A “Socialist nation”: what is that, Mr. WarEagle-3 ? If France turned a “Socialist nation”, you should tell us when, and you should explain us how De Gaulle can be blamed for that.
Between 1945 and 1951, many industries were nationalized in United Kingdom, commodities were rationed by the British government, and most physicians became civil servants inside the (still existing now) National Health Service. Right after the war, many industries were nationalized in Italy. Meanwhile in America, the Truman’s Fair Deal added pieces to the Welfare State, and the next president, Eisenhower (1953-61), was going to follow on this path. In many Western countries, governments started in the Post-War era to plan, notably, housing and electricity supply, to subsidize agriculture, to raise more taxes, etc. As the chief of a coalition government where Socialists and Communists were influential, De Gaulle behaved after August 1944 in France as many other chiefs of government in those times. And at the very beginning of 1947, he resigned. De Gaulle came back in office between 1958 and 1969. The government of this “very poor” President then successfully used incentive planning to stimulate economic development. Colbert, under Louis XIV, had already did that. Historians would hardly tell France was more Socialist after 1969 than before 1958. What is your source?
I think you do not know very much of De Gaulle works and accomplisments but through caricatures by cheap screenplays.
A poor general, De Gaulle ? The best parts of the critics of the 1940’s French defense system you can read come from General De Gaulle analysis of the French defense policy, and he made his criticisms privately as soon as September 1936, meeting ministers to warn them. Poor general ? In an almost literal way, yes. How would you manage that, boy, to gather from all around the world the French who want to fight, and to do this while your enemy is pulling the strings of a puppet government in your country ? It is not underestimating the general Eisenhower’s big contribution to the Victory to admit De Gaulle had a much more difficult and complex part to play in this war.
Despite occasional disagreements with General Eisenhower and Prime Minister Churchill, none of them kept resentment against De Gaulle. Eisenhower and Churchill both did not think De Gaulle was horrid. President Eisenhower once write later about a visit to his “friend and comrade De Gaulle” (sic).
For one, President Roosevelt did not meet the chief of the Free French before January 1943, and still try in the next five months to choose another Frenchman as a chief of the French. And that was after three years of attempts from U.S. officials to deal with the Vichy regime, without any benefits, of course. Should De Gaulle be cheered by such a pitiful behavior when he met various U. S. officials ? Despite several petitions from the British and the Russians, the Roosevelt administration did not recognize the provisory government of De Gaulle before June 3th, 1944, three days before the Normandy Landing. So yes, it was to late to improve any plan. But the June 1944’s recognition was an improved attitude from the American government. When the Americans planned the landing in Morocco and Algeria, they did not even warn De Gaulle. Fortunately, Vichy’s troops fought without conviction against the Americans. On the other side, the Free French troops, under Leclerc and Koenig, had bravely fought the Vichy French in Syria in 1941, the Italians and the Germans in Sahara in 1941 and 1942, before the Americans landed in North Africa.
Saying De Gaulle gave to Frenchmen a bad view of England is highly fanciful and give to a single man an influence he could not have. It is not a secret England and France were fighting against each other since the Middle Age and for the last time at Waterloo in 1815. Although they were often fighting as Allies since that, rivalry and suspicion frequently arise in their relationship.
De Gaulle told a lie about England and America ? Give us a serious example.
If De Gaulle ever downplayed the role of the Canadians in the liberation of Western France, it seems it was not taken for cash. Many Canadian tourists in France could witness how French people expressed spontaneously their gratitude to the Canadians.
In August 1944, a detachment of General Bradley’s troops and other American soldiers paraded on the Champs-Elysées in Paris, on a demand from De Gaulle, and they were acclaimed by a huge crowd. In September 1944, De Gaulle paraded with Churchill, who was also acclaimed by a huge crowd.
You must think about De Gaulle’s Victory speechs as a psychologic weapon to discourage the last Collaborators and the Germans troops still in France. In 1944, the Allies crossed rapidly France, the vastest country in Europe but Russia, and did not have to occupy the country. This relief and help for Allied troops was not too much paid by letting the Free French troops and the Resistance take more credit than they deserved. Eisenhower understood it, and it is an additionnal proof he was a wise general.
I think De Gaulle did not trust the US government more than Roosevelt trusted him, but he was never unfair to the USA as you are about him, unless you consider an Ally, once he becomes the president of his country (1958-69), should not ask America to shut its military bases in his country more than 15 years after World War II, or should forget his own country’s unfortunate experience in Southeast Asia and not warn America about military involvement there.
At least, De Gaulle should have a place among your World War II’s heroes.
reply
share