Charles de Gaulle

So Canada took quite a big role in world war 2 considering the size of the country's population and all. Among the soldiers English Canadians were over represented and the French Canadians were underrepresented.
So in his desire to show gratefulness to this nation which sent its men to die for his De Gaulle flew over to Canada and held a speech in which he among other things said "Vive le Québec libre ", fueling ethnic violence in Canada.

So, essentially, a French Churchill?

He's like French Mussolini or French Churchill

I've heard it mentioned a few times that he was feared as another Bonaparte of sorts in the post-war era, but is there any truth to this? You seem to know your stuff.

Churchill is hardly viewed as a mixed figure in any public capacity even now. It'll probably change in the future though.
There are similarities though, and no one can say that either one of these two didn't love their country.

I hardly know anything, my absurdly limited knowledge comes from absorbing tangential political stuff from Cold War military history and his Wikipedia article.

Fair enough, I'll do a bit of digging on him

He was right about the Uk joining the EU, he was right about the arab. He was based as fuck and the proof that only france can into benevolent dictatorship.

Across France, de Gaulle is revered under the guise of being a providential hero, which he very much became in his service to France, but elsewhere, the opinions afflicted on him are of either deep respect or complete resentment, which isn't something shrouded in mystery, since he was very much known to privilege the needs of France before that of others.

Throughout WW2, while he did already exemplify what France would be capable of once it recoordinated it's army around the use of tanks by being a brilliant commander, quickly being promoted to Secretary of State for his popularity to the French for his victories, he later was relegated to only being a figurehead. However, he angered the Allies enough with his stubbornness (raiding Saint Pierre et Miquelon to retrieve it from Vichyist France, therefore alienating the Allies more to Vichy) that the Allies had to nominate him as the head of Free France, a role that was key to him being hailed as the leader of the French troops abroad and the Free resistance. And him being ower the acknowledgement could culminate in a more functional resistance that enabled France to be deemed a free country upon its liberation by virtue of having freed such a vast array of land through the partisans there.

De Gaulle would remain colored with such stubbornness at having the greatness of France be his agenda when he was summoned to be president in 1958. He pioneered the idea that France should be led by a strong leader to have the influence of America and the URSS within the country, and concocted the constitution of the Fifth Republic with his own hand.

So basically he was a true patriot like any leader should be?

How did France avoid getting an Allied Control Council government anyway?

To anchor France in such an independence, he mobilized France into becoming a nuclear power, and launched the first experimental bomb on algerian fucking shit as it should be in french tradition. Rather than deplete France more in fighting Algeria and tarnish her image some more in a world where he envisioned that France would steadily have to grow more solitary, which would of course be translated in him being named a traitor by his former comrade in arms. However, this defeat, de Gaulle would convert into an opportunity to befriend the former colonies of France, by layering France's former image as an oppressive colonizer into that of a friendly beneficiary. He strengthened the ties France entertained with Germany, which should have everyone abiding to the notion that wasn't as deathly butthurt as some would hope to depict him, and the relationship alive to this day between both countries are the heirs to his friendship with Adenauer. De Gaulle refused that american imperialism should sacrifice the relevance that France would spell on the world, and his decision to quit NATO too was fueled by his belief that France should not be burdened with the risks that it should trail the Americans in every of their foreign diplomacy steps (-> was scared the Americans would compromise France into a war with the URSS). Lastly, I'd say that him refusing the British their entry into the EU has been verified as a well-thought decision, rather than a bitterness-orientates scheme by him, considering the Brexit of this year.

De Gaulle that said, also has his opponents in France for engorging the scale of the french resistance in the history books, but I'd contest that that had to be a lie of circumstance, considering that France might've devolved into a civil war had it not had the resistance as some ideal to which each ideology could identify themselves. Also for refusing the responsibility of France in the Shoah, but considering that the Third Republic's vote to restructure the republic into a dictatorship was an illegal one, I'd consider that the Vichy government was indeed illegitimate, and that its crimes cannot wholly be weighed on France.

And there 3/3.

What we're taught of him in France anyways.

>How did France avoid getting an Allied Control Council government anyway?
French commando on D-Day.

French army throughout the Provence landings.

Liberation of french cities and villages by their own partisans, which I wouldn't weigh as such a feat considering that the germans were retreating in either case.

And to thank them for their service in Africa and Italy.

But really had it not been for de Gaulle fidgeting this much about France needing to be ranked as an allied country, France might've been crushed into being an occupied country regardless of those contributions.

>1/2

Depends when exactly you're referring to.

In a more obvious sense, there is the fact that in 1945-6, De Gaulle was the leader of France but had never been elected or given a true 'legitimate'-legal reason for being in charge (part of the reason why FDR disliked him so much). So take a military officer who placed himself at the head of France on the basis of wartime achievements and some vague sense of being the providential man, and the comparisons with Bonaparte are east to make. In 1958, while France is deeply embroiled in the bloody Algerian war, some of the leading officers there stage a coup in reaction to the prospect of a government being formed back in Paris which would open negotiations with the Algerians. The putschists call for De Gaulle to take charge of France, and long story short it happens because politicians in the metropole feel like he's the only chance of avoiding an actual military takeover of government. So De Gaulle wasn't involved in the pustch, but he came to power thanks to it - hence Mitterrand calling the ensuing 5th Republic 'le coup d'état permanent'.

Read his autobiography and some other stuff about him. He was a genius in most of what he did, speaking objectively, though it was always in the interest of France, sometimes at the detriment of other countries.
Anglos kind of hate him, but had he not done what he did France would have ended up occupied territory.

>Churchill is hardly viewed as a mixed figure

Because you live in the anglosphere, De Gaulle is seen as a rolemodel for all french politicians, left wingers or right wingers alike, there's not a mixed view of De Gaulle in France, he is the last great statesman and frenchman

>Because you live in the anglosphere
I don't, actually.
I realize there's bad stuff about Churchill out there, but it hasn't entered the public consciousness inside most of the West yet.

>2/3 actually*

On a more 'fundamental' sense, you have to look at the sort of political ideas De Gaulle held and the kind of regime the 5th Republic is. Bear in mind that by 1958, France had been a parliamentary republic for more than 80 years (excluding the Vichy 'intermezzo'). Before that had been the Second Empire, the July Monarchy, the Restauration, and Napoleon I himself.

De Gaulle disdained the III/IV Republics in large part because they were, according to him, regimes which subordinated politics to petty party conflicts. These parties had in his eyes shown themselves to be patently unfit to providing strong leadership in the 1930s, culminating in the 1940 disaster. In 1945-6, De Gaulle left the Provisional Government because he saw that French politics were returning to their pre-war state of affairs, ie 'petty party politics' and the associated "waltz of ministries' with cabinet changes every couple of years.

So on the one hand De Gaulle detested parliamentary democracy, but on the other he was a staunch believer in the sovereignty of the people in its entirety, ie in democracy of some sorts: so no return to absolute monarchy or July Monarchy was in question. Instead De Gaulle imagined creating a strong president, who provide decisive leadership to the country himself and would not be subordinate to parliament like a prime minister is. De Gaulle's vision of democracy was directly tied to direct voting, which is why he quickly held a referendum (1962 i think?) for the president of the 5th Republic be directly elected by the French: the leader is one who enjoys a special, direct relationship with the people, unlike PMs who are the product of parliamentary parties.
Notice that he used a referendum to do this: several other big political projects were introduced in this manner, and De Gaulle resigned in 1969 after having lost a referendum, which he took as meaning that he had lost the 'special connection' with the French.

>3/3

So De Gaulle was someone who imagined the ideal form of politics as being by a leader, enjoying the direct approval of the people as expressed by the election via universal suffrage, and who often used referendum to directly tie the people to his leadership.

Anyone educated French political history would have immediately recognised the similarities with Napoleon III: strong leader, elected president by universal suffrage (which moderate republicans had introduced in 1848 as a sort of compromise with radicals). And Louis-Napoleon, who was supposed to be a simple figurehead, as we know quickly became an authoritarian leader. Furthermore, Napoleon III made frequent use of plebiscites (aka referendums: both are yes/no questions asked directly to voters) during his rule to legitimise it. In contrast, the III/IV Republics never really made use, as far as I know, of plebiscites/referenda, nor did they invest supreme political power in a single individual directly elected leader. The last 80 years of French democracy had been that of parliamentary democracy, and De Gaulle was very clearly going to change this in ways which were remarkably similar to Napoleon III.

So take these deep political similiarities and combine them with the appearances of De Gaulle's rise to power in WW2 and in 1958, and you realise it's not that much of a stretch to compare De Gaulle to Bonaparte. As far as is known, despite his Bonapartist/Caesarist tendencies and his marked rejection of any independent radio/television, De Gaulle never considered becoming an autocrat of some sorts. But that isn't something his political opponents could be sure of.

I've been reading a bit into French history in the last year and this is interesting stuff, thanks.

Do you have any wartime anecdotes / stories / impressions of people at the time of him and his leadership? I recall reading here that for a long time Petain was a more popular leader than him, for example.

Thanks both, really insightful. I get how he ended up with a "mixed" reputation now, at least in the Anglosphere. His disdain for party politics + vague ethnonationalism makes him sound like some form of embryonic fascist, had things gone differently in the 30s. Strong leadership, executing the 'sovereign will of the people' and so on. I had vague awareness of similarities between De Gaulle and Napoleon III beyond the use of referendums and it all finally makes sense, thank you.

Would you say he gets a more Churchillean or Rooseveltian reception nowadays; that is, universally acclaimed "strong war leader" who "had his faults" or a more ambivalent reputation, more closely dependent on an inidividual's politics?

probably overall mixed due to high difference in opinion between countries
he was for a strong united europe as a balance between the US and soviet bloks (preferably with france in a leading position), so if people like that stance they're more likely to have a good opinion of him.
another group that can arguably understand him are nationalists (as in not the modern nazi interpretation of the word) as while they may not be french nationalists, they'll understand his stance

Op here, thanks.
What i knew of him before is pretty much your second set op posts (mostly because i read about the history of the French political systems).
Wonderful posts.
Could you tell me more about the empty chair in the European commission? I'm embarrassed to say i skipped out on that part because it wasn't needed for my exam.
I respect him a lot.

Why do it feel like facism but doing right?

I love how French consider their withdrawal from Algeria as a De Gaulle victory.

From the French POV, I can certainly see him as a strong leader that the nation needed, but the dude was full of himself. I read a lot of French history and despite admiring their achievements and aspects of their culture, I really can't fathom their way of thinking. I'm not even Anglo (though I was born and raised in the US as the son of immigrants), there's just something about the French that really rubs me the wrong way. Their pre-20 century relations with other nations just reeks of Gallic chauvinism.

After ww2, colonial war couldn't be win anymore, he did the best thing he can in the moment, algeria was lost, the Russian and the American were supporting Alger independance.

Withdrawal was the only sensible option. Keeping Algeria would have meant pretty much permanent terrorism, for just a few towns and a nuclear testing ground.
>the dude was full of himself.
Not overly so. Why would you think that?

>Their pre-20 century relations with other nations just reeks of Gallic chauvinism.
But De Gaulle loved Adenauer and was completely in favor of a unified union. You're not making sense.

>unified union
europe.

He was a traitor fag that deserted his own troops so he could get his ass into great britain, then when the americans liberated france, he threatened to have the resistance shoot at them if he and his twenty faggots that landed in the 5th wave in normandy wouldn't enter paris first...

He was a complete buffoon, just like Churchill.

>mfw Operation Menace

a menace indeed

...

>le hide in the hills until the nazis are gone man

This isn't /int/. Kindly fuck off.

This thread was really good.
And it's over.

I said PRE-20 century. 20th century France I could understand better within an international context. Especially his reapproachment with West Germany but his blocking of the UK into the ECC was kinda dickish though somewhat understandable. France in the Middle Ages up to the 19th century was this overbearing snob who loved pushing into other people's business. Particularly England (Normans, Plantagenets), the German states, Italy, Spain.

As for De Gaulle being full of himself, he just had to push the envelope with the Anglo-American nations. I completely agree with his socio-political stance in ensuring that France would not succumb to becoming a vassal of the US, but his NATO policies were moronic like wanting Algeria to be covered under it. Or his vocal support for a "free Quebec" while simultaneously repressing Breton nationalism. My grandfather was involved with Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg back in the 1960's and he took particular issue with De Gaulle's betrayal of the Celtic peoples.

That anecdote from Dean Rusk asking De Gaulle if the removal of US military personnel included the 50,000 Americans buried in France really sums up how insufferable he could be.

De Gaulle was the quintessential example of a French pussy. Plenty of bluster and charisma, but never any real talent or nerve for war. Much better suited to politics, like his British analog Churchill. Both were shockingly incompetent commanders.

can you tell me about the different celtic movements in present day france?

What are you doing on Veeky Forums? Go back to /int/

France pre-Nappy was post 1871 germany exept sucesful.

>someone has a dissenting opinion
>he doesn't belong here

get over yourself m8. I'll post whatever I want. De Gaulle isn't even a particularly important figure in the 20th century.

It's not about the dissenting opinion, it's in the way you talk.
You're not discussing, you're shitposting.

The only Celtic movement in France is the Bretons since they're the descendants of Britons who fled the Anglo-Saxon invasions. My grandfather and some of his Welsh buddies had contact with social-democrat liberalists in Brittany during the 60's since they had a common ancestry and were comparing notes. My grandfather, ironically enough, was born in Argentina in Y Wladfa and it wasn't until he was 19 when he visited Wales.

> his blocking of the UK into the ECC was kinda dickish
The english brought it upon themselves when they wanted preferential treatment within the EU.

> Or his vocal support for a "free Quebec" while simultaneously repressing Breton nationalism
It made sense with his point of view. France is France, and Québec was/is France under another nation.

>That anecdote from Dean Rusk asking De Gaulle if the removal of US military personnel included the 50,000 Americans buried in France really sums up how insufferable he could be.
Remember at that time the americans wanted to put France under allied command and treated it as if it was an enemy nation.
The bit about the 50k americans is particuliarly moronic to me, from a french POV. The americans entered the war after most of the fighting mostly out of a sense of profit.

You see, I bet to differ. While I think the Revolutinoary and Napoleonic periods are fascinating to read about, they were probably the worst examples of French ethnocentrism. All those countless lives lost because of misplaced revolutionary zeal and a megalomaniac's dreams of glory.

France also deserved to get their shit pushed in 1871. That's what you get for going to war over flimsy reasons such as that. Then again, these are the same people who conquered Algeria because the dey smacked the French ambassador with a fly-swatter.

>, they were probably the worst examples of French ethnocentrism. All those countless lives lost because of misplaced revolutionary zeal and a megalomaniac's dreams of glory.
You realize most of those wars were defensive on the french side, right?

Do you think if Quebec seceded from Canada (not talking about how possible of a scenario it is), would it be an independent country with strong ties to France, or would it outright seek unification?
Seeing as France still holds Guiana and a bunch of islands.

>The americans entered the war after most of the fighting mostly out of a sense of profit.
You see it's shit like this that makes me wish the US allowed the krauts to curbstomp France in both World Wars. You have something of an argument for WWI because Wilson was a fuckwit who broke his election promise, but for the guys that fought in D-Day and the subsequent battles, fuck the French. If they could've done better, they should've liberated themselves to begin with. Oh but wait, Vichy actively collaborated with the Nazis in rounding up Jews and even fired on US troops in North Africa. So fuck frog-croakers.

France itself is a collection of different identities and peoples. The southern regions had more in common with Catalans than Parisians. Alsace-Lorraine were Germans and Brittany was a semi-independent Celtic polity that got absorbed into royal French control. Quebec was a lost colony that France itself abandoned in the 18th century and you don't go around stirring that sort of shit after thousands of Canadians fought heroically in BOTH world wars. The best troops pound-for-pound in the Great War were from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. So De Gaulle took a collective piss on the Canadians that fought to defend French freedom.

French Revolutionary I whole-heartedly agree. Napoleonic Wars, however, were a reaction to Napoleon's political manuevering and crackdown of trade with Britain. The war in Spain and Portugal can't be justified.

>monarcucks try to btfo actually free people
>get blown the fuck out by corsican manlet
>corsican manlet takes power and understandably manipulates situation so that monarcucks can't try to harm free france again
>eternal anglo keeps funding monarcucks that keep dying in droves against free men until everyone in europe is dead, and then land and deal the killing blow, claiming all credit
seems defensive to me

Who's to say? De Gaulle would certainly have wanted to hold a referendum. I'm not québécois and don't know enough about how they felt at that time to guess it accurately.

Now you're just being irrationnally angry.
Fighting in a war doesn't mean you're forever right in everything you do. Québec still didn't belong to Canada, De Gaulle was absolutely right about that.

> crackdown of trade with Britain
You must know why that took place. Napoleonics were just a continuation of the revolutionary wars that only took place because they were won by France.

>Alsace-Lorraine were Germans
Fuck off, at best alsace lorraine a sub-branch of south german with heavy french cultural apport, also:
>Alsace lorraine
>Under heritical "protestant" rule
>"German" pan-nationalism
>Not prussian militarist imperialism
The frankfort parlment was the only true german pan-nationalism, bismarck "Kulturkampf" isn't my culture he certainly a fucking Junker and a heretic as well. Hail the pope.

Nah, they wouldnt go that far, Quebec and France have been separated for a long time.

At best they're unite in their will to shit on the bong.

Make the sprudo

Oh please, that's the worst apologism for Napoleon's wars and I say this as someone who avidly reads about the guy.

Napoleon had his chance in peace with Amiens, but he should've withdrawn from the Low Countries since Britain would view it as a threat to their national security. And his armies plundered the fuck out of Europe and imposed huge indemnities.

maybe britain shouldn't have declared war on revolutionary france hm...

Then you should know Napoléon only wanted a peace that didn't leave France unarmed against the british.

muricans still are butthurt over him after all this time, one more proof he did well.

Doesn't matter. French cucked itself in the long-term with its immigration and is going to destroy itself by the end of this century.

>history board

Napoleon's peace only benefited himself and the French people by exploiting his conquests and satellites. The Polish sorta gained something from Napoleon via the Duchy of Warsaw.

Why should you benefit from a peace when you're not only the one who declared war, but also lost?
Besides, the rhine confederation would have been amazing.

Well he pretty much single handedly kept the French Right from collectively getting a Day of the Rope. it's actually quite surprising when you look into De Gaulle how well he could have fit into Vichy France politically speaking(barring the obvious disagreement about surrendering). His grand mythologizing of the Resistance was a remarkably successful attempt to downplay the collaborationist tendencies that had infected the French Right and helped avoid what could have devolved into near civil war. I find it hard to imagine a more republican/liberal leader of France being nearly so generous.

I really can't get this argument : in your developped, educated nation, how could you not understand Quebec's wish for independance ? It doesn't have to make sense from an economic POV to understand their demands, knowing thr history of oppression and antagonism Brit Canada imposed on French Canada.

>communists with connections to the kgb blowing up rich peoples mailboxes
>"ethnic violence"

Many people seem to be really impressed with him when they met him.
But even in France he garnered a lot of ressentment because of moves that were thought of as "political" and not sincere. IE : My grandfather refused his Résistance Medal because the Général was giving these away to résistants of " the last hour ", desacrating the honour of those medals.
Also, if you can, look into assassination attemps, like Colombey, and the motives behind.

ungrateful charlatan, instead of kissing England and American ass for saving the Fr*nch he thought it would be better to invent the myth that Fr*nce owes nothing to them

makes me sick, but if anyone deserves such a cretin, it's the bloody Fr*nch

Well now I just know you're shitposting, because De Gaulle was, in fact, a good - see I'm not being too biased, not saying "great" - commander. Look up his actions in the Fall of France, his battles were always tactical victories.

Who isn't ?

did it really take you three of his shitposts to determine that?

Didn't realize it was the same guy. Let's not shit up a (mostly) great thread any longer.

How dare he try to protect his nation's interests. Gtfo Nigel

He killed the lion of verdun, i will never forgive

He didn't ya silly goose.

De Gaulle issued a pardon for Pétain, that enabled him to end his days in prison rather than by the guillotine.

>URSS
The what?

This.

Fuck de Gaulle.

When he was storming down the halls of some government building in 1942 Africa, he bumped into a cleaning lady, who after seeing who she bumped into exclaimed "Mon Dieu!"
De Gaulle apologized and added "Next time, mon Général will suffice"

He saved not only France but probably all of Europe from becoming a full blown American colony.

Honestly the greatest statesman of the 20th century.

Also he makes Anglos eternally ass-ravaged.

Quebec and France have nothing in common other than a language and even then Quebec French is different enough to be its own dialect. During both world wars a disproportionately small number of French Canadians served in the Canadian military overseas, in fact conscription was such a massive hot potato here because the Quebecers didn't want to be forced to fight. They didn't have the kind of ties most English-speaking Canadians still had with the Old World and made a stink when compulsory service was brought up.

A lot of that stems from an inferiority complex they've passed down each generation ever since the Brits conquered them and (foolishly really) let them stay instead of kicking them out like they did the Acadians. Quebecers have this sense of entitlement that they deserve all the benefits of being part of Canada without actually being in Canada, as it stands they already get special treatment (pic related, they're the biggest drain on "equalization payments"). I hope the Bloc Quebecois falling from power in recent years is a sign that new generations of French Canadians are ready to grow up and get over all that, I mean the rest of us have pretty much forgotten that Quebec brought terrorism to Canada long before it was ever an issue in the US.

>Québec still didn't belong to Canada

What are you talking about, Quebec was ceded to Britain (and Canada) by treaty after the Seven Years War. Quebec was never an independent entity, in one form or another it has always been under rule, whether it was France, Great Britain or Canada. De Gaulle was way out of line for his little speech but thankfully the damage he did has largely been mended over time.

If you want to learn about De Gaulle, read "The Last Great Frenchman". Phenomenal english language book .

One other thing to consider: The Bonapartist party in France largely evolved into the Gaullist party during the 20th century.

The wars in the Peninsula and Russia were the only ones Napoleon declared. L'ancien regime wanted to crush the revolution and Napoleon with it.

Please, go elsewhere with your anglo propaganda that everyone has read 100 times

>i wish the US allowed the krauts to curbstomp France in both world Wars
Yeah, you GRACEFUL Americans sure did save our asses in WW1! It's not like we fought the hardest years of the war on our own and lost the most men before you cunts rolled through and defeated a bunch of demoralized beaten down Germans!

Clap yourself on the back you burger eating fuck .

>Napoleon's peace only benefited himself and the french people
>Leader of France negotiates deals most beneficial for his country
huh... really makes you think...

B E A D Y
E
A
D
Y

oh great another low quality ww2 thread