― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 21:21 (twenty-two years ago)
― Nemo (JND), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 22:17 (twenty-two years ago)
i really know little about his character and personality, but hey, hes french.. < /stereotype>
― bill stevens (bscrubbins), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 22:21 (twenty-two years ago)
I also admire his pragmatism regarding Algeria and decolonisation, and the fact that he actually did step down once he lost an election.
― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 22:45 (twenty-two years ago)
― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 22:46 (twenty-two years ago)
― pete s, Wednesday, 11 February 2004 23:00 (twenty-two years ago)
― hstencil, Wednesday, 11 February 2004 23:04 (twenty-two years ago)
Is there a good biography of him?
― Nemo (JND), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 23:07 (twenty-two years ago)
― Eisbär (llamasfur), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 23:08 (twenty-two years ago)
apparently Petain was also obsessed with Joan of Arc, and would drone on about her at any opportunity.
Ive seen a lot recently on his relations with Churchill and Roosevelt, which adds to this myth of the 'stubborn frenchman' who did things his way, though the truth is if Churchill had had a little less tolerance of De Gaulle's mood-swings (and listened to the president's advice to leave him hanging) he might not have ended up in the triumphant position that he - and France - ultimately did.
I'm not sure. He might not have got France a permanent seat on the security council or a share in the occupation of Germany, but no matter what the British & Americans thought of him he would still have been the man who in 1940 embodied the willingness of some French people to continue the struggle against Hitler. That would always count for him in post-war French politics.
I always got the impression he and Churchill got on reasonably well, albeit with a mutual understanding that their interests and goals were not always the same. However, the Americans in WW2 seem to have had it in for DeGaulle to an extent that was almost pathological, and were always looking for completely unconvincing bozos they could put forward as alternative leaders of Free France. Did the Americans have any convincing reasons for their dislike of DeGaulle?
― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 23:19 (twenty-two years ago)
I can see Churchill and DeGaulle having alot in common in regards to their ideas of their roles within their respective countries.. both being amazing status seekers/leaders.
― bill stevens (bscrubbins), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 23:25 (twenty-two years ago)
― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 23:44 (twenty-two years ago)
But absolutely, as you say, his position as France's legendary figure-head and rescuer from 1940-45 is unchallengable, and i wouldn't contest that. A difficult man, much like the others charge of the major powers at that time, but a great man, with this magical charisma that endeared him to every frenchman who dreamt of and finally saw a free France.
― pete s, Wednesday, 11 February 2004 23:44 (twenty-two years ago)
― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 23:46 (twenty-two years ago)
yes indeed.
does anyone know if any politicians in any of the other occupied countries made their name through uncompromising opposition from afar to the Nazis?
― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 23:48 (twenty-two years ago)
― Nemo (JND), Wednesday, 11 February 2004 23:57 (twenty-two years ago)
― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 12 February 2004 00:01 (twenty-two years ago)
― Ed (dali), Thursday, 12 February 2004 00:03 (twenty-two years ago)
― Nemo (JND), Thursday, 12 February 2004 00:04 (twenty-two years ago)
I'm beginning to think there is a lot to be said for his stated reason for blocking British EEC membership - that Britain is too much of a client state of the USA to truly engage with Europe. Although of course, maybe if Britain had joined in the early 1960s the UK would have stopped being America's catspaw.
― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 12 February 2004 00:21 (twenty-two years ago)
― tokyo rosemary (rosemary), Thursday, 12 February 2004 02:57 (twenty-two years ago)
― Ed (dali), Thursday, 12 February 2004 10:13 (twenty-two years ago)
Made name, and were promptly offed by the Soviets -- yes, in Poland. Oh hang on, I meant offed by Churchill off Gibralatar. The point is that France almost saw civil war -- De Gaulle in no way represented 'free France' -- the resistance movement, itself divided, was broadly left wing, a continuation of the Popular Front impulse that the Brigadier was no keen on. The OSS had huge issues with arming large parts of the resistance.
he rallied the vichy remnants/free french and helped get the allies to reinvade france rather than helping out the russians with any other new front and rode the wave to power in france for years.
It still happened a year too late--and in any case British public opinion wanted a second front, not just De Gaulle.
― Enrique (Enrique), Thursday, 12 February 2004 10:23 (twenty-two years ago)
― Orbit (Orbit), Thursday, 12 February 2004 10:24 (twenty-two years ago)