Churchill vs de Gaulle

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

french stratege RE:Churchill vs de Gaulle: big fella 10/5/2004 2:30:01 PM

At least the today good consequences of Sykes Picot agreement is that it turn out Syria from Saudis and bring Syria to be freed today of Whaabatism islamism and more modernised in their mentalities. By the way no relation to De Gaulle it seems!

Quote Reply

french stratege RE:Churchill vs de Gaulle: big fella 10/5/2004 2:40:17 PM

De gaulle was a democrat, he could have imposed its power in 58 (or maybe in 1945).Instead of that he asked election of president on direct popular votes soon after and presented him its self. When the plebiscit he asked for, in 68 was lost , he resigned while he was not compelled to do, to take the consequences. You would better read its memories. PS: the "paranoia" of De Gaulle in 45 was not without reasons: communists tried to get power everywere they could as the biggest armed group remaining, refusing to give up their weapons, killing thousands French political opponents ,right wing or moderate left even (and some of resistance), to prepare to get the power.We have seen what they have done in Poland or Czeckoslovakia.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:Churchill vs de Gaulle: FS 10/5/2004 4:37:47 PM

"good consequences of Sykes-Picot is that it urn out Syria from Saudis [sic] and bring Suria today to be freed of Whaabatism [sic]" (a) Syria was never threatened by Ibn Sa'ud or the Wahabi sect. (b) Sykes-Picot undermined the moderate Sherifian Arabs who should have controlled much of the middle east - Syria, Iraq and most of the Arabian peninsular. Sykes-Picot gave Ibn Sa'ud the excuse to create Saudi Arabia and export Wahabism for 80 years. Undermine the moderates and bribe the oil-rich extremists. Not a good strategy. P.S. This relates to bigfella's comment on the middle east.

Quote Reply

bigfella RE:Churchill vs de Gaulle: big fella 10/5/2004 7:45:50 PM

Once again FS your reading of French history is idiosyncratic. It is true that DeGaulle did not grab power in 1945. Perhaps the possibility of sparking a civil war so soon after the occupation gave him thought. Rather, he chose to await the call of the French poeple. When it was too long in coming he let the military in Algeria effectively bring an end to the fourth republic by threatening to invade mainland France. True, he did not become a dictator, but he made sure that his powers as president were greatly expanded. As for Indochina, I am not sure of De Galle's role in the French re-occupation of Indochina in 1945-6, but as head of the Provisional Govt. ha must have played a role. Having given up Indochina to the Japanese without a fight in 1940 and stood by while they committed mass murder, France had no right to return tho a colony that had declared its independence. During the war that followed De Galle's party (the RPF) hindered peace negotiations and unecessarily prolonged the conflict. He is far from blameless for that bloody and needless war.

Quote Reply

Couac_Attack RE:Churchill vs de Gaulle: big fella 10/6/2004 3:06:16 PM

"Once again FS your reading of French history is idiosyncratic. It is true that DeGaulle did not grab power in 1945. Perhaps the possibility of sparking a civil war so soon after the occupation gave him thought. Rather, he chose to await the call of the French poeple. When it was too long in coming he let the military in Algeria effectively bring an end to the fourth republic by threatening to invade mainland France. True, he did not become a dictator, but he made sure that his powers as president were greatly expanded." In 1958, De Gaulle was popular, and the people were asking for his return, but at the same time, men like mitterand and other politicians of the parlement majority were blocking him, and didnt agree to give him the power until he created the kind of "crisis" situaiton you describe, based on an armyintervention on the mainland. "As for Indochina, I am not sure of De Galle's role in the French re-occupation of Indochina in 1945-6, but as head of the Provisional Govt. ha must have played a role. Having given up Indochina to the Japanese without a fight in 1940 and stood by while they committed mass murder, France had no right to return tho a colony that had declared its independence. During the war that followed De Galle's party (the RPF) hindered peace negotiations and unecessarily prolonged the conflict. He is far from blameless for that bloody and needless war. " As i had written 2 month ago, the Indochina conflict has been a very complicated one, and all the consequences of this conflict has been responsible in a some way to the Vietnamese war. To describe De Gaulle involvment brievly, he just asked to Leclerc, D'argenlieu and other men, to come back to Indochina and to reorganise the country, to the old froteers if possible, this objectiv cannot be seen as a "declaration of war" to the vietminh since there were not independentist revendications yet. Then De Gaulle left power and ,D'argenlieu, with the new government agreement or unconstraint, tried to create a virtual state, the Coconchine ( or something like that ), against the agreements made with the viethmin. to discuss what would have been De Gaulle's position, just remember Algeria, when he saw that it was impossible to keep algeria as a colony, he decided to ask to the Algerian people ...

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Churchill vs de Gaulle 10/6/2004 11:51:14 PM

Who was the better leader? If the standard used to judge involves the profit of France, obviously, DeGaulle. If we adopt a lower standard, such as the good of the world, then we'd be compelled to choose Churchill.

Quote Reply

bigfella RE:Churchill vs de Gaulle: big fella 10/7/2004 2:18:25 AM

"this objectiv cannot be seen as a "declaration of war" to the vietminh since there were not independentist revendications yet." I'm not quite sure what this means, but Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam's independence on Sept. 2 1945, BEFORE French troops had returned to the Nth (except, of course, those imprisoned by the Japanese after 5 years of collaboration). France had no right to be there, and about a million Vietnamese died as a result. Any involvement on DeGaulle's part (and there was a good deal) simply made things worse.

Quote Reply

Couac_Attack RE:Churchill vs de Gaulle: big fella 10/7/2004 2:35:56 PM

"I'm not quite sure what this means, but Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam's independence on Sept. 2 1945, BEFORE French troops had returned to the Nth (except, of course, those imprisoned by the Japanese after 5 years of collaboration). France had no right to be there, and about a million Vietnamese died as a result. Any involvement on DeGaulle's part (and there was a good deal) simply made things worse." So could you explain to me why Ho chi minh played with the French to kick China out of Indochina, and then tried find a compromise with french leaders between an independance, and a protectora status. And if i remember well, Ho chi min was not the leader of all vietnamese political movements, and the vietnamese communism was not really implanted in the population yet .. So he was certainly not abble to speak for all "his" people.

Quote Reply

1 2