are correct: Germany had to be subjugated. This is why Foch also wanted to occupy Berlin before any peace was brokered. He wanted to show the Germans that they had been utterly defeated, which would've prevented the "stab in the back" myth from ever arising.

>When France showed up to Versailles, it demanded Germany west of the Rhine be broken up into an independent buffer state, essentially reverting the Treaty of Frankfurt. They actively plotted the breakaway of a Rhenish republic in the interwar period. Simply put, the French at Versailles were still fighting the war.
And they were correct in doing so. Germany had become too much of a threat, a threat the French realized could not be tolerated in at the heart of Europe. The Americans decided they were wrong and look at what happened!

>What matters is that when Germany defaulted on her loans because her economy was collapsing, France occupied German territory.
Oh please, as if those loans were that bad. Unlike Brest-Litovisk or the German demands after the Franco-Prussian war, it wasn't a single sum that was instantly demanded. The Treaty of Versailles even created a special commission that would calculate each year how much the Germans could afford to pay. That's why they were given a whooping NINETY YEARS to repay their debt.

In all ways, Versailles was too generous. German unity was unscathed, German military potential only limited in as far as the Germans themselves agreed to follow the treaty and German industry unhampered. Even the territories lost were for the most part already not ethnically Germany (>inb4 muh Danzig).

Versailles was enough to piss the Germans off but not enough to limit them in any real sense. Hence Foch's comment.

>A threat at the heart of europe

I never really understood this.
The french themselves where very big and powerful through all of european history, I can understand them seeing germany as a big player to be a threat to themselves, but not to all of europe as france itself also started several aggressive campaigns against neighboory in its history.
How was a united germany always a bigger threat then a united france or great britain?

I'm not saying it was unwise from a French perspective to keep Germany down - France had now been invaded twice in recent memory by the Germans. I'm arguing that it was unreasonable of the French to pursue this course of action without the support of their allies. If the Anglo-Americans had agreed to your method, it would of course have been effective. However, the British didn't at all agree that Germany should be broken up and humiliated. They saw Germany as a threat - however, they also saw them as their largest pre-war customer. The strict provisions of Versailles were eroded in the interwar period because the Brits allowed it to happen. We also have to remember that the disarmament clauses aimed at Germany were intended to be part of a generalized disarmament campaign by all of Europe; however, France did want to give up her army and England did not want to give up her navy (and were not obligated to do so).

Simply put, the Allies could have dismantled Germany and kept it reigned in entirely; OR, they could have occupied it, rebuilt it, and participated in a generalized disarmament campaign. By attempting to do both, they ensured neither would work. My original post could have been clearer - I was trying to criticize the French for lacking foresight, not being evil.

>How was a united germany always a bigger threat then a united france or great britain?
Two things, friendo

1. France, Britain, Russia and the other great powers had already come to a balance of power. There were still military conflicts, sure, but there was some agreement on who stood where. This is why for example the scramble for Africa was solved diplomatically rather than militarily, which each side respecting the boundaries of the other. Otherwise tiny Belgium could easily have massive Congo-Leopoldville taken from them.

Secondly, the means available to Germany as well as its ideology were far more destructive. Even if Napoleon actively tried to harm as many innocents as possible, he could never cause the same damage and trauma as either of the world wars.

The Germans arrived as a unified nation in the 20th century, but still played the game like it was the 16th century. They also developed a form of hypernationalism that degraded to racialism to compensate for the fact that the Germans had very little uniting history.

And perhaps there's something about German culture inherrently that makes them destructive in nature. Voltaire already noted that Prussia is an army with a government rather than vice versa, and even today Merkel wants to see Europe burn and trampled underfoot by immigrant hordes. Perhaps the German culture, with its harsh sounding language and crude philosophy, is simply by its very essence a destructive force that could not fully express itself until the German unification.

This is a very reasonable post that gets very weird near the end

The deeper down the rabbit hole you go, the weirder things get.

Yeah, it started as a good IR analysis and then turned into french butthurt

Your first point seems rather reasonable, two big powers fucking each other up for so long that they grew tired of it to the point that they institutionalised their wars to maintain a certain level of civility might be worried by a new great power arising- eager to assert itself and test its newfound power- for good reason.

Calling the german means inheritently more destructive however seems quiete biased.
While french rule in the rhineland is actually remembered as a quiet fair time, the french troops started raping widely and pillaging the moment they crossed protestant soil, leading to widespread terror and impoverishment followed by the devouring of a whole genration of young men by the means of forced conscription to be wasted in the following battles.
This being the most devastating time since the thirty year war in this region exlains the seething hatred for the french that was build up in the following years.
"dam the rhine with their corpses, let it, stowed by bones, bubble around the Pfalz so it shall be the border!-Germania to her children-" t. Kleist

One of the most aggressive examples of lyrical reaction to Napoleon but I havnt found yet expressions of the wish to expand and dominate beyond german borders in pre-Bismark literature which is the foundation of german unification.

>he could never cause the same damage
He did not posses machiene guns and bombers because it wasnt the 20th century yet, in relation to the means of this time it was still gruesome.

>racialism
Cecil Rhodes confession of faith has such elements already, the same goes for other people. Racialism was secondary to german nationalism and most early german nationalists dont even use the word race in their prosa as in the beginning a common cultural identity wasnt given yet. Racialists elements, later on were copied from the english as this was the latest fad in europe.
Hell, even the nazis who went full autistic on this matter had to admit that there were different german races/genetic clusters-19th century nationalists did not have the means to claim a common genetic identity so you wont find Schiller praising teutonic phenotypes.

Your last sentences rather seems like an accusation making historical bridges out of thin air. The current acceptance of refugees is the result of a 180° turn concerning blood and soil and not the result of malice but a mixture of selfloathing and patronizing attitude based on the belief to finally have found a way to be morally superiour and progressive, leading europe into something "better".

>This being the most devastating time since the thirty year war in this region exlains the seething hatred for the french that was build up in the following years.

Thirty years war actually killed more germans than ww2.

Nah. Estimations are hard to come by and the land was less densily populated while many churchbooks showing populationlists were burned, some regions got brutally decimated with 60% population loss and others did not suffer at all, such as the city of Cologne which stayed safe and unpillaged all the time.
Some say that in the year of 1600 between 15 and 17 people lived in germany.
In 1650 there were 10-13 left.
Others go quiet far and say 9 million died, while you also can read of estimates that speak of a 16 million to 10 million reduction.
Its a bit confusing, so I guess it suffices to say it were a lot.

5,5-6,9 million germans died due to ww2, so it depends on which historican you relie on.

Oh, I see now. You're French, and biased as fuck.

most based President the Republic has ever had

Fucking dictator.

Unironically the greatest statesman of the 20th century.

Which I guess isn't saying that much.

>he wanted to file his application for Germany to rejoin the human species.
I too enjoy Yes, Minister.
youtube.com/watch?v=qVrN-gkzVYI

>t. swedecuck who let ahmed rape his daugter and his woman

These shitskins aren't french and will never be. And what's wrong with racism ?

The americans should have shot him for threatening them upon entering paris in 44

French war aims (unless if you count Action française, which is like saying that the American Nazi party is representative of US foreign policy) never called for a break up of Germany, the furthest they pushed was the idea of annexing the Left Bank of the Rhine (in addition to territorial changes in the east, I do not know if Schleswig-Holstein was envisioned early on). Even there they varied by time, such as different degrees of annexation in Alsace-Lorraine; 1790, 1814, 1870 all being potential lines, whether Luxembourg would be annexed, whether the Left Bank of the Rhine would be separated from Germany (either as buffer states, protectorates, or an unlikely possibility of annexed territories) or demilitarized (as happened). Breaking up Germany as a whole was never seriously considered, with my source for this being "War and Punishment: The Causes of War Termination and the First World War". Wikipedia is not very reliable in such regards.

There are a variety of other areas where the French were more conciliatory than the British and even Americans too; I don't know what the naval positions were like but I presume the British were the most focused there, the French army proposal was for 200,000 - of an admittedly conscript army - rather than the Anglo-American 100,000, French reparation sums - at the treaty negotiations itself, not post-war before posts come about the Rhineland occupation - were lower than the British and at times the Americans, and initially very modest since they envisioned Allied economic cooperation as providing for post-war recovery. There are some other aspects such as the Americans instituting Article 231, but those are generally minor.

It isn't that France didn't have hostilities and tensions with Germany, but that it wasn't a singular action, French policy varied by government and situation instead of being only on a singular anti-German axis.

>The Americans decided they were wrong and look at what happened!

The Americans had no say in post-WW1 peace, they were irrelevant as shit
France wanted Germany dismantled and Britain wanted Germany totally unpunished, so something in between was decided

>How was a united germany always a bigger threat then a united france or great britain?

Unlike France and Britain, Germany had been united for a mere few decades by the time Versailles happened
It was fresh in the minds and wouldn't have been hard to undo

He was Dutch

Nope, he was Gallic
The current French president is Dutch

He collaborated with the Bolsheviks and gave them free reign to install a reign of terror in France during "liberation", as communist bands executed anyone who they considered to be on the right of Lavrenty Beria. Later, he betrayed the pied-noirs and left them and their harki allies to be raped and dispossessed by savage Arabs.

His economic policies were unsustainable and are partly responsible for the current stagnation and corruption that grips the heart of the French Republic. He was also the one who transformed the European Union from a crypto-Catholic entity as envisioned by Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer and Alcide de Gasperi, into a socialist behemoth designed by the Stalinist intellectual Alexandre Kojeve. Speaking of stalinism, for all the talk he was a "conservative", De Gaulle financed the most left-wing militant intellectuals and artists of France in the 60s. Too bad for him that came to bite him in the ass, but he deserved it, he trusted the commies.

At least he stoped the commies from executing Petain, who was the true hero of France in the 20th century.

He was born in Rijsel, a Dutch City
Learn your history m8

« Ce qu’il faut dire aux Algériens, ce n’est pas qu’ils ont besoin de la France, mais que la France a besoin d’eux. C’est qu’ils ne sont pas un fardeau ou que, s’ils le sont pour l’instant, ils seront au contraire la partie dynamique et le sang jeune d’une nation française dans laquelle nous les aurons intégrés. J’affirme que dans la religion musulmane rien ne s’oppose au point de vue moral à faire du croyant ou du pratiquant musulman un citoyen français complet. Bien au contraire, sur l’essentiel, ses préceptes sont les mêmes que ceux de la religion chrétienne, fondement de la civilisation occidentale. D’autre part, je ne crois pas qu’il existe plus de race algérienne que de race française [...]. Je conclus : offrons aux musulmans d’Algérie l’entrée et l’intégration dans une France dynamique. Au lieu de leur dire comme nous le faisons maintenant : « Vous nous coûtez très cher, vous êtes un fardeau », disons leur : « Nous avons besoin de vous . Vous êtes la jeunesse de la Nation » [...] Comment un pays qui a déploré longtemps de n’avoir pas assez de jeunes pourrait-il dévaluer le fait d’en avoir cinq ou six millions ? »

Intervention du député Jean-Marie Le Pen pour soutenir le maintien de l’Algérie française, le 28 janvier 1958, à l’Assemblée Nationale.

Do you believe the shit you're spewing? Go read a fucking book.

I recommend MacMillan's on the 1919 Versailles peace conference.

>Jean-Marie Le Pen
Whoo boy! Guess that proves nothing makes you more racist than actually dealing with other races.

He was a torturer during the Algerian War, he certainly had to deal with "arabs" (who aren't arabs actually but Berbers). Also, he certainly isn't a racist.

a french city in french flanders... so he was flemish, not dutch...

>He was a torturer during the Algerian War
I don't think that was ever confirmed. That said, he even supported an Algerian Muslim deputy for Paris. He was certainly a lot more pro-Muslim (at least the Muslims that were still loyal to France). He only had a change of heart when Muslims actually arrived in the French mainland in significant numbers.

The last great man, gave the USA and Britbottles his middle finger

It was confirmed and orders were given by Mitterand himself (who was supposed to be that anti-racist, left-winger president in the 80s).

I don't think he had a change of heart. He's coherent. Islam - and other religions for that matter - must be kept private in a secular state and it's certainly not the case when muslims pray in the streets.

His daughter, however, seems clearly islamophobic. That or she understood that she could gain more votes by using islam as a scapegoat.

he played to his countrymen's ego
the donald trump of his day

>Left wing multiculti president gave orders to torture Muslims earlier in his career
>Antisemitic textbook example racist is down with the muzzies

The fuck.You'd think French muzzies would love him rather than demonize him. He loves Muslims and hate Jews, Algerians should fucking love him.

>And what's wrong with racism ?

The day you experience it go ask yourself that

The medias and the left are extremely powerful in France. American SJW were heavily influenced by French "thinkers" like Bourdieu, Foucault, Beauvoir or Badiou.

As a black guy living in Europe I have to say: if racism bothers you so much, why not move to a region of the planet where your ethnic group is the majority? Hell, minorities in Europe are already self-segregating. London isn't an English city anymore, nor is Saint-Denis French, Molenbeek Belgian, Bijlmer Dutch or Kreuzberg Greman.

>Algerians should fucking love him.

lmao

bait post but kys nigger

No one actually want to live in the whitest countries of europe like ukraine moldova or belarus.
Hell we're being flodded by poles when their country is 90+% white.

I experience racism everyday, but told I can't be persecuted because I'm "whyte"
Every young American that applies to public or private colleges that accept federal or state dollars is racist towards European Americans
The government is racist towards European Americans.
Businesses are pressured by the government and niech groups to be racist against European Americans and men.

>No one actually want to live in the whitest countries of europe like ukraine moldova or belarus.
Britain and France were once just as white. And with Poland's economy becoming stronger and stronger, it's only a matter of time before third worlders start noticing it's not a bad place to live either.

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marie_Le_Pen

>Le Pen has been accused and convicted several times[16] at home and abroad of xenophobia and anti-Semitism. A Paris court found in February 2005 that his verbal criticisms, such as remarks disparaging Muslims in a 2003 Le Monde interview, were "inciting racial hatred",[16] and he was fined 10,000 euros and ordered to pay an additional 5,000 euros in damages to the Ligue des droits de l'homme (League for Human Rights). The conviction and fines were upheld by the Court of Cassation in 2006.[17]

15 grand for speech. What a shithole.

>No one actually want to live in the whitest countries of europe
What do you think Great Britain, Sweden, etc. looked like 70 years ago?

Do you also blame all your shortcomings on the jews and Obama?

Freedom of speech only matters as long as nobody's feelings are hurt :^)

No, just the developments of neo-conservativsm and progressivism that now rears it's ugly head.
>muh /pol/
Get the fuck out

He was very tall :)

wahhhh its the jews fault I'm a virgin, clearly a conspiracy to destroy the white race

Where did I say anything about Jews? Or the white race?
There is no such thing as a "white race".

Asian Americans have everything you said to a greater extent but they don't fuckingh complain

They actually don't.
Their biggest pressure is from colleges.
But the government doesn't discriminate on them.

I kek'd pretty hard at this

>Someone pissed on that guy's carpet and he isn't complaining, so don't complain when someone pisses on your carpet.

>Allies and Soviets

Soviets were apart of the Allies, you triple autist.

Your simile makes no sense lmao

Asian Americans on average contribute more in taxes, way less in crime, more in pussy bad neglect their own men. We're getting the shit deal and you guys continue scorning us because we let you and you get surprised when we call you out for your whining

> this is what /pol/acks actually belive

Move along, degenerate , and take your (You)

he had a lot of [spoiler]gall[/spoiler]

France was all about "if you are like us in cultre and manner you are us" in theory.

In practice in faltered hard

>In practice in faltered hard
Not really. What failed was that they assumed the American multicultural system in the 1960s. At the height of that idea, it wasn't so much "everyone is welcome to come to France as long as you learn the language". At its height, the idea was "we come to your lands, destroy your institutions, abolish your religion, throw away your language. You now learn French, become Catholic, learn our history, respect our institutions and maybe, just MAYBE, you might be able to send your son to Paris to study law so he can come back and become part of the colonial administration".

Prior to and during De Gaulle, the French tried to bring France to Africa. After his death, the French tried to bring Africa to France. Only the latter resulted in faillure.

Brexiter before it was cool

Same shit exactly.

You are conflating and compressing over 100 years of colonization into a single strategy. The point of colonization was never about repatriating the Arabs (well maybe at least in some crazy political groups), and liberation wasn't about our awesome culture.

>The point of colonization was never about repatriating the Arabs
It was about the mission civilisatrice though. That and profit.