Tell of Charles De Gaulle

[Agent327]

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.

De Gaulle was unable to ´defend democracy´ as Juan Carlos was: Spain in 1981 was a working democracy, France at the end of the 1950s was faced with an impossible problem: how to end the bloody conflict in Algeria and prevent a military coup. De Gaulle did both and more: no military coup occurred, democracy was restored in a working form, and Algeria gained independence. It´s hard to see how the forces at work in the Algerian question could have solved all of this on their own, while keeping democracy as was.

(I remember seeing the images of Spanish parliament in 1980 on tv; and yes, it was shocking - but mostly it was: What is this idot colonel thinking? Parliament, although most of its members were cowering under the tables, was obviously not going to grant his wish, so all he could do was appeal to the king - who, as you say, wasn´t in power -, totally misjudging the king´s response, which effectively curbed a coup that had few support in the military to begin with.)

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.

The latter is precisely my point. Algeria was the key to the problem the republic faced, and De Gaulle solved what no ´liberal democratic government´ could. Had he declined the offer to take power (the coup was not his, as mentioned), nothing constructive would have happened. As to the end justifying the means, if the means was De Gaulle, and the end solving a problem the then republic could not resolve, then yes. As a general rule: no. De Gaulle may have had his qualms about democracy, but he never abandoned it; this is exactly the trap the military that called upon him fell into.

 

[Lord Baal]

If De Gaulle hadn't taken power in 1958, the military coup would have occurred, placing some other general in charge. Considering the fact that the vast majority of the military wanted to hold on to Algeria at any cost, and none of them had the political and diplomatic experience De Gaulle had built up during WWII, this would have been an absolute disaster for France. De Gaulle recognised this, which is a large part of why he took power, which is something he didn't actually want. Even during WWII, he thought about retiring to Canada on more than one occasion, only staying in power because he didn't think any of his subordinates were up to the challenge. So the man was certainly arrogant, but not a tyrant.

 

[Cutlass]

So a question or 2. De Gaulle ended up the defacto leader of the Free French. But there were other claimants for that. De Gaulle was perhaps the strongest contender. But others were in contention. How did he get the rest of the Free French to accept him as leader? Why couldn't anyone find a way to get the French navy units based in Africa to go over to the Allies without a fight?

 

[ParkCungHee]

How did he get the rest of the Free French to accept him as leader?

Mainly by getting stuff done.

 

[Lord Baal]

So a question or 2. De Gaulle ended up the defacto leader of the Free French. But there were other claimants for that. De Gaulle was perhaps the strongest contender. But others were in contention. How did he get the rest of the Free French to accept him as leader? Why couldn't anyone find a way to get the French navy units based in Africa to go over to the Allies without a fight?

There weren't really any serious contenders for the leadership of the Free French. Muselier had no pull with the civilian authorities the Free French had to deal with, nor with the civilians in the government itself. Giraud was never a rival for the leadership of the Free French movement, though he was set up as a rival French leader by FDR - the French and the Free French not being the same entities, since the former included Vichyites. Giraud possessed abolutely no political acumen whatsoever, understanding only military matters. He was also, unfortunately, an idiot, which didn't really play well in the intricate and delicate affairs of French North Africa.

The only other potential claimants were the people De Gaulle offered to serve under if they defected - Weygand, Nogues and Darlan - who all remained loyal to Vichy, and a few ministers who unfortunately didn't escape France, such as Reynaud and the Minister of the Interior, whose name escapes me presently. After The Appeal, De Gaulle had no rivals for leadership. The British once attempted to set Catroux up as a rival, but he basically told them to shove it. I suppose Juin could have had a shot if he'd defected, but instead he stayed loyal to his military chain of command, which was Nogues, Weygand and Darlan, respectively, instead of giving his loyalty to a less-senior, virtually unknown general in London. He later admitted that he regretted this decision.

As for the French Navy, it basically boiled down to Darlan, a notorious Anglophobe - admittedly, this was hardly uncommon in the French armed forces at the time, with De Gaulle himself being an avowed Anglophobe - deciding to make a play for personal power based on being the man to whom the Navy was personally loyal, rather than doing what was right for his country. It's no accident that Darlan was Petain's prime minister on more than one occasion, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Vichy. The man was being groomed as Petain's successor, and he positioned himself well to take advantage of every situation. His assassination was a blessing, as he had a very good chance of heading a post-war French government, due to FDR's irrational hatred of De Gaulle, along with his equally irrational hatred of common sense and listening to the advice of his own military, who all said Darlan was poison and that De Gaulle was the man of the hour.

The only person who could lead the French Navy to the Allied side, or even sail it to trans-Atlantic ports, was Darlan. Individual ships and crews did desert vichy for the Free French from time-to-time, notably virtually the entire crew of the battleship Richelieu whilst in New York. But the only man with the authority to move the entire fleet was Darlan himself, to whom the Navy had a large degree of personal loyalty, far more so than the army to Petain or Weygand. And Darlan chose not to.

At Mers-El-Kebir, the Vichy commander was given the choice of sailing to Britain, sailing across the Atlantic, or scuttling his ships. While he ended up choosing none of these options and had his fleet cut out from under him, it is telling that he was leaning towards scuttling his fleet. Rather than disobeying Darlan, he would choose to protect the lives of his men by destroying the ships. It's an interesting insight into the psychology of the French Naval commanders at the time. I don't believe a single naval officer above the rank of Captain defected before Operation: Torch, whereas huge numbers of ranking officers in the Army and Foreign Legion did.

 

[Cutlass]

So it seems it's been a whole year since I tried to start a thread on de Gaulle. Given what's been said in the other thread, maybe some people would have some more interest now.

6) Anytime somebody says good things about de Gaulle (luckily this one's pretty rare)

We're going to have to fight.

How can we be on the same page on MacArthur yet you seem to like the completely illegitimate leader of what could barely be called a rump government?

I'm flexible. Ask the ladies.

Seriously, since I don't see how anyone could claim that France during the '50s and '60s was a "rump government," I'm going to assume you mean the Free French. De Gaulle was the only member of the French Cabinet who escaped France. He then went on to start a government-in-exile in opposition to Petain's Vichy regime. Now, you can easily argue that De Gaulle's complicated constitutional argument that he was the legitimate ruler of France was codswallop - mostly because it was but I don't see how that makes him unlikeable. It's not like the Polish government-in-exile in London had any more legitimacy. De Gaulle at least had some French territory to operate from - Chad declared for him almost immediately - and was seen even by the Communists as the leader of the French resistance.

Seriously, there are plenty of reasons to dislike De Gaulle - Churchill described him as "the most obstinate man I have ever met," and Sir Winston wasn't exactly an agreeable fellow himself - both personally and politically. But you didn't actually offer any arguments above other than that he was the illegitimate leader of a rump government. I don't see how that's necessarily a bad thing. Half the governments-in-exile during WWII would fall under that category. Does that mean you dislike them all?

 

[Lord Baal]

Wow, this is from when I actually thought I had enough free time to write history articles. You know, before I remembered I had vision problems and stomach cramps from m bout with cancer that would occasionally confine me to bed for days, a daughter I was raising on my own and a new full-time job as the manager of a failing business. I wish I'd had time to write that article.

 

[Cutlass]

Sorry to hear that

 

[VilePilot]

oh god read the stories about De Gaulle during the liberation of Paris. I'm getting chills writing this down. Just read the stories. De Gaulle bows to no man.

 

[VilePilot]

read this right now before anyone says another word about De Gaulle:

http://www.strangehistory.net/2011/11/09/gunfire-in-notre-dame/

right now.

you will take back anything you have ever said negative about the man.

Napoleon has a nice phrase about ‘two o’clock in the morning courage’ or ‘instantaneous courage’. There are few better examples than De Gaulle continuing his slow walk towards the altar of Notre Dame in the midst of what Reid elsewhere called ‘a queer, crazy scene of modern war amid the medieval setting of a 13th-century church’, cordite and incense mixing in the air.

Yet De Gaulle, who never suffered from false modesty, is strangely reticent in his autobiography about what happened in the cathedral focusing, instead, on the music: ‘Le Magnificat s'élève. En fut il jamais chanté de plus ardent?’ [‘The Magnificat rose up, was it ever sung with such passion?’]!

As to the attack no one was apprehended and though the gunshots were routinely written off as snipers trying to kill De Gaulle there is room for doubt. The General himself wondered if it hadn’t been an attempt to sow panic and justify a continuing state of emergency in Paris. De Gaulle, however, was a sucker for conspiracy theories.

 

[innonimatu]

Wow, this is from when I actually thought I had enough free time to write history articles. You know, before I remembered I had vision problems and stomach cramps from m bout with cancer that would occasionally confine me to bed for days, a daughter I was raising on my own and a new full-time job as the manager of a failing business. I wish I'd had time to write that article.

About with cancer? I had wondered what had nearly made you disappear from here. That is sad news. But at least it looks like you made it through.

 

[Lord Baal]

About with cancer? I had wondered what had nearly made you disappear from here. That is sad news. But at least it looks like you made it through.

I think Quackers and I had a discussion about this when I first got back. I don't recall if I discussed it with anyone else. I had a tumour behind my eye. Since it was benign it wouldn't spread anywhere else in my body and kill me, but it was growing, which is what was causing my vision problems. It had reached the ponit where it was pressing on my optic nerve. I remember I was actually reading a thread on CFC - I don't have a damn clue which one - when my eye stopped working. It took Bin Laden croaking to bring me back.

Except for the occasional stomach cramps from the medication - which I no longer have to take, thanks to my increasing strength in Voodoo - and blurred vision every once in a while, I'm fine. It'll take a lot more than horrific fatal illness to kill me. What with the Voodoo and all.

I choose to believe that as Cutlass responded to my post as a whole, he's sorry not about my cancer, but that I have a job. You're mean, Cutlass.

 

[r16]

read this right now before anyone says another word about De Gaulle:

http://www.strangehistory.net/2011/11/09/gunfire-in-notre-dame/

right now.

you will take back anything you have ever said negative about the man.

no , why would ı , if it's him that arranged the thing ?

 

[Cutlass]

I think Quackers and I had a discussion about this when I first got back. I don't recall if I discussed it with anyone else. I had a tumour behind my eye. Since it was benign it wouldn't spread anywhere else in my body and kill me, but it was growing, which is what was causing my vision problems. It had reached the ponit where it was pressing on my optic nerve. I remember I was actually reading a thread on CFC - I don't have a damn clue which one - when my eye stopped working. It took Bin Laden croaking to bring me back.

Except for the occasional stomach cramps from the medication - which I no longer have to take, thanks to my increasing strength in Voodoo - and blurred vision every once in a while, I'm fine. It'll take a lot more than horrific fatal illness to kill me. What with the Voodoo and all.

I choose to believe that as Cutlass responded to my post as a whole, he's sorry not about my cancer, but that I have a job. You're mean, Cutlass.

I'm more sorry about the cancer

 

[Yeekim]

I choose to believe that as Cutlass responded to my post as a whole, he's sorry not about my cancer, but that I have a job. You're mean, Cutlass.

Someone being a manager of a failing business is a legit reason to express condolences!

Then again, so are the other things you mentioned - best wishes from this side of the world as well!
EDIT: Also, I'd like if Gen Mannerheim explained his beef with De Gaulle...

 

[Lord Baal]

I would also like it if General Mannerheim explained his problems with De Gaulle. As I said in the other thread, there are plenty of reasons to dislike De Gaulle - his own adjutant often remarked that De Gaulle was "an arrogant, exasperating fool whose only redeeming quality is that he's usually right, which doesn't help matters" - but the one thing Mannerheim said about him in the other thread wasn't one of them.

 

[innonimatu]

So, moving on back on topic (we get the hint ) I think that De Gaulle wasn't that unique during WW2. Other french generals might have stepped in to become leaders of the free french if he hadn't been available. And that's where he gets the most attention. and some people seem to disagree with it.

Where he was unique and essential to France was in handling the algerian crisis. France has generally been lucky with its military. Some black sheep like Pétain, but many others who stood firm for republican, civilian government even when they could have made themselves dictators.

 

[Lord Baal]

So, moving on back on topic (we get the hint ) I think that De Gaulle wasn't that unique during WW2. Other french generals might have stepped in to become leaders of the free french if he hadn't been available. And that's where he gets the most attention. and some people seem to disagree with it.

Where he was unique and essential to France was in handling the algerian crisis. France has generally been lucky with its military. Some black sheep like Pétain, but many others who stood firm for republican, civilian government even when they could have made themselves dictators.

While I agree that there were other possible generals/ admirals who could have taken the reins of the Free French, I do not believe that any of the other possibilities would have done nearly as good a job as De Gaulle did. We know for a fact that several of the "alternates" favoured by the British and/ or the Americans were actually Soviet spies, for example. This is unlikely to have been beneficial for post-War France, let alone the West as a whole.

The people who attempted coups against De Gaulle's leadership - notably Muselier and Giraud - proved that they lacked the ability to handle the political infighting characteristic of France by losing their own political battles with De Gaulle. Likewise, De Gaulle and his favourites seem to have performed far better militarily than their counterparts. De Gaulle also quickly established himself as the leader of the French Resistance when most of his contemporaries were making deals with the Vichyites. This shows a level of foresight above-and-beyond that of everyone else at the time, including the allegedly 'savvy' FDR.

You're spot-on about the Algerian issue. De Gaulle was clearly the man for the job then.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Where he was unique and essential to France was in handling the algerian crisis. France has generally been lucky with its military. Some black sheep like Pétain, but many others who stood firm for republican, civilian government even when they could have made themselves dictators.

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but I just find it astonishing to suggest '58 shows France's luck with its military. A military that organizes a coup is out of order and you'd think that 1940 would have served notice that it's a bad idea to give plenipotentiary authority to the egotistical commander from the previous war.

Standing firm for republic, civilian government would have been making a speech earlier in 57/58 making clear that you'll only take power through elections and traitors should be severely punished. Never mind the fact that the military should never have even had an opinion about whether Algeria should stay French.

Also, sorry to hear about Lord Baal's health and work problems. And glad that there's a sprog to add some sunshine to your life!

 

[Cutlass]

I would also like it if General Mannerheim explained his problems with De Gaulle. As I said in the other thread, there are plenty of reasons to dislike De Gaulle - his own adjutant often remarked that De Gaulle was "an arrogant, exasperating fool whose only redeeming quality is that he's usually right, which doesn't help matters" - but the one thing Mannerheim said about him in the other thread wasn't one of them.

I think with many Americans there is at least something to be said for the fact that if the ally was not falling in line with what we wanted then they can be seen as much hindrance as help.