Tell of Charles De Gaulle

There seemed that there might be some interest on a thread about De Gaulle from the thread on the future of the History forum. So here it is. The only thread on him I could find in the History Articles list is this one, which doesn't actually tell a lot about De Gaulle himself.


Charles De Gaulle is someone most people have heard of. But he's not talked about a lot in the US that I've heard. I don't think he's well loved in the US. But I don't know to what extent that is fair. De Gaulle did what he did, as best I can tell, because he thought it was the best for France. And as he was a French leader, that should only be expected. We have a tendency to so thoroughly put our own interests first, that we see others as an obstacle if they don't do things in the way that we would have them do it. We forget that they both have their own views of their own nation's interests, and their own egos and approaches to dealing with it.

As far as I can tell, De Gaulle rose to prominence based on his force of personality, and the deficit of other strong French leaders after French defeat by Germany. Afterward his priorities were for France to be 1) independent of the other great powers, and 2) not just a independent, but a great power in its own right. Of course first Germany had to be driven out. De Gaulle in some cases clashed with other Allied leaders because the way he felt was best to go about that differed from what others thought.

So I'm interested in what people think of De Gaulle, mainly his war years and his post war leadership of France. To what extent did De Gaulle mold modern France? What are his lasting influences on it?

Interesting link, though it's pretty old and much of the discussion is somewhat childish. EdwardTKing's post is very good.

I'm going to get old my old books and write a monster post on De Gaulle later, when I get the chance. Suffice it to say, for now, that De Gaulle was actually reasonably popular amongst the American public during WWII, but FDR - one of America's worst presidents when it comes to foreign policy, despite the hard-on people have for him - hated him, based on... You know, there really wasn't any logical, rational reason behind FDR's dislike of De Gaulle. He just hated him from the start, without even having met the man, and endeavoured to screw him over at every opportunity. But that sort of emotional stupidity was pretty par for the course where FDR was concerned. Despite all this, De Gaulle was the right man for the job, and he proved it time and again.

I think too few people are aware that France had a coup d'état in 1958. That's really quite recent, not much older than the most recent successful Greek coup.

Of course, it's normally reported as 'de Gaulle saved France from a coup'. But IIRC, de Gaulle accepted power from a civilian government as paratroopers were en route to Paris with the intention of installing him as President. Sounds rather like a coup to me.

To what extent did De Gaulle mold modern France?

I'd say he had a vast influence. Before de Gaulle, the right was weak and divided, with all kinds of crazy (with hindsight) monarchist ideas floating round. In the post-war era, the Gaullists have been what Brits call 'the natural party of government', and because France's top business executives, civil servants and politicians tend to be the same people playing musical chairs, that means more wider social influence than occupying the presidential palace.

However, I'm not clear about the extent to which France has had a US/UK-style backlash to the '60s cultural revolution. I don't see much Gaullist opposition to this things, and I don't know whether that's a legacy of the General or not.

De Gaulle was certainly installed in power by a coup, but what a lot of people forget is that De Gaulle never actually had anything to do with it. When France went to hell under the horrible Fourth Republic, people - especially the military - began clamouring for De Gaulle's return. De Gaulle, at this time, was living well outside the public sphere. It was basically a case of "take power myself, or name my choice as President" for De Gaulle. With his typical self-confidence, he chose himself. That's still a far cry from, say Suharto or Napoleon.

So I'm interested in what people think of De Gaulle, mainly his war years and his post war leadership of France. To what extent did De Gaulle mold modern France? What are his lasting influences on it?

Click to expand...

Personally, I don't know a lot about what his impact was on France, but within Canada the view on him is rather...complex.

Generally he is respected for what he did in WWII, but he is not that popular (outside Quebec sovereigntists) after he decided to shove his big nose into Canadian politics in 1867.

say1988 said:

Personally, I don't know a lot about what his impact was on France, but within Canada the view on him is rather...complex.

Generally he is respected for what he did in WWII, but he is not that popular (outside Quebec sovereigntists) after he decided to shove his big nose into Canadian politics in 1867.

Click to expand...

Didn't think he was quite that old

but yeah, I don't Think "Vive le Québec libre!" was seen as positive in the rest of Canada.

That was typical De Gaulle. He also angered the British in 1940 with a very frank, insightful political insight into the existence of Vichy France which (correctly) implied that there was an unspoken agreement between Britain and Germany to allow Vichy's neutrality for the time being. This was in total disregard for how it would make his British allies look in the American press, which understandably pissed Churchill off to no end.

ı have a book written probably by the son of a British diplomat , Cripps he might be and was probably the ambrassador to Moscow during WW2 . Anyhow apparently sometime in the middle of the war Roosevelt and Churchill discussed creating 3 countries from Metropolitan France . That de Gaulle was a strong character dedicated to glory of his country , despite all the stuff ı have against him , might be a reason for the Anglosaxon antipathy to him .

Lord Baal said:

I'm going to get old my old books and write a monster post on De Gaulle later, when I get the chance. Suffice it to say, for now, that De Gaulle was actually reasonably popular amongst the American public during WWII, but FDR - one of America's worst presidents when it comes to foreign policy, despite the hard-on people have for him - hated him, based on... You know, there really wasn't any logical, rational reason behind FDR's dislike of De Gaulle. He just hated him from the start, without even having met the man, and endeavoured to screw him over at every opportunity. But that sort of emotional stupidity was pretty par for the course where FDR was concerned. Despite all this, De Gaulle was the right man for the job, and he proved it time and again.

Click to expand...

Well, de Gaulle's brand of maintaining French independance and relevance (at a time when French Sovereign Territory consisted of a few rooms in London) was to aggressively promote French nationalism, and therefore to violently resist any attempts by foreign powers to control him or France - which obviously didn't sit well with either Britain or America, who were trying to, well, run a war in which de Gaulle was to small a player to be allowed a major seat, but too large a player to be well-employed running around on his own initiative.

FDR hated De Gaulle before America entered the war.

Let's be honest, he was hardly a pleasant person to have around - although Roosevelt got on fine with Churchill, who seems to have been a very similar man except for his love of all things American.

Flying Pig said:

Let's be honest, he was hardly a pleasant person to have around - although Roosevelt got on fine with Churchill, who seems to have been a very similar man except for his love of all things American.

Click to expand...

True. But that just reinforces the "FDR didn't like the cut of his Jib" explanation. Which really is the story of all of FDR's foreign policy.

Flying Pig said:

Well, de Gaulle's brand of maintaining French independance and relevance (at a time when French Sovereign Territory consisted of a few rooms in London) was to aggressively promote French nationalism, and therefore to violently resist any attempts by foreign powers to control him or France - which obviously didn't sit well with either Britain or America, who were trying to, well, run a war in which de Gaulle was to small a player to be allowed a major seat, but too large a player to be well-employed running around on his own initiative.

Click to expand...

Considering the blundering of the British in their early collaborations - Dakar, the invasion of Lebanon and Syria, the Muselier arrest - compared to De Gaulle's success when allowed to run his own operations - the conquest of French Equatorial Africa, the incredible march of de Larminat from Chad to the North African front, the siege of Libreville - he had some claim to his self-reliant stance, did he not?

Sure, De Gaulle was a massive pain in the arse to deal with - even his friends admitted this, with General Spears repeatedly referring to him as "positively exasperating, the most difficult man in the world" but he also had a rather unfortunate tendency to be right more often than not; something Churchill privately admitted, even when he was forced to castigate De Gaulle to keep that idiot Roosevelt happy. FDR didn't like to listen to anyone's opinion but his own and a few close friends, and it was a nightmare for even his own generals to convince him to change his mind about his pet projects (Eisenhower routinely argued that Operation: Torch needed landings in far greater numbers, and at Bizerte, for example). Churchill and De Gaulle didn't stand a chance.

Lord Baal said:

FDR didn't like to listen to anyone's opinion but his own and a few close friends

Click to expand...

At the risk of turning this into a thread about FDR, the man didn't even let his opinion get in the way too often. The man vascilated on Japanese policy so quickly and with so little worry that it's almost tempting to think he was brain addled.

ParkCungHee said:

At the risk of turning this into a thread about FDR, the man didn't even let his opinion get in the way too often. The man vascilated on Japanese policy so quickly and with so little worry that it's almost tempting to think he was brain addled.

Click to expand...

Don't get me started on FDR. I think my contempt for the man should be common knowledge by now. With the Americans having both him and MacArthur in positions of power at this time, I think all it would take for me to suffer a head-explosion from sheer hatred would be if Montgomery was American.

On De Gaulle, what was his dealing with fudgingg off to Germany during the May '68 riots? It seems uncharacteristic of a man who had previously displayed a confidence that could be used to crack granite, and I've actually read that it wasn't until the '80s that the French public became aware that he had lost confidence, instead believing it to be some sort of propaganda stunt, a way of demonstrating how incoherent the national government would be without him. And yet feck off he did. So what gives?

Traitorfish said:

On De Gaulle, what was his dealing with fudgingg off to France during the May '68 riots? It seems uncharacteristic of a man who had previously displayed a confidence that could be used to crack granite, and I've actually read that it wasn't until the '80s that the French public became aware that he had lost confidence, instead believing it to be some sort of propaganda stunt, a way of demonstrating how incoherent the national government would be without him. And yet feck off he did. So what gives?

Click to expand...

The direcvt cause of the riots were some educational reforms De Gaulle had pushed. As De Gaulle proved in 1945 when he stepped down when it became obvious that the vast majority of the country, while loving him personally, preferred a more socialist government than he was willing to work towards, if people wouldn't accept De Gaulle's policies, then he wouldn't allow himself to be a figurehead. The same thing happened in 1968. Also, funnily enough, when he seized power, as he basically forced the Fourth Republic to alter its constitution to give him the power he felt he needed to achieve his goals, rather than simply taking power under the existing constitution - or allowing the military coup to go forward, making him a dictator. De Gaulle was far more interested in public opinion than he ever really let on.

Lord Baal said:

De Gaulle was certainly installed in power by a coup, but what a lot of people forget is that De Gaulle never actually had anything to do with it. When France went to hell under the horrible Fourth Republic, people - especially the military - began clamouring for De Gaulle's return. De Gaulle, at this time, was living well outside the public sphere. It was basically a case of "take power myself, or name my choice as President" for De Gaulle. With his typical self-confidence, he chose himself. That's still a far cry from, say Suharto or Napoleon.

Click to expand...

This is letting CDG off far too lightly. He could have gone on the radio and said something like, "Fellow-citizens, I am a democrat, and I back the democratic government. The only way to change that government is through elections, which I chose not to take part in. The traitors in the army are criminals, and I will not handle stolen goods, especially not the freedom of the Republic. Liberté, etc., etc."

It's what King Juan Carlos did in the 1981 Spanish coup: refuse power because of his democratic principles. 1958 showed that CDG believed in elections if they gave a result he accepted. It's not Napoleon, but it puts him in the same category as Messrs Mugabe, Putin, etc.

Bit of an odd comparison there. First, Spain had experienced decades of franquism before democracy was again restored, and second, I don´t think De Gaulle was king - nor was he in power yet. As far as democracy is concerned, De Gaulle was already thoroughly disappointed in pre-war parliamentarism, and one of the reasons he had withdrawn from public life after the war was a renewed disappointment. It´s De Gaulle that instituted the presidential republic of France today. If I remember correctly, De Gaulle was called upon to save the nation - which was embroiled in the bloody Algerian colonial conflict. With some charm he managed to convince both the French colonials there (´Je vous ai compris!´speech) and the population in France proper that he was the right man for the job. After which ofcourse Algeria was decolonized anyway and De Gaulle could pursue his foreign policy course of restoring the ´grandeur´ of France. Coming back to the original point: had De Gaulle not taken power when he did, things might have gone very badly indeed. I´m not arguing that he came to power on popular demand, but his coming to power turned out to be for the good. Something which is hardly arguable in the case of Spain in 1981.

JEELEN said:

Bit of an odd comparison there. First, Spain had experienced decades of franquism before democracy was again restored, and second, I don´t think De Gaulle was king - nor was he in power yet.

Click to expand...

Neither Juan Carlos nor de Gaulle were in power at the relevant point. They both held huge moral authority though. One used it to defend democracy and the rule of law; the other used it to put himself into power.

As far as democracy is concerned, De Gaulle was already thoroughly disappointed in pre-war parliamentarism, and one of the reasons he had withdrawn from public life after the war was a renewed disappointment. It´s De Gaulle that instituted the presidential republic of France today. If I remember correctly, De Gaulle was called upon to save the nation - which was embroiled in the bloody Algerian colonial conflict. With some charm he managed to convince both the French colonials there (´Je vous ai compris!´speech) and the population in France proper that he was the right man for the job. After which ofcourse Algeria was decolonized anyway and De Gaulle could pursue his foreign policy course of restoring the ´grandeur´ of France. Coming back to the original point: had De Gaulle not taken power when he did, things might have gone very badly indeed. I´m not arguing that he came to power on popular demand, but his coming to power turned out to be for the good. Something which is hardly arguable in the case of Spain in 1981.

Click to expand...

So the end justifies the means? If you're disappointed with a liberal democratic government, then you stand for office, you don't sulk in the hope that someone will organize a coup for you. It's also surprising to see Algeria cited as an example of his greatness. He was put into power by those who wanted to keep Algeria in France forever. He promptly executed the opposite policy.

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la démocratie libérale, to misquote Marshall ??Bagot.