27.9.08

De Gaulle, this "unknown" war hero, that gets a regain of popularity across the pond

and I give you the point in the center (je vous le donne dans le mille) : because he was practicing religion

The Golden Anniversary of de Gaulle's France

By Bruce Walker

Americans love to hate France. Mark Twain, the quintessential American writer, described man as lying somewhere between the angels and the French. Jonah Goldberg, in our times, has called the French "cheese eating surrender monkeys." These whimsical American commentators sum up well American feelings about the French.

This dislike is reciprocated. It is connected to the great historical rivalry between the English-speaking world and the French-speaking world. It also is tied to the fact that France once dominated Europe and occupied much of the planet, while France today is largely just France. Bismarck once said that the most important political fact of the 19th Century was that America and Britain spoke the same language. True, today, and more: Australia, most of Canada, and the administration of India are based upon the English language. Canadians can tell you how much Canadiens resent this.

continue reading HERE

my comment :

here an interesting site about De Gaulle, I recommand you to visit all the links, also if you can read french, there are different enlightenings

Charles de Gaulle

All I can say is that De Gaulle has been our greatest political and military personality of the 20th century, a superior man, alike Churchill, Roosvelt, and finally also Stalin as far as political intelligence is concerned.

What the Anglo-saxons found as arrogant in his attitude, was more a spirit of "resistance" to the well shared contempt of the Brits and of the Roosvelt administration, but most of all he was a great patriot that projected our independance as a moral duty.

That's why he has to resist, not only to the german invasion, but after the war, to the anglo-saxonisation of our country, and if you still find any interest in our country today, it's because he saved our cultural values.

as far as saying that France couldn't defend Poland in 1939, what did the Brits better than us ? who could fooly cross the mighy Germany to help Poland, when Hitler managed Bliztkrieg through Belgium and Nederland first, that surrendered before France, and when the Brits acknoledged that German forces were not a joke, they ran away through Dunkeerque back to UK.

None could resist to this brutal power, even the US were not prepared to war in 194o, and if you'd been vicinal to Germany at this time, I bet you would also have been defeated.

So the french-bashing along our supposed easy surrending was mainly a perfid reading of our history from the Anglo-saxon bias, that is still well maintained through the Brits papers, could be that they can't pardon us Joan of Arc.

I would not invoque the christian faith of de Gaulle for what he did, he was very discret about it, you can't find it in his writings, the objective truth is that he was a warrior first of all. For corroborating what I say, de Gaulle had the impertinence, in regard to the US occupation of France, to take a few communists that were valorous resistants in his first governments and to quit Nato instances when he definitly acknoledged that France was then a vassal of the Anglo-Saxons.

Then He made the right decisions for us, initiated the nuclear energy for civil and military independance, he turned his policy towards new horizons, China and the Arab world, that of course couldn't fit Israel agenda anymore, but that saved us from bankrupty, cause after giving the independance to Algeria, that ment for us a loss of about 300 thousands jobs, not counting the loss of currenties that were not entering anyore in the bank accounts.

De Gaulle was criticised by the lefties while he was heading our state, nowadays there aren't anymore one of them that would dare it, only a few of the former Algerian colons, those that also refused to host de Gaulle during WWII, but were sympathetisans to Vichy, that were, for most of them, not from french ancestry, the very Frenchs "colons" were mostly military and administrative people.

11 comments:

tedders a dit…

If it makes you feel any better I think Montgomery was a bigger ass than any of them!! LOL

NOMAD a dit…

yeah, I read his bio, not typically british :lol:

Don S a dit…

"I bet you would also have been defeated"

Possibly. There is also the question of size and geography. An invasion of the US in 1939 would hve wound up much like Russia, I think, No way the Wehrmacht would have had the numbers to conquer the US or to force capitulation. They may have been able to take the Boston - New York - Washington DC conurbation, but I can't see them getting much further west than the seaboard. And supplies would have been a huge problem for them.

It's GOOD to have a huge ocean between you and rivals!

Europe would do well to keep that ocean in mind, because it's existence makes isolation a viable policy for the US, a policy we mostly successfully followed until 1948....

Paul a dit…

My beef with DeGaulle is the way he treated French soldiers who fought with Germany and the Axis against the Soviet Communists.

In many cases they were executed without any remorse.

Remember these fellows did not fight against the Western allies strictly the Soviets.

Paul a dit…

The US would have crumbled under the might of the Whermacht.

Individually the Germans would have defeated each of the allies.

It took three superpowers to win.

France has nothing to be ashamed of.

That all I have to say. Without getting in trouble from the boss.

NOMAD a dit…

Europe would do well to keep that ocean in mind, because it's existence makes isolation a viable policy for the US, a policy we mostly successfully followed until 1948....

I know that's your wish,though that's also likely to happen, it's the logical means of geopolicies ; I am not fearing that, in the contrary, we miss our free space.

you can have the UK, but I doubt that's they'll still interest you under sharia laws.

De Gaulle considered that those soldiers that fought with the Germans were traitors to our patry, I too think so.

tedders a dit…

"Remember these fellows did not fight against the Western allies strictly the Soviets."

"France has nothing to be ashamed of."

True!

Don S a dit…

"The US would have crumbled under the might of the Whermacht."

The way that the USSR crumbled under the weight of the Wehrmacht in 1941? Similar situation geographically.

Saying that Germany could have taken out any one power by itself is useless in coalition wars like WWII or WWI. Germany might have been able to take the US in 1939 or 1940, but probably not by 1941 even. Certainly not after that.

Even the USSR might have been able to beat Germany in the end without the other fronts. Though not, perhaps, without Lend-Lease.

Look at all the European wars after 1600 and ask yourself ho many were mano a mano, and how many coalition wars. The latter were far in preponderance.

Don S a dit…

"I know that's your wish,though that's also likely to happen, it's the logical means of geopolicies ; I am not fearing that, in the contrary, we miss our free space."

We're agreed then!

NOMAD a dit…

except Napoleon's

Paul a dit…

Don

What of the poor performance of Italy! That country was a millstone
around Germnany's neck!!!

I have a feeling the Italian Crown was giving away secrets from the beginning.

I am sure Hitler would have taken France and of course England as an ally over Italy wothout thinking twice.

Mussolini delayed Barbarrossa for two critical months in April and May of 1941 by attacking Greece.