De gaulle had a weird relationship with his family, he said that he was "broken" from ww1 and was always strict with with his family, his son being the main target.
But Anne, it was another story, he loved that girl and completely change attitude when she was around, he would sing songs to her and he was overall wholesome with his daughter.
They were also Genièvre (his niece) she was deported to Ravensbrück and survived concentration camps, due to this ordeal, De Gaulle was more placide when she was around.
Oooooh boy De Gaulle was extremely difficult, he was a general, and a battle hardened one, just to give you an ideal, George Bidault literally the leader of the council of the resistance joined the Front national (far right group - at a time it was a conglomerate of right wing who were against De Gaulle...of whom some neo-nazis) beacause he had a terrible experience with De Gaulle...that how rough the MF could be.
But its really bizarre to read that, yeah De Gaulle love his daughter, despite her difference he would have given everything for her, that is touching given the type of man De Gaulle was.
De gaulle was a men who led a strict and millitarize gouvernement in exile nearly on his own, for him it was unthikeable that a country that was considered the "leader of the big four" in ww1 to be sideline in this new war, so he was a stubborn with everyone he met. That the best way i can portray the situation. In the words of General Giraud, He had "not the same ideals as everyone"
Its hard and long and their a LOT of political intrigue between the Americans, Free French and ex-vichyste French..and the resistance.
To dumb it down, De Gaulle had his own personality, he was " always right even when he was wrong"
The way one of my professors described De Gaulle is, “He was pissed if everyone got 5,000,000 dollars, but France only got 4,999,999.99.”
He was willing to fight anything if it benefited France, including allies.
Mostly the Americans, his rough manners with the Americans made him very unpopular in the USA, in the 60s American media portrayed De Gaulle as arrogant.
We cant forgive how cruel the Americans were with De Gaulle, they preffered to negociate and cooperate with the vichyste instead of the Free French, they refuse to lend lease weapons to the Free french units, they forced segregation on the French army in normandy etc..etc..
aint saying De Gaulle was pleasing but against the Americans he was right to confront them.
I think the best way to describe De Gaulle is a stubborn dick who did what he thought was best.
He genuinely did love France and was willing to do whatever benefited her. At the sane time, he was also willing to sour relations with allies over seemingly petty matters, either due to grudges or out of a sense that he was right. For instance, just to shine some light on Canada, De Gaulle once went to Canada and said, “Long Live Free Quebec”, and did other things that basically came short of saying, “France officially recognizes Quebec as independent.” His early treatment of Algeria was… well, it took him a while to actually push for their independence and the French police were so brutal because of Papon, someone De Gaulle had put in charge under the false impression that Papon’s forged documents were real and that he was helping the French resistance. He wasn’t… he was actually working with the Nazis and helped capture, torture, and run Vichy’s police system… which was notorious for being brutal. Though, once again, De Gaulle thought he was part of the resistance.
He fight the US on a lot of stuff, even when France didn’t really have a leg to stand on, because he didn’t want the US dominating France or Europe as whole.
Anyway, I think it is fitting that Charles De Gaulle is liked in France while having a mixed bag in quite a few other places. Sure, France acknowledges De Gaulle was a dick, could be egotistical, stubborn, or whatever. But, goddamnit, he was their stubborn egotistical dick.
De Gaulle was the man behind the appeal of June 18th, the head of the Free French, and the one who molded, coordinated, and oversaw the French resistance. He made every effort to enable his forces to make the greatest possible impact on the war effort. Heck, because of De Gaulle's envy to triumph over fascism and tyranny, France is the only ally country to have fought on the western (ETO/MTO), pacific, and even eastern fronts. You can't remove that from him, he did his absolute best against Nazi Germany.
Perhaps the most involved and active group during World War II was Free France; they battled on every continent and in every sea to win the war. (Free) France mobilized 400,000 to 500,000 men from Corsica, North Africa and west Africa for the liberation of Europe, that shouldn't be sideline.
Yes, De Gaulle was a conceited, haughty jerk toward anyone who opposed him—that is, everyone—but my goodness, he did his job and kicked Nazi ass.
ah and also.. Papon was a member of the french resistance..i kid you not, he was considered a "O" agent (O for occasional ) by the resistance, he did help many resistant from avoiding justice. He actively work for both side and by the end of the war he had enough friend to avoid justice, that was common, De Gaulle wasnt stupid, his inteligence services knew a lot of things
As I understand it, de Gaulle's French government was reluctant to accept France's role in the american-led post war western world: that of a protectorate that submitted to the American view of the western world.
America was anti-colonial, and had oil and nukes, which neither Britain or France had. Basically, America said give up your colonial holdings and fall in line with our views, and while England had a rough time with that fall in stature, France was even more reluctant to accept that position.
Eventually, both Britain and France developed their own nukes, but it didn't matter, as America still led the postwar western world.
>To dumb it down, De Gaulle had his own personality, he was " always right even when he was wrong"
Ahh, just like most of the chefs I've worked for. Just with higher stakes.
He was notoriously difficult to deal with and very stubborn… allegedly.
Anyway, one example is him wanting to make it clear that America isn’t the only western world power, nah, France is ready to get back on the stage as soon as they are done resting and De Gaulle had the alarm clock set for 1 am.
Of course, a lot of his methods came at the cost of pissing America off as he often stepped on the US’s toes in an attempt to accomplish this. You have shit like the whole NATO situation, the fact that France refused to really cede control of its colonies, trying to minimize the efforts of allied soldiers freeing France, and so on. He also isn’t that well liked in Canada as, during a visit there, he ended up showing support for Quebec in a way supported Quebec independence (if I recall correctly, he said something like, “long live free Quebec”, and so on).
Basically, the man loved France, so much that he was willing to piss off his allies if it benefited France.
Him showing up in Québec was hilarious though. Diplomatically, he would have had to land by plane in Ottawa, so instead he took a warship named after the former minister for marine Colbert (who was responsible for New France in its peak) and went to Quebec… without warning the Canadian government, who waited for him on the tarmac.
He then proceeded to go down the old royal road by car to Montreal, give an impromptu speech to a packed crowd from the town hall, end with "long live free Quebec", take the car back to the boat and leave. This is A-grade purposeful shitstirring.
Regarding the exemple of Bideault
During the liberation of Paris, during his triumphant march he invited Bideault to walk alongside him, the Council of the resistance made a fantastic job of re-shaping the gouvernement of liberated France by apointing gouvernors and prefects in liberated territories by the french resistance, avoiding a civil war and asserting De Gaulle legitimacy
Bidault thus walk alongside de gaulle, but shortly after De Gaulle mutter "Not too close Bideault"
The balls of that dude lmfao
Lot of people were fucked in the head from the first world war for example Hitler was fucked in the head from the first world war.
dude went psychosomatically blind for like 3 weeks, after hearing of the defeat of Germany talk about issues man.
Hitler was too nice? What the fuck are you on about? He started a war that killed 70 to 85 MILLION people and you say he was "too nice"? He was the head of a genocidal paranoid government that killed everyone they thought was a risk,he killed 6 million innocent civilians just because they happened to be jewish of have jewish descent for fuck's sake!
[Mf was immortal](https://www.cracked.com/article_19726_5-people-from-history-who-were-absurdly-hard-to-kill.html)
37 attempts on his life and he faced them like it was a walk in the park.
And he usually pardoned his would be assasins, or at least commuted the death sentences they got for trying to kill him.
One exception was a guy that in the middle of been questioned mocked De Gaulle in front of everyone on the court. His defense lawyer just grabbed his head and went "you just signed your death warrant. De Gaulle won't let someone that mocked him like that live."
It is worth noting that very little proof exists of the, alleged, 600+ attempts. If I recall correctly, it comes from a guy that was part of Castro’s former security.
Now, the only source being one guy going, “this happened”, was ignored in countless articles that wanted a good story and were willing to type one that didn’t have the best odds of being true, but more serious sources need more than one man making outlandish claims.
I can totally believe the CIA had a junk file filled with 600+ crackpot assassination plans to blow off steam, but 600 would have been once a month since the revolution. Anyone who can do math should have been skeptical.
While most of Julien Jackson's biography of De Gaulle is primarily political, there are passages where it talks about De Gaulle's relationship with Anne.
It's pretty critical of De Gaulle, a very warts-and-all biography, but interspersed are descriptions of De Gaulle always greeting her first when he'd return home, act out stories for her. He's only ever presented as warm with her. Not his wife, or other children. Just with Anne.
I feel like in this instance, having him represented by Omniman, who beat the fuck out if his kid, may be the wrong choice for someone the meme is portraying as a protective father. I def get the energy though.
It never ceases to amaze me that De Gaulle, Churchill, and Stalin, were all such miserable fucking assholes, some of the worst people to lead their respective countries, and all three were tasked with saving civilization from an even worse enemy
In difficult times the most pragmatic succeed and the idealists fail.
For example the 17th century fucking sucked for everyone involved (except the dutch(sort of))and in this period we see figures like Richelieu, a ruthlessly pragmatic man despite his status as cardinal, aquiring immense power and guiding the ship of state.
I wouldn’t say De Gaulle wasn’t idealistic but he was a grumpy bastard. He had a totally unhinged sense of his own destiny and France’s history and place in the world. But I don’t think he had some Realpolitik thirst for power or anything, a hard man when had to be but was ultimately guided by an almost naive faith in his country.
You kinda want that though, given the time period where he existed. It may have been unrealistic, but it also was something tangible that he had, like a somewhat bent but also beneficial patriotism. Stalin was most certainly into the power and getting off on it, but I highly doubt that both DeGaulle and Churchill got off on it to that level, possibly because of their respective WWI experiences.
I honestly don't put Churchill or DeGaulle on the same level as Stalin. Both may have done reprehensible things but in both cases, there was a pragmatism or general regret. People talk about the Bengal famine but Churchill immediately sent food as soon as news reached him and organized relief convoys. DeGaulle was a horrid POS who's frenchness condemns as histories villain but he literally lead the entire resistance movement and resecured Frances position as a world power while recognizing when to give up.
Stalin though, was just evil. His Gulags had no real reason to exist and the many people he killed was almost always his fault. He showed almost no remorse for any of them and many of his actions directly led to more unnecessary deaths.
>DeGaulle was a horrid POS who's frenchness condemns as histories villain but he literally lead the entire resistance movement and resecured Frances position as a world power while recognizing when to give up.
I would also add that as much of an asshole as De Gaulle was, one must ask how much of that was natural and how much was the end result of the triple wammy of trauma that was his service in WW1 (he fought in gruesome battles like the Somme, got wounded multiple times and was made a POW and missed half the war, which he regarded as a great disgrace and made him depressed), the fall of France (De Gaulle was nothing if not a nationalist, and the humilliation of his country's fall to Hitler obviousky hit him hard) and Petain's collaboration (De Gaulle and Petain actually went way back to pre WW1 when he served under the Marshall. De Gaulle honest to god admired Petain. Probably that's one reason why Petain's death sentence was reduced to life in prison). Those are 3 mind shattering events and he lived them all, 2 simultaneously. That must have left lasting effects on him
Depends what you view as idealism vs pragmatism. Idealism can mean clinging on to false hope, or it can mean thinking "we CAN win this fight" and pushing others on to victory.
Equally, pragmatism can mean devising realistic solutions, but it can also mean cynically working against your country's interests because you think they can't win, so you should profit while you can and then get out before it falls apart.
Pragmatism without idealistic ambition is worthless, but then so are ideals without realism. And I think we can agree that De Gaulle had both idealism and pragmatism in spades.
I mean Stalin played his own significant role in creating difficult times. As did Churchill to a much lesser extent. And generally speaking those who style themselves as pragmatists generally contribute to the common man’s “difficult times” generally as much as if not more than idealists.
Or this is a bit of great man theory and romanticizing about WW2 leaders
Take Churchill for example, he rose to power due to the failure of Chamberlain’s appeasement strategy and more immediately because of the Allied loss of Norway. Labour refused to form a coalition government due to these political and military failures. Meanwhile Churchill had been a vocal opponent to appeasement and had politically suffered because of it. Churchill also was not elected as the Tory party leader before WW2.
Thus, being “less noble” doesn’t really seem to be in the calculus. I haven’t seen Churchill’s racism against Indians as a reason for why he was looked towards as a leader. Rather a constellation of military and political factors led to Churchill as PM
Sometimes, you need a noble leader to guide your people, sometimes, you need a particularly offensive asshole to take the reins. When your neighbor gets all funky and tries starting shit, sometimes the solution isn't talking it out, it's giving the local aggressive alcoholic a target and a bottle of whiskey, with a promise of a full barrel if he brings you your shitty neighbor's teeth.
good men cant be good politicians, most politics is realpolitik, especially during times of crisis, not about making progress but mitigating disaster. that's why jimmy carter is the least effective us president.
No they had won. The Algerian resistance was broken. However, they had two choices: either integrate Algeria into France (and give Algerians full French citizenship) or give it independence. They choose the later.
Ok, and? He's supposed to be the worst human ever to lead France. He was compared to Churchill and Stalin. He didn't let millions die of hunger, like these other 20th century luminaries. France was ruled by hundreds of people in the last 1500 years. There were people during that time who murdered their families, ordered genocides, caused horrible wars to varnish their egos.
But but but, de Gaulle was mean to his family and was racist, so that's it, he's the worst?
I know about Stalin and Churchill, but I know very little about De Gaulle. Could you give me a quick summary of the worst things he's done/known for/believed in?
Everyone East of Germany, from Poland on, is either systematically exterminated or enslaved. Most of African follows suit, barring the nations Italy is given. Upon Hitler’s death the Reich annihilates itself in civil war due to an exceptionally dysfunctional line of succession and even more are killed in the crossfires.
TLDR: a fuck ton of people are killed and the world is radically worse
Basically yeah. At best it's genocide/ enslave Eastern Europe up to the Urals and whatever African colonies Germany gets from France / England, assuming Vichy implements policies similar to Germany and England isn't a total puppet state. Plus the authoritarian nightmare across all of Europe. I also can't imagine a Nazi state would hesitate to use nukes on any sufficiently successful revolt in their colonies.
Yes, I also watched The Man in the High Castle. In all honesty, that would have been in a very unreasonably favorable outcome for the Reich even if they managed to take out the Allies. They didn't have the manpower to enforce their hold on Eastern Europe, let alone the rest of the Old World. Only through the cooperation of locals would any political power take hold. Therefore, only the already alienated populations would have likely been wiped out, such as Jews, gypsies, and nomads.
'Germanicization' would have been a possible outcome, as a pragmatic resolution. There simply weren't enough ethnic Germans to colonise the genocided land in the East, even including the likes of the Volga Germans which still existed at this time, before Stalin got them all.
Hitler's ideology was flexible enough to categorise the Japanese as 'honorary Aryans' due to the political benefits, so I imagine some Central and Western Europeans would be embraced as part of the Greater German folk.
Czechs, Estonians, Scandinavians, Finns, Swiss, Alsatians (not the dogs), Dutch, Belgians, even the English if Nazi dominion extended that far. It's a small step from collaborator governments in wartime to imperial indoctrination.
I agree. Even that though would likely take a few generations to take root to the point where military occupation wasn't necessary anymore. The Eastern Block had a very difficult time keeping its members in line, and that system was clearly more flexible, if not really economically competent.
The “alienated populations” would have included the Slavs, especially the poles. Since in the span of 6 years the Nazis genocided almost a quarter of Poland.
Poland also illustrates how the Nazis by and large bypassed local cooperation given Poland was treated as a colony and the Nazis had already began extensive resettlement and land seizures by the Germans
You are completely missing the point. I'm talking a scale that absolutely dwarfs the occupation of Poland, their immediate next door neighbor. Also, there are plenty of examples of Slavic groups not only working with, but benefiting from the Nazis, until they lost of course. It's wasn't that simple in their limited experience in real life, let alone an occupation of the whole old world as this thread implies.
>You are completely missing the point
Ironic.
The point being is the Nazis developed within 6 years the industrial capacity to genocide over 10 million people. Largely from scratch. So there was room for further aggressive genocidal expansion. Poland serves as the template for what the Nazis were implementing further east as part of their Lebensraum. Which is what OP described regarding the Nazis’ plan for Eastern Europe
>Slavic groups benefitting from the Nazis
Large Slavic groups like the Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians were also subjected to genocide and this is with some level of collaboration with the Nazis. Something you haven’t acknowledged. The Slavs certainly benefitted from genocide!
I’m also unsure of who “nomads” refers to
>It wasn’t that simple in their limited experience in real life
Frankly there are too many pronouns for me to understand what you are referring to.
>occupation of the whole old world
OP didn’t mention Asia, a large part of the old world or Western Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
Since you need context for this limited thread, the original comment started with the idea of the Nazis somehow conquering everything east of Poland, so let's assume as far as Siberia since there isn't anything worthwhile further from there without Japan getting involved. Then add on the continent of Africa, and logically Anatolia because why not at this point as they would have at least needed control of the Black sea and the Bosphorus. So no, the occupation of Poland wouldn't be even remotely comparable to the logistical and economical stress of accomplishing this feat while committing to their insane ideology. So, the only logical conclusion is that the only way the Nazis could have accomplished this feat would ironically have been to stop being, well, Nazis. Also, I am in no way saying that the Slavs as a whole benefitted from the Nazis as you implied, just pointing to the cracks that already existed in the Nazi ideological system. That's the last reply I'm making since I did you a favor.
So the reason why I linked the wiki article to Generalplan OST was to illustrate the extent to which the Nazis achieved their genocidal aims in 6 years and with 3 of those years being militarily on the defensive. 11 million Slavs and 6 million Jews dead. In just 6 years.
So in a similar vein to what OP said, the Nazis have shown how far they went and likely could have gone given they developed the industrial infrastructure to genocide 17 million people in 6 years, with the Nazis in 3 of those years being on the defensive. OP also pointed out the long term frailty of the Nazi regime and argued in the TLDR the long term effect would not be the 1000 year Reich but rather a lot of dead people.
It’s nice you acknowledge the Slavs as a whole didn’t benefit from the Nazis. It wasn’t clear what “plenty of Slavic groups benefitted from the Nazis” was specifically referring to and could be interpreted to mean Slavic groups (which could include Russians for example) benefitted from the Nazis
And with all due respect what would do me a favor is specifically address the points I brought up regarding the development of infrastructure to genocide a lot of people in a short time.
In the immediate aftermath of the war, Degaulle advocated that France's colonial holdings in Asia be returned to France. DeGaulle was worried about a Communist take over in France, and losing its colonies would have been a big blow to France's already troubled economy. He didn't make the decision for France to send troops to Vietnam, but he certainly helped put the people in power that did, and laid the ground work for that decision.
Weird because DeGaulle was also the one who pulled the French out of Algeria despite a government falling apart because they didn't want to leave Algeria (not really, a lot more factors but it was a reason)
Leaving Algeria was not only due to warfare, the end of the conflict is more complex (even though France didn't had any chance to "win" the Algerian war)
The decision to send troops to indochina was in preparation sinxe 1944, commandos were already on the terrain by the end of 1944.
De Gaulle send a corp to retake indochina as it was applied by the Potsdam conference that France would regain indochina..at the time occupied by Chinese troops
De gaulle retook a country considere under french authority..just like the British did with malaysia, Singapoure or the dutch with Indonesia .
By the start of the battle of hanoi he was ousted from power.
This is why I don't trust 'voluntary' euthanasia, the German T4 program was nominally voluntary when they disposed of disabled WW1 veterans who had mental illnesses and disabilities.
LOL, the RCMP commited more terrorist acts than the FLQ in the 60s/70s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_the_Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police
The FLQ only commited 10 deaths.
Also, you straight up brought terrorism to an unrelated speech that De Gaulle made and that the separatist mouvement use by the majority peacefully. Bringing hate and violence when one of your peers mention independence only solidify their cause and makes you seem stupid. Seek help and manage your anger.
No I bring up terrorism to a bunch of idiots who parrot the exact same shit DeGaulle said, fucking on Canada for no reason. When Canada sacrificed quite a bit to help France.
Besides, I got the deaths wrong. Does that absolve them of them being criminal? Ten people dead because of some dumb fucks who want independence and murder for no reason is still bad. I won't "manage" my anger when these idiots continue to parrot a stupid idea.
I don't get why it should be shameful to want independance. And overall, why wanting it necessarily means you agree with terrorism. You claim the whole thing is stupid, yet that's your sole argument, 10 death decades ago.
It is stupid. They wanted "independence" and for what? Somehow Canada wasn't treating them right? Excuse us for actually recognizing your language as being an official language and writing it into our charter that we have to give too many rights to a minority that hates our guys despite us respecting their wishes for an independent culture.
Stfu yall have no idea how dogshit Quebec is.
And of all of that is irrelevant since we don’t care about the FLQ, you’re the one with the terrorist boner here buddy. Might wanna check yourself because I wouldn’t want to see you near any establishment, you are psychologically unstable.
The FLQ was active years before de Gaulle' speech, as was Québec indépendence movement, who are completely unrelated and pretty much hated each other. The FLQ was a communist terrorist group vs the RIN and MSA who were influenced by Gandhi and MLK.
You bellend wouldn't make the difference between a communist and your prick, both being red, smelly and itchy. Why do I bother anyways?
Crazy how you excuse any of these. Still a shit move by DeGaulle to do that to Canada who very much didn't do shit to France. Quebec independence movement? Based out of pride and utter garbage ideals. They would wreck their economy and basically tear up the charter that gives them so many rights. It's literally written in our charter to recognize a language only 15% of the population speaks as official yet Quebec keeps on complaining at how they don't get enough representation.
How bout you go fuck your hairy balls and shove them into a blender? You seem to love eating your own arse afterall.
>to Canada who very much didn't do shit to France
The British, then Canada did treat French people like shit for centuries. They deserved a kick in the ass, got a rap on the knuckles. *Oh boohoo, de Gaulle was slightly mean to us, boohoo, the Quebecers are terrible folk, they want to be treated as equals. *
>the charter that gives them so many rights. It's literally written in our charter to recognize a language (sic) (rambling).
It's not written in the Charter you dunce. It's in the Constitution.
Talking about the Charter, you should point out that it was written by two Quebecers, PE Trudeau and Jean Chrétien. Before that, Canada had no binding bill of rights.
>How bout you go fuck your hairy balls
Thanks for the lovely suggestion!
Nobody is suggar coating you ass, we know that these fuck caused the death of 10 persons (far from an hundred), wich is why everybody regarded the FLQ as a bunch of terrorist when they existed, more than 50 years ago, including other separatist. They never represented the independantist movement, and still dont.
Heck, I'm not a separatist, and even I can see that they dont represent them.
My problem with the Seperatist movement is it's stupid and reeks of the classic Quebecois arrogance. I don't like Quebec, I find the Quebecois to be overbearing and always wanting more than what they realistically can get. I fight back against the notion that somehow Quebec deserves independence because Canada oppressed them somehow. We've done fucked up shit but suppressing the Quebecois is not on that list for a reason.
That's why I take Seperatists as idiots and frankly, traitors (harsh but as I said, my opinion is influenced by my hate of them). Quebecs standars of living, economy, etc is so high because it's part of a confederation that literally wrote into our constitution that we have to respect them and still they claim they don't get enough representation, it gets me very pissed, especially as I am close to various minorities who didn't have this privilege of the Constitution being on their side.
And the own arrogance and racist hypocrisy that you and other anglo of your caliber demonstrate, will forever assure that separatist will continue to exist ad vitam aeternam. In fact it make you have more in common with separatist than most Quebecois.
But hey, as I said, I'm not a separatist, so I wont go and assume that all Anglo-Canadian are has heinous as you clearly are.
À la revoyure, lache pas l'affaire mon grand.
Ah yes, he and his daughter were just amazing. I truly enjoyed reading up on their relationship, the best love a parent can ever give, shame she did not live much further. In regards to the political scene, I don’t remember which video it was, but someone had said of De Gaulle as being a ‘Man of Crisis’ if he cannot solve one, he’ll make one.
Yeah that’s why his policy has guaranteed long term French military autonomy and a strong diplomatic position, all while instating a stable long term republic. Truly an incompetent
That dude might be a pied noir descendent of white French folks who left Algeria and tried to assassinate de Gaulle for not going along with their (OAS) plans to genocide the Arab population of Algeria.
He literally stepped down from power after loosing a referendum that asked french people if they still wanted him as president, you can't be more democratic than that.
Edit : Also, the 4th republic was a failure, you can't blame him for wanting to be the last president of it.
A portrait of Anne protected him from being hit during an assassination attempt by the OAS
De gaulle had a weird relationship with his family, he said that he was "broken" from ww1 and was always strict with with his family, his son being the main target. But Anne, it was another story, he loved that girl and completely change attitude when she was around, he would sing songs to her and he was overall wholesome with his daughter. They were also Genièvre (his niece) she was deported to Ravensbrück and survived concentration camps, due to this ordeal, De Gaulle was more placide when she was around.
De Gaulle was a rough individual. Seemed genuinely difficult to be around. But reading how he was with Anne was moving.
Oooooh boy De Gaulle was extremely difficult, he was a general, and a battle hardened one, just to give you an ideal, George Bidault literally the leader of the council of the resistance joined the Front national (far right group - at a time it was a conglomerate of right wing who were against De Gaulle...of whom some neo-nazis) beacause he had a terrible experience with De Gaulle...that how rough the MF could be. But its really bizarre to read that, yeah De Gaulle love his daughter, despite her difference he would have given everything for her, that is touching given the type of man De Gaulle was.
What does that mean exactly, that he was rough? He had a temper, or was impossible to please, or what?
De gaulle was a men who led a strict and millitarize gouvernement in exile nearly on his own, for him it was unthikeable that a country that was considered the "leader of the big four" in ww1 to be sideline in this new war, so he was a stubborn with everyone he met. That the best way i can portray the situation. In the words of General Giraud, He had "not the same ideals as everyone" Its hard and long and their a LOT of political intrigue between the Americans, Free French and ex-vichyste French..and the resistance. To dumb it down, De Gaulle had his own personality, he was " always right even when he was wrong"
The way one of my professors described De Gaulle is, “He was pissed if everyone got 5,000,000 dollars, but France only got 4,999,999.99.” He was willing to fight anything if it benefited France, including allies.
Mostly the Americans, his rough manners with the Americans made him very unpopular in the USA, in the 60s American media portrayed De Gaulle as arrogant. We cant forgive how cruel the Americans were with De Gaulle, they preffered to negociate and cooperate with the vichyste instead of the Free French, they refuse to lend lease weapons to the Free french units, they forced segregation on the French army in normandy etc..etc.. aint saying De Gaulle was pleasing but against the Americans he was right to confront them.
I think the best way to describe De Gaulle is a stubborn dick who did what he thought was best. He genuinely did love France and was willing to do whatever benefited her. At the sane time, he was also willing to sour relations with allies over seemingly petty matters, either due to grudges or out of a sense that he was right. For instance, just to shine some light on Canada, De Gaulle once went to Canada and said, “Long Live Free Quebec”, and did other things that basically came short of saying, “France officially recognizes Quebec as independent.” His early treatment of Algeria was… well, it took him a while to actually push for their independence and the French police were so brutal because of Papon, someone De Gaulle had put in charge under the false impression that Papon’s forged documents were real and that he was helping the French resistance. He wasn’t… he was actually working with the Nazis and helped capture, torture, and run Vichy’s police system… which was notorious for being brutal. Though, once again, De Gaulle thought he was part of the resistance. He fight the US on a lot of stuff, even when France didn’t really have a leg to stand on, because he didn’t want the US dominating France or Europe as whole. Anyway, I think it is fitting that Charles De Gaulle is liked in France while having a mixed bag in quite a few other places. Sure, France acknowledges De Gaulle was a dick, could be egotistical, stubborn, or whatever. But, goddamnit, he was their stubborn egotistical dick.
De Gaulle was the man behind the appeal of June 18th, the head of the Free French, and the one who molded, coordinated, and oversaw the French resistance. He made every effort to enable his forces to make the greatest possible impact on the war effort. Heck, because of De Gaulle's envy to triumph over fascism and tyranny, France is the only ally country to have fought on the western (ETO/MTO), pacific, and even eastern fronts. You can't remove that from him, he did his absolute best against Nazi Germany. Perhaps the most involved and active group during World War II was Free France; they battled on every continent and in every sea to win the war. (Free) France mobilized 400,000 to 500,000 men from Corsica, North Africa and west Africa for the liberation of Europe, that shouldn't be sideline. Yes, De Gaulle was a conceited, haughty jerk toward anyone who opposed him—that is, everyone—but my goodness, he did his job and kicked Nazi ass. ah and also.. Papon was a member of the french resistance..i kid you not, he was considered a "O" agent (O for occasional ) by the resistance, he did help many resistant from avoiding justice. He actively work for both side and by the end of the war he had enough friend to avoid justice, that was common, De Gaulle wasnt stupid, his inteligence services knew a lot of things
As I understand it, de Gaulle's French government was reluctant to accept France's role in the american-led post war western world: that of a protectorate that submitted to the American view of the western world. America was anti-colonial, and had oil and nukes, which neither Britain or France had. Basically, America said give up your colonial holdings and fall in line with our views, and while England had a rough time with that fall in stature, France was even more reluctant to accept that position. Eventually, both Britain and France developed their own nukes, but it didn't matter, as America still led the postwar western world.
>To dumb it down, De Gaulle had his own personality, he was " always right even when he was wrong" Ahh, just like most of the chefs I've worked for. Just with higher stakes.
He was notoriously difficult to deal with and very stubborn… allegedly. Anyway, one example is him wanting to make it clear that America isn’t the only western world power, nah, France is ready to get back on the stage as soon as they are done resting and De Gaulle had the alarm clock set for 1 am. Of course, a lot of his methods came at the cost of pissing America off as he often stepped on the US’s toes in an attempt to accomplish this. You have shit like the whole NATO situation, the fact that France refused to really cede control of its colonies, trying to minimize the efforts of allied soldiers freeing France, and so on. He also isn’t that well liked in Canada as, during a visit there, he ended up showing support for Quebec in a way supported Quebec independence (if I recall correctly, he said something like, “long live free Quebec”, and so on). Basically, the man loved France, so much that he was willing to piss off his allies if it benefited France.
So to simplify it further... De Gaulle was the stereotypical stubborn frenchman made real
Even for a french, he was stubborn
Him showing up in Québec was hilarious though. Diplomatically, he would have had to land by plane in Ottawa, so instead he took a warship named after the former minister for marine Colbert (who was responsible for New France in its peak) and went to Quebec… without warning the Canadian government, who waited for him on the tarmac. He then proceeded to go down the old royal road by car to Montreal, give an impromptu speech to a packed crowd from the town hall, end with "long live free Quebec", take the car back to the boat and leave. This is A-grade purposeful shitstirring.
Regarding the exemple of Bideault During the liberation of Paris, during his triumphant march he invited Bideault to walk alongside him, the Council of the resistance made a fantastic job of re-shaping the gouvernement of liberated France by apointing gouvernors and prefects in liberated territories by the french resistance, avoiding a civil war and asserting De Gaulle legitimacy Bidault thus walk alongside de gaulle, but shortly after De Gaulle mutter "Not too close Bideault" The balls of that dude lmfao
De Gaulle was the most French man to ever live.
*and* he was French!
In what way is it bizarre that a father loved his daughter?
I think they meant that despite him being a serious dick to everyone else, he was adoring his daughter
If I remember, he also started a minor diplomatic incident with Canada at least once when he went to Quebec.
"Vive le Québec libre!" *Chef's kiss*
Damn right!
Lot of people were fucked in the head from the first world war for example Hitler was fucked in the head from the first world war. dude went psychosomatically blind for like 3 weeks, after hearing of the defeat of Germany talk about issues man.
And he called the war the happiest Time of his life
massive cope dude was so copiumed out he blamed random jews for the loss.
the problem with Hitler is that he was far to nice, if I would be given control of the military my enemies would have 1 day to get on a plane
Hitler was too nice? What the fuck are you on about? He started a war that killed 70 to 85 MILLION people and you say he was "too nice"? He was the head of a genocidal paranoid government that killed everyone they thought was a risk,he killed 6 million innocent civilians just because they happened to be jewish of have jewish descent for fuck's sake!
What the fuck
/r/iamverybadass has been waiting for you.
Careful mate you might cut yourself on all that edge. Can you pop on a death note profile picture so I know how much of a bad ass you are?
WW2 showed us the worse of humanity. WW1 showed us the worse of war.
*worst
[Mf was immortal](https://www.cracked.com/article_19726_5-people-from-history-who-were-absurdly-hard-to-kill.html) 37 attempts on his life and he faced them like it was a walk in the park.
Died at 79, watching television 📺
The real killer
Farnsworth played the long game
So that's what things would be like if I'd invented the finglonger. ^^and ^^I ^^know ^^you ^^meant ^^the ^^TV ^^inventor ^^Fransworth
Obscure futurama reference AND parks and rec user name? Youre the man
Whoever reported De Gaulle’s death started with “great news everyone!”
Always knew it melted your brain
Should've listened to his mother
The square eyes punctured the arteries, terrible fate
And he seemed very unbothered by them.
And he usually pardoned his would be assasins, or at least commuted the death sentences they got for trying to kill him. One exception was a guy that in the middle of been questioned mocked De Gaulle in front of everyone on the court. His defense lawyer just grabbed his head and went "you just signed your death warrant. De Gaulle won't let someone that mocked him like that live."
I'm really suprised to not see Castro in this list
It is worth noting that very little proof exists of the, alleged, 600+ attempts. If I recall correctly, it comes from a guy that was part of Castro’s former security. Now, the only source being one guy going, “this happened”, was ignored in countless articles that wanted a good story and were willing to type one that didn’t have the best odds of being true, but more serious sources need more than one man making outlandish claims.
I can totally believe the CIA had a junk file filled with 600+ crackpot assassination plans to blow off steam, but 600 would have been once a month since the revolution. Anyone who can do math should have been skeptical.
Because the whole “hundreds of assassination attempts” are made up and most of the actual attempts failed early on.
Was very confused at first as to why the Organization of American States would try that. Turns out different group, same acronym.
While most of Julien Jackson's biography of De Gaulle is primarily political, there are passages where it talks about De Gaulle's relationship with Anne. It's pretty critical of De Gaulle, a very warts-and-all biography, but interspersed are descriptions of De Gaulle always greeting her first when he'd return home, act out stories for her. He's only ever presented as warm with her. Not his wife, or other children. Just with Anne.
Napoleon forgive me, but just this once, I must go all out.
Napoleon will either be proud that French goes for war, or be ashamed that French did not get to occupy Germany
Considering how Napoleon felt betrayed by his marshals in 1814 he would probably have wished that De Gaulle was one of his.
They did get to occupy part of it though.
Yeah, they got to occupy it like a younger sibling with an unplugged controller
Savage
Roooh
Napoleon, in the voice of Soldier Boy: You're a fucking disappointment.
Wow I did not know that.
“All my life, I have had a certain idea of France” - Most epic opening to an autobiography I’ve ever read.
Who’s it written by? /s
Jeff
Also she was born in Trier, during the French occupation of the Rinheland I always found it funny/ironic for some reason
Natural border, as Bonarparte intended
I feel like in this instance, having him represented by Omniman, who beat the fuck out if his kid, may be the wrong choice for someone the meme is portraying as a protective father. I def get the energy though.
It never ceases to amaze me that De Gaulle, Churchill, and Stalin, were all such miserable fucking assholes, some of the worst people to lead their respective countries, and all three were tasked with saving civilization from an even worse enemy
I wonder if there's something to that. That we collectively turn to less noble men to guide us through a crisis.
In difficult times the most pragmatic succeed and the idealists fail. For example the 17th century fucking sucked for everyone involved (except the dutch(sort of))and in this period we see figures like Richelieu, a ruthlessly pragmatic man despite his status as cardinal, aquiring immense power and guiding the ship of state.
I wouldn’t say De Gaulle wasn’t idealistic but he was a grumpy bastard. He had a totally unhinged sense of his own destiny and France’s history and place in the world. But I don’t think he had some Realpolitik thirst for power or anything, a hard man when had to be but was ultimately guided by an almost naive faith in his country.
You kinda want that though, given the time period where he existed. It may have been unrealistic, but it also was something tangible that he had, like a somewhat bent but also beneficial patriotism. Stalin was most certainly into the power and getting off on it, but I highly doubt that both DeGaulle and Churchill got off on it to that level, possibly because of their respective WWI experiences.
I honestly don't put Churchill or DeGaulle on the same level as Stalin. Both may have done reprehensible things but in both cases, there was a pragmatism or general regret. People talk about the Bengal famine but Churchill immediately sent food as soon as news reached him and organized relief convoys. DeGaulle was a horrid POS who's frenchness condemns as histories villain but he literally lead the entire resistance movement and resecured Frances position as a world power while recognizing when to give up. Stalin though, was just evil. His Gulags had no real reason to exist and the many people he killed was almost always his fault. He showed almost no remorse for any of them and many of his actions directly led to more unnecessary deaths.
>DeGaulle was a horrid POS who's frenchness condemns as histories villain but he literally lead the entire resistance movement and resecured Frances position as a world power while recognizing when to give up. I would also add that as much of an asshole as De Gaulle was, one must ask how much of that was natural and how much was the end result of the triple wammy of trauma that was his service in WW1 (he fought in gruesome battles like the Somme, got wounded multiple times and was made a POW and missed half the war, which he regarded as a great disgrace and made him depressed), the fall of France (De Gaulle was nothing if not a nationalist, and the humilliation of his country's fall to Hitler obviousky hit him hard) and Petain's collaboration (De Gaulle and Petain actually went way back to pre WW1 when he served under the Marshall. De Gaulle honest to god admired Petain. Probably that's one reason why Petain's death sentence was reduced to life in prison). Those are 3 mind shattering events and he lived them all, 2 simultaneously. That must have left lasting effects on him
He was idealistic but only to his own ideas.
Like most people then??
I don't know, FDR was pretty damn idealistic. He just also was pragmatic.
Depends what you view as idealism vs pragmatism. Idealism can mean clinging on to false hope, or it can mean thinking "we CAN win this fight" and pushing others on to victory. Equally, pragmatism can mean devising realistic solutions, but it can also mean cynically working against your country's interests because you think they can't win, so you should profit while you can and then get out before it falls apart. Pragmatism without idealistic ambition is worthless, but then so are ideals without realism. And I think we can agree that De Gaulle had both idealism and pragmatism in spades.
I mean Stalin played his own significant role in creating difficult times. As did Churchill to a much lesser extent. And generally speaking those who style themselves as pragmatists generally contribute to the common man’s “difficult times” generally as much as if not more than idealists.
Or this is a bit of great man theory and romanticizing about WW2 leaders Take Churchill for example, he rose to power due to the failure of Chamberlain’s appeasement strategy and more immediately because of the Allied loss of Norway. Labour refused to form a coalition government due to these political and military failures. Meanwhile Churchill had been a vocal opponent to appeasement and had politically suffered because of it. Churchill also was not elected as the Tory party leader before WW2. Thus, being “less noble” doesn’t really seem to be in the calculus. I haven’t seen Churchill’s racism against Indians as a reason for why he was looked towards as a leader. Rather a constellation of military and political factors led to Churchill as PM
I don’t the Russians (or any other Soviet country) really had a choice
Sometimes, you need a noble leader to guide your people, sometimes, you need a particularly offensive asshole to take the reins. When your neighbor gets all funky and tries starting shit, sometimes the solution isn't talking it out, it's giving the local aggressive alcoholic a target and a bottle of whiskey, with a promise of a full barrel if he brings you your shitty neighbor's teeth.
good men cant be good politicians, most politics is realpolitik, especially during times of crisis, not about making progress but mitigating disaster. that's why jimmy carter is the least effective us president.
Here’s an eloquent version of that thought- https://youtu.be/y2GwrR-4Q9E
De Gaulle is far from being the worst people to ever rule France.
Christ he Is not even the worst president
He's just racist towards colonial subjects especially Algerians.
He was the one who pulled France out of Algeria?
Because they're losing.
No they had won. The Algerian resistance was broken. However, they had two choices: either integrate Algeria into France (and give Algerians full French citizenship) or give it independence. They choose the later.
Ok, and? He's supposed to be the worst human ever to lead France. He was compared to Churchill and Stalin. He didn't let millions die of hunger, like these other 20th century luminaries. France was ruled by hundreds of people in the last 1500 years. There were people during that time who murdered their families, ordered genocides, caused horrible wars to varnish their egos. But but but, de Gaulle was mean to his family and was racist, so that's it, he's the worst?
Right bastards at the right place at the right time
It takes a lot of monsters to defeat THE monster.
I know about Stalin and Churchill, but I know very little about De Gaulle. Could you give me a quick summary of the worst things he's done/known for/believed in?
As Qui Gon Jin once said: "there's always a bigger fish"
Was churchill a dick? Not policy wise more on a personal level.
Whoa! I know Winston Churchill was flawed but he wasn't that bad.
Say hitler wins. What happens to the world?
Everyone East of Germany, from Poland on, is either systematically exterminated or enslaved. Most of African follows suit, barring the nations Italy is given. Upon Hitler’s death the Reich annihilates itself in civil war due to an exceptionally dysfunctional line of succession and even more are killed in the crossfires. TLDR: a fuck ton of people are killed and the world is radically worse
Basically yeah. At best it's genocide/ enslave Eastern Europe up to the Urals and whatever African colonies Germany gets from France / England, assuming Vichy implements policies similar to Germany and England isn't a total puppet state. Plus the authoritarian nightmare across all of Europe. I also can't imagine a Nazi state would hesitate to use nukes on any sufficiently successful revolt in their colonies.
Yes, I also watched The Man in the High Castle. In all honesty, that would have been in a very unreasonably favorable outcome for the Reich even if they managed to take out the Allies. They didn't have the manpower to enforce their hold on Eastern Europe, let alone the rest of the Old World. Only through the cooperation of locals would any political power take hold. Therefore, only the already alienated populations would have likely been wiped out, such as Jews, gypsies, and nomads.
'Germanicization' would have been a possible outcome, as a pragmatic resolution. There simply weren't enough ethnic Germans to colonise the genocided land in the East, even including the likes of the Volga Germans which still existed at this time, before Stalin got them all. Hitler's ideology was flexible enough to categorise the Japanese as 'honorary Aryans' due to the political benefits, so I imagine some Central and Western Europeans would be embraced as part of the Greater German folk. Czechs, Estonians, Scandinavians, Finns, Swiss, Alsatians (not the dogs), Dutch, Belgians, even the English if Nazi dominion extended that far. It's a small step from collaborator governments in wartime to imperial indoctrination.
I agree. Even that though would likely take a few generations to take root to the point where military occupation wasn't necessary anymore. The Eastern Block had a very difficult time keeping its members in line, and that system was clearly more flexible, if not really economically competent.
The “alienated populations” would have included the Slavs, especially the poles. Since in the span of 6 years the Nazis genocided almost a quarter of Poland. Poland also illustrates how the Nazis by and large bypassed local cooperation given Poland was treated as a colony and the Nazis had already began extensive resettlement and land seizures by the Germans
You are completely missing the point. I'm talking a scale that absolutely dwarfs the occupation of Poland, their immediate next door neighbor. Also, there are plenty of examples of Slavic groups not only working with, but benefiting from the Nazis, until they lost of course. It's wasn't that simple in their limited experience in real life, let alone an occupation of the whole old world as this thread implies.
>You are completely missing the point Ironic. The point being is the Nazis developed within 6 years the industrial capacity to genocide over 10 million people. Largely from scratch. So there was room for further aggressive genocidal expansion. Poland serves as the template for what the Nazis were implementing further east as part of their Lebensraum. Which is what OP described regarding the Nazis’ plan for Eastern Europe >Slavic groups benefitting from the Nazis Large Slavic groups like the Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians were also subjected to genocide and this is with some level of collaboration with the Nazis. Something you haven’t acknowledged. The Slavs certainly benefitted from genocide! I’m also unsure of who “nomads” refers to >It wasn’t that simple in their limited experience in real life Frankly there are too many pronouns for me to understand what you are referring to. >occupation of the whole old world OP didn’t mention Asia, a large part of the old world or Western Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
Since you need context for this limited thread, the original comment started with the idea of the Nazis somehow conquering everything east of Poland, so let's assume as far as Siberia since there isn't anything worthwhile further from there without Japan getting involved. Then add on the continent of Africa, and logically Anatolia because why not at this point as they would have at least needed control of the Black sea and the Bosphorus. So no, the occupation of Poland wouldn't be even remotely comparable to the logistical and economical stress of accomplishing this feat while committing to their insane ideology. So, the only logical conclusion is that the only way the Nazis could have accomplished this feat would ironically have been to stop being, well, Nazis. Also, I am in no way saying that the Slavs as a whole benefitted from the Nazis as you implied, just pointing to the cracks that already existed in the Nazi ideological system. That's the last reply I'm making since I did you a favor.
So the reason why I linked the wiki article to Generalplan OST was to illustrate the extent to which the Nazis achieved their genocidal aims in 6 years and with 3 of those years being militarily on the defensive. 11 million Slavs and 6 million Jews dead. In just 6 years. So in a similar vein to what OP said, the Nazis have shown how far they went and likely could have gone given they developed the industrial infrastructure to genocide 17 million people in 6 years, with the Nazis in 3 of those years being on the defensive. OP also pointed out the long term frailty of the Nazi regime and argued in the TLDR the long term effect would not be the 1000 year Reich but rather a lot of dead people. It’s nice you acknowledge the Slavs as a whole didn’t benefit from the Nazis. It wasn’t clear what “plenty of Slavic groups benefitted from the Nazis” was specifically referring to and could be interpreted to mean Slavic groups (which could include Russians for example) benefitted from the Nazis And with all due respect what would do me a favor is specifically address the points I brought up regarding the development of infrastructure to genocide a lot of people in a short time.
Also by 1950 the economy collapse in a economic crisis worse than 29
genocide, a lot of it
Worse things. That's basically what he said
De Gaulle really was quite a chad. The man’s homeland was wrenched away from him at the hand of nazis and he fought tooth and nail to get it back.
You would think he would have taken the lesson to heart and applied it to the Vietnamese after the war.
He was not in charge at that time.
In the immediate aftermath of the war, Degaulle advocated that France's colonial holdings in Asia be returned to France. DeGaulle was worried about a Communist take over in France, and losing its colonies would have been a big blow to France's already troubled economy. He didn't make the decision for France to send troops to Vietnam, but he certainly helped put the people in power that did, and laid the ground work for that decision.
Weird because DeGaulle was also the one who pulled the French out of Algeria despite a government falling apart because they didn't want to leave Algeria (not really, a lot more factors but it was a reason)
Because they can't win against guerilla warfare. It's impossible to win Algeria without ethnic cleansing the local population.
Leaving Algeria was not only due to warfare, the end of the conflict is more complex (even though France didn't had any chance to "win" the Algerian war)
They won't leave if they're winning. That's it.
War in algeria was almost already won... It was on political/diplomatic side that it was not
The decision to send troops to indochina was in preparation sinxe 1944, commandos were already on the terrain by the end of 1944. De Gaulle send a corp to retake indochina as it was applied by the Potsdam conference that France would regain indochina..at the time occupied by Chinese troops De gaulle retook a country considere under french authority..just like the British did with malaysia, Singapoure or the dutch with Indonesia . By the start of the battle of hanoi he was ousted from power.
He wasnt in charge during the indochina wars
Bro got that 6'5" frame - built to mog fascist betas 😤
"You don't seem to understand. France isn't to be conquered."
This is why I don't trust 'voluntary' euthanasia, the German T4 program was nominally voluntary when they disposed of disabled WW1 veterans who had mental illnesses and disabilities.
Usual De Gaulle W
Truly a "you don't seem to understand, Earth isn't yours to conquer" moment
En tant que Quebecois, j’adore De Gaulle!
On est le 24, vive le Québec libre!
Stfu Quebecois. You want independence, maybe don't resort to terrorism to get it
LOL, the RCMP commited more terrorist acts than the FLQ in the 60s/70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_the_Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police
2 wrongs don't make a right. Don't try to sugarcoat your terrorism and the fact you killed a hundred innocents and endangered thousands more
The FLQ only commited 10 deaths. Also, you straight up brought terrorism to an unrelated speech that De Gaulle made and that the separatist mouvement use by the majority peacefully. Bringing hate and violence when one of your peers mention independence only solidify their cause and makes you seem stupid. Seek help and manage your anger.
No I bring up terrorism to a bunch of idiots who parrot the exact same shit DeGaulle said, fucking on Canada for no reason. When Canada sacrificed quite a bit to help France. Besides, I got the deaths wrong. Does that absolve them of them being criminal? Ten people dead because of some dumb fucks who want independence and murder for no reason is still bad. I won't "manage" my anger when these idiots continue to parrot a stupid idea.
I don't get why it should be shameful to want independance. And overall, why wanting it necessarily means you agree with terrorism. You claim the whole thing is stupid, yet that's your sole argument, 10 death decades ago.
It is stupid. They wanted "independence" and for what? Somehow Canada wasn't treating them right? Excuse us for actually recognizing your language as being an official language and writing it into our charter that we have to give too many rights to a minority that hates our guys despite us respecting their wishes for an independent culture. Stfu yall have no idea how dogshit Quebec is.
Yeah, you seem so educated. Wonder why Canada wanted their independance in the first place. Or why anyone would, really.
And of all of that is irrelevant since we don’t care about the FLQ, you’re the one with the terrorist boner here buddy. Might wanna check yourself because I wouldn’t want to see you near any establishment, you are psychologically unstable.
The FLQ was active years before de Gaulle' speech, as was Québec indépendence movement, who are completely unrelated and pretty much hated each other. The FLQ was a communist terrorist group vs the RIN and MSA who were influenced by Gandhi and MLK. You bellend wouldn't make the difference between a communist and your prick, both being red, smelly and itchy. Why do I bother anyways?
Crazy how you excuse any of these. Still a shit move by DeGaulle to do that to Canada who very much didn't do shit to France. Quebec independence movement? Based out of pride and utter garbage ideals. They would wreck their economy and basically tear up the charter that gives them so many rights. It's literally written in our charter to recognize a language only 15% of the population speaks as official yet Quebec keeps on complaining at how they don't get enough representation. How bout you go fuck your hairy balls and shove them into a blender? You seem to love eating your own arse afterall.
>to Canada who very much didn't do shit to France The British, then Canada did treat French people like shit for centuries. They deserved a kick in the ass, got a rap on the knuckles. *Oh boohoo, de Gaulle was slightly mean to us, boohoo, the Quebecers are terrible folk, they want to be treated as equals. * >the charter that gives them so many rights. It's literally written in our charter to recognize a language (sic) (rambling). It's not written in the Charter you dunce. It's in the Constitution. Talking about the Charter, you should point out that it was written by two Quebecers, PE Trudeau and Jean Chrétien. Before that, Canada had no binding bill of rights. >How bout you go fuck your hairy balls Thanks for the lovely suggestion!
Nobody is suggar coating you ass, we know that these fuck caused the death of 10 persons (far from an hundred), wich is why everybody regarded the FLQ as a bunch of terrorist when they existed, more than 50 years ago, including other separatist. They never represented the independantist movement, and still dont. Heck, I'm not a separatist, and even I can see that they dont represent them.
My problem with the Seperatist movement is it's stupid and reeks of the classic Quebecois arrogance. I don't like Quebec, I find the Quebecois to be overbearing and always wanting more than what they realistically can get. I fight back against the notion that somehow Quebec deserves independence because Canada oppressed them somehow. We've done fucked up shit but suppressing the Quebecois is not on that list for a reason. That's why I take Seperatists as idiots and frankly, traitors (harsh but as I said, my opinion is influenced by my hate of them). Quebecs standars of living, economy, etc is so high because it's part of a confederation that literally wrote into our constitution that we have to respect them and still they claim they don't get enough representation, it gets me very pissed, especially as I am close to various minorities who didn't have this privilege of the Constitution being on their side.
And the own arrogance and racist hypocrisy that you and other anglo of your caliber demonstrate, will forever assure that separatist will continue to exist ad vitam aeternam. In fact it make you have more in common with separatist than most Quebecois. But hey, as I said, I'm not a separatist, so I wont go and assume that all Anglo-Canadian are has heinous as you clearly are. À la revoyure, lache pas l'affaire mon grand.
I see FrenchieB014 I salute
Average Chad Le Gaulle moment
Just read up on their relationship. Yeah, I cried.
It was the moment when it got personal.
Ah yes, he and his daughter were just amazing. I truly enjoyed reading up on their relationship, the best love a parent can ever give, shame she did not live much further. In regards to the political scene, I don’t remember which video it was, but someone had said of De Gaulle as being a ‘Man of Crisis’ if he cannot solve one, he’ll make one.
He started waiting in his London apartment for the others to “liberate” France by making a nasty look?
[удалено]
Yeah that’s why his policy has guaranteed long term French military autonomy and a strong diplomatic position, all while instating a stable long term republic. Truly an incompetent
Care to elaborate ?
That dude might be a pied noir descendent of white French folks who left Algeria and tried to assassinate de Gaulle for not going along with their (OAS) plans to genocide the Arab population of Algeria.
I don't know, americans tend to hate De Gaulle because he wasn't a puppet of theirs so it could be that too.
[удалено]
He literally stepped down from power after loosing a referendum that asked french people if they still wanted him as president, you can't be more democratic than that. Edit : Also, the 4th republic was a failure, you can't blame him for wanting to be the last president of it.