This was mentioned in "The Brothers" about Allan and John Foster Dulles who directed the CIA to collude with right-wing French officers hoping to overthrow Charles de Gaulle.
> “Honor, common sense and the interests of the country require that all free Frenchmen, wherever they be, should continue the fight as best they may,”
Honor ... when was the last time you heard a modern politician use that word in a speech, I wonder.
I was sad to read a document by the US military defining “honor.” It was an extremely narrow and technical definition. Not the sort of thing that you’d die over.
Like defining “crown” as “an head-worn ornament associated with royalty” and “country” as “an established political unit”. Makes “For Crown and Country” seem like something a crazy person would say.
Interesting does anyone know where to find the American definition?
When I was serving in the German armed forces they taught us, that “Inner honour is the ones subjective sense of dignity and value” and that if those values would not align to what military service demands we should not take our pledge and leave.
“Personal honour” is a legally protected entity under German law, so the definition is more or less universally agreed on.
The US Navy has detailed specifications and tables on honors. Like the number of sideboys present for visiting dignitaries, ruffles and flourishes, guns on arrival/departure, and boat "gongs".
That seems to be a different kind of honor. The one that can be pluralized and given to someone entitled. Not the intrinsic honor a person must possess to deserve genuine respect.
I was reading the US Manual of the Law of War by the Department of Defense. It is based off Prussian legal theory.
I’m having trouble finding the definition, but the only available online PDF is a new version. The new version talks about honor, but never defines it.
As it’s generally used, the phrase “honor” is transnational. A soldier who does a good job, in the eyes of both friend and foe, has honor.
So in their German context, there is debate over which solders in WWII were honorable.
Certainly not those involved in the holocaust, but probably most of those who served on U-Boats.
The honor should be recognized by American soldiers as well.
But you see how this becomes circular. To steal from Euthyphro, is something honorable because it is honored, or is it honored because it is honorable?
In practice, it limits what harm can be inflicted, and requires assuming enemy soldiers are good and decent humans until proven otherwise.
The definition I found disturbing treated honor like it was a presumption of technical competency for foreign soldiers.
This sounds pretty different from what you’re describing, which seems more similar to the English word “conscience.”
Or consider Józef Beck’s famous speech responding to Hitler’s threats, with the famous lines:
“Peace is a precious and a desirable thing. Our generation, bloodied in wars, certainly deserves peace. But peace, like almost all things of this world, has its price, a high but a measurable one. We in Poland do not know the concept of peace at any price. There is only one thing in the lives of men, nations and countries that is without price. That thing is honor.”
Given that politicians cater rhetorically to the populace and are themselves products of the prevailing culture, we can look at how speeches have changed over time to assess the progression of our societies, and this progression tracks closely the decadence described in Plato’s Republic. Honor, in this case, aligns with the spirited part of the soul and therefore timocratic rule. We have since passed from the timocratic stage to oligarchy in which honor is replaced with love of money. Democracy follows in which the base appetites are put front and center and all desires, no matter how base or deranged, are treated equally. (Tyranny is the last stage, characterized by total depravity and brutality.)
Reading de Gaulle's book makes you wonder how politicians became what they are today, it's as if they lost 50iq points and became business owners instead of world leaders
De Gaulle was a cool guy. He was afraid of no one.
"After Washington rebuffed his proposal to overhaul the Western alliance and once he ended the war in Algeria, de Gaulle launched a forceful attack on what he called the "American protectorate." The West's nuclear strategy, the structure of NATO, and West German dependence on Washington were only some of the issues that fell subject to Gaullist revisionism"
Yeah it was so cool when he oversaw the torture and arbitrary detainment of Algerian civilians in a desperate attempt to crush the revolutionary movement.
He was out of power until '58 when the Algerian war had already been going on for 4 years and within his first term offered a referendum for independence to Algeria, which at that point had been under French rule for over a century, and then honored that independence.
It was a brutal occupation and while I obviously don't hold some kind of personal resentment to the decedents (whether institutionally or literally) of this colonial state, I think its hard for the well meaning public in these countries to understand the effect of this kind of soft whitewashing (even if unintentional) of the historical record has to those of us who have these conflicts burned in our living memory, and are in all ways still living within the direct repercussions of these conflicts.
Maybe it is easier for some when they can view it from a distance, I see many who grasp the severity of say, the Japanese state's indifference to their imperial war crimes which still causes immense tension with their neighbors, or the denial of the Armenian Genocide by Turks and so on. It's a shame that such indignation rarely is maintained for systems that one may be far more complicit, and consequently far more able to rectify.
To be fair it’s not like the FLN were that much less brutal than the French both during and after the war.
Of course in hindsight (even if we ignore all the mass murder and atrocities, which we can’t..) that was was entirely pointless from the French perspective. What were they even hoping to achieve? Unless they were willing to grant full suffrage and civil rights to the entire Muslim population independence seemed inevitable. Best case was holding onto the majority French/pro-French areas in the north..)
> it’s not like the FLN were that much less brutal than the French both during and after the war
Sure, I'm under no rose-tinted delusions about their methods - nor the methods of any other guerilla movement in a similar position - but the vital distinction is that one side is aimed at enforcing a racist and cruel colonialist regime and the other is a popular nationalist movement aimed at achieving sovereignty from that colonialist regime. There is no equivalence here. The FLN wouldn't have needed to liberate Algeria at gunpoint if it wasn't under occupation in the first place (and if a peaceful or diplomatic resolution was not refused).
>What were they even hoping to achieve?
Yeah, I think there comes a similar point with many reactionary movements where they kind of began a mindless march into self-destruction, where whatever self-interested outcome they originally fought for is no longer even feasible yet they continue fighting for no other reason than institutional momentum and spite.
I’m not defending or denying what France did but in quite a few ways it was a civil war. It’s not like FLN was universally popular, before the French started committing mass atrocities it had quite limited support.
> to liberate
It’s not like they turned it into a democracy or even tried to. It was bit like Castro liberating Cuba just a probably with more atrocities targeting civilians or former Algerian soldiers serving in the French army.
Yeah, liberated. Algeria is no longer an explicit French colony, just an effective one (they now skip the middle man and exploit it directly through trade agreements). It turns out its quite difficult to magically create a prosperous liberal democracy post-revolution when isolated from both international trade and the political sphere of the hegemon, and when the militarized state structure that was necessitated by the war effort can quite easily be co-opted by certain elements in the state savvy enough to purge any opposition that would prevent them from re-establishing trade relations with the same international business interests and neo-colonial enterprises as before, that would happily provide support and funding in exchange for unequal trade agreements and repressive domestic policies that benefit the oligarchs and their foreign partners at the expense of popular support and the goals of the revolution.
>It’s not like they turned it into a democracy or even tried to
How familiar are you with the cold war, and especially the third world movement? Do you know what happened to the democracies?
>more atrocities targeting civilians or former Algerian soldiers serving in the French army
Did you expect them to grant amnesty to a domestic reactionary fifth column, who in the case of both cuba and essentially every other third world country during that century, immediately began programs of terrorism and destabilization with foreign support? I'm not talking about the civilians who should've been securely repatriated, but a lot of those informants and French soldiers where not peaceful bystanders. The french state would not have been able to carry out their programs of torture and terrorism against the civilian population without their help.
I'm not exactly condoning or celebrating reprisals or violence but once again, all of these things become inevitable when a country is colonized and repressed, so I'm not sure why you place the moral condemnation on people that will inevitably resist an occupation rather than the instigator.
In any case, what's your ideal scenario? That a brutal struggle for national sovereignty somehow manages to secure their freedom with limited violence or guerilla tactics against an infinitely more funded and lubricated colonial machine, and immediately institute a parliamentary democracy that will avoid being subject to a purge or military coup (as was the case in Algeria) or outright foreign intervention (in the case of Allende, Sukarno, Park Chung Hee, Goulart, and literally too many others to list).... somehow? Or instead should they have just rolled over and assist the French in violently pacifying the population, or in the case of Cuba help maintain Bautista's dictatorship solely to prevent civil instability at all costs, since national sovereignty clearly cannot be attained in a manner you deem proper.
> so I'm not sure why you place the moral condemnation
I'm not sure why do some people insist on treating the world as black and white and are so obsessed with some sort of ideological purity of one type or another.
The FLN was a terrorist organization, they targeted both French and Algerian civilians (and had zero qualms about consciously sacrificing the lives of thousands of lives and used that as tool to achieve their political aims). The fact that the French were as brutal or much more brutal is tangential.
That every time a third world nation during the Cold War moved towards democratic rule (along with the land and resource re-distribution that will inevitably follow from politicians engaging with the interests of the franchised population) there was immediately counter-opposition in the form of reactionary para-paramilitaries, or military coups internal to the state. This subversion was often funded by foreign intelligence agencies and business interests (essentially always, though the degree may vary e.g. Brazil had a much more embedded reactionary sector thanks to the legacy of slavery and the social castes that arose, compared to say Indonesia where the CIA had to do a lot more work in directly authorizing bombing campaigns and funding anti-communist programs for young military officials in Sukarno's government) [see Vincent Bevins book on Indonesia].
>The fact that the French were as brutal or much more brutal is tangential
No its not tangential at all unless you are missing the point I've made. Do you not understand that militant terrorist tactics come out of a reaction to brutal oppression? It's not a difficult concept to grasp: any situation where peaceful opposition is stifled, democratic political action is repressed, and activists targeted for arrest and extra-legal violence, you force people to either form or support groups wielding militant guerilla tactics which include terrorism and brutality, since such groups cannot be quelled so easily.
And this is a fact well known to colonialist powers both historical and contemporary as is reflected in their tactics, since a militant opposition is much easier to frame as violent barbarians than their peaceful predecessors and is used retroactively to justify their oppression.
>I'm not sure why do some people insist on treating the world as black and white and are so obsessed with some sort of ideological purity of one type or another
Where are these people you're talking about? Can you show how anything I said relies on some explicitly moralistic or ideological argument? Do you understand that I'm not thoughtlessly cheer-leading violence but simply pointing out that it is an inevitable consequence of colonial repression?
To the contrary I think the moralistic position would be to argue that historical actors should be condemned retroactively for engaging in any kind of violence while refusing to consider the immediate (and asymmetric) cause of such violent resistance as a contingent factor. Not sure how your abstraction of history into a series of totally unrelated events, wherein the actors should be morally judged individually constitutes a less subjective analysis.
Who would you have supported in the place of FLN? What should they have done to earn your approval? Would would be the outcome of such an action in that context? Of what use is any of this speculation?
That’s the paradox of the man and probably the reason personal notes will indubitably be checked before being published: for someone who fought so hard against Nazism, he was strangely comfortable with casual racism and silent about the atrocities of the Algerian war.
Churchill is similar and possibly more familiar to the English-speaking public: presented as a lion against Hitler, but don’t dig too much towards what he did with Irish republicans or around India’s independence.
I don’t think FDR was that much different if you read what he privately wrote about Jewish immigrants to the US in the 1940s or the internment camps of Japanese-Americans.
All three are the modern keystones of human-rights-defending countries, but the second best-known thing about them is how much effort they put into planning openly racist policies, up to genocides. You can read Hannah Arendt and re-read after accounts on what happened during the Battle of Algiers, the Bengal Famine, or Manzanar, and it hits differently the second time.
Yep, I agree with all of this. It's pretty jarring to see the disconnect between one's own experience coming from these post-colonial countries with family members who lived through these conflicts, and the "public" attitudes and collective recollection within these centers of power and the discrepancy with their own self-perception as proponents of "liberal values" and "human rights".
> That’s the paradox of the man and probably the reason personal notes will indubitably be checked before being published: for someone who fought so hard against Nazism, he was strangely comfortable with casual racism and silent about the atrocities of the Algerian war
That's why it's hard to judge past personalities with our modern standards. Go read what Jules Ferry or Victor Hugo said about colonies, they both were very engaged and vocal about human/civil rights yet they said the most insanely racist things, I don't think any known public figure alive today said anything remotely as racist as them.
>That's why it's hard to judge past personalities with our modern standards
This couldn't be more naive, you understand that these are not some default cultural norm of the time, shared by all, and we today are simply more empathetic and enlightened than them with each passing decade? These attitudes are a direct reflection of the political sphere and centers of power in which those originating these ideas are embedded within.
People knew racism and colonialism was wrong during WW2. They knew it long before then.
You can take any time and place in history, and if you look you will find someone opposed to colonialism, exploitation, and prejudice, for as long as those concepts have existed. Just maybe not in the military leadership, or political class, since their positions in society constrain the range of beliefs they would've held in order to enter such positions in the first place.
To be fair, most of the politicians of his time were inept too. Look at the story of the fourth republic. Full of private interest lobbyists and party machinist.
Look at the story of how De Gaulle became prominent in the first place. France, with a huge army, fell to the German army in weeks, while politicians argued, resigned, sacked Generals etc.
Or look at how they ignored the occupation of the Rhineland, when even the German army felt they would be crushed if France attacked.
> France, with a huge army, fell to the German army in weeks, while politicians argued, resigned, sacked Generals etc.
Do you mean to blame politicians for the military's failure? The military organized, equipped, trained, planned, and commanded their short-lived WWII efforts.
In Germany after WWI, if I recall correctly, they made scapegoats out of those they wanted to demonize rather than take responsibility.
Yes I do. As well as the other gexcellent replies to you, French defence was centred around the theory of the Maginot line. This was a great line of defensive fortifications that stretched from Switzerland to Belgium, where it left a gap which the German assault swept through. This theory of defence totally ignored the developing theories of mobile warfare, such as the Blitzkrieg. It is named after Andre Maginot, the French Minister for War, a civilian politician who convinced the government to ignore people like de Gaulle (who wanted to invest in armour and aircraft) and build a WW1 era defence.
The politicians also allowed the gap in Belgium, for political reasons. Germany invaded through that gap (like on the previous two invasions, just so you don't think this is hindsight). These were all political decisions, just like the appointing of terrible commanders because of their political away, as others have noted.
That's the what the fascists always say - we lost because of civilians who undermined us. The military is faultless and the only institution you can trust; democracy is weakness.
If you get run over in weeks, you are really stretching to point fingers if you are not looking at the military. If you don't, you end up with a corrupt, incompetent military.
The French were better equipped than the Germans at the outset of the war, in terms of armor, etc., but didn't know how to utilize what they had tactically.
The French Third Republic was a democracy in which the military was subordinate to the civilian government. Responsibility flows uphill to the people in charge. When the consequences involve the defeat and occupation of the country, it makes no sense to blame one organization and absolve the people who were in charge of it.
> The French Third Republic was a democracy in which the military was subordinate to the civilian government. Responsibility flows uphill to the people in charge. When the consequences involve the defeat and occupation of the country, it makes no sense to blame one organization and absolve the people who were in charge of it.
Nobody said that, but it absolutely makes no sense not to blame the military primarily.
How can you blame an organization more than the people responsible for funding and commanding it? If the military’s tech was obsolete, the politicians should have made them upgrade. If the military’s doctrine was bad, the politicians should have made them fix it. If the military’s leaders were bad, the politicians should have fired them and replaced them with better leaders.
Maybe for individual battles. But losing an entire war for the survival of the country is the sort of thing where responsibility goes all the way to the top.
That's not my read of his comment. De Gaulle was a noisy upstart colonel when the Germans started their invasion of France, and was only promoted to 1-star general when France was half-way to being conquered. And you certainly could blame the politicians for having General Incompetent ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Gamelin#Role_in_the_Se... ) in charge of the army until part-way through the German Conquest. And then replacing him with General Worthless ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxime_Weygand#Recall_to_servi... ).
> Do you mean to blame politicians for the military's failure? The military organized, equipped, trained, planned, and commanded their short-lived WWII efforts.
Yes, because the military was:
* not given enough to organise for what was coming, and as a result their whole strategy was centred on "keep the Germans at the border for a few years, and then when we have enough arms and people we'll attack in 2-3 years"
* put under the command of an incredibly inept man, Gamelin. He was politically well connected and useful (republican values and loyal to democracy, unlikely to launch a coup), but was unprepared for anything more recent than WWI. Worst of all, he was incapable of taking any sort of feedback from his subordinates, and in fact sent off men who were questioning him to shitty posts away from him. Even worse, he was consulted on foreign policy, and had way too much sway in deciding French foreign agenda around appeasement of Hitler (e.g. Gamelin refused to support Czechoslovakia unless Poland also joined; Poland was way too short-sighted and opted to get some rail junction from Czechoslovakia instead of realising they're next and siding against Hitler. But this was irrelevant, French + Czechoslovak armies outnumbered the Germans by a good margin, had better industry and more arms manufacturing, would have had them on two fronts, and both had extensive defensive systems; and unknown to them, the German army probably would have couped Hitler if it had came to war in 1938).
The army was bigger, and had some better equipment. But there wasn't enough of it, neither for France, nor to support various French aligned troops (e.g. Spanish republicans).
And yes, it was very badly used. In part because of bad tactics and the wrong lessons learned from WWI and the Spanish Civil War, in part because there wasn't enough of it so they decided to spread it out across the front.
Oh yes sure, but you had at least some of them who were both successful and caring for the long term state of their country. Today wherever you look, at least in France, you see the same self serving behaviours
Ironically they all call themselves "Gaullists", even though none of them are, but since it is the benchmark of what a leader should be they all defaults to that term. I think de Gaulle's legacy explains why France hasn't completely collapsed yet (only country in EU with the atom bomb, country with the highest % of nuclear in its energy mix, a decent army), all of it is slowly crumbling away of course
> I think de Gaulle's legacy explains why France hasn't completely collapsed yet
The 5th republic presidential system, which we owe to De Gaulle, is a large part of the issues we have, though.
> country with the highest % of nuclear in its energy mix
Civilian nuclear happened after his departure, though. If anything, De Gaulle's fierce protectionism had pushed the french civilian nuclear industry to pursue homegrown graphite-gaz tech, which was a dead-end technologically, as the Brits eventually found out. De Gaulle's departure opened the way to importing Westinghouse-designed reactors which were a success.
> The 5th republic presidential system, which we owe to De Gaulle, is a large part of the issues we have, though.
Alternatively, looking back at the disasters of the 3rd and 4th republics, a strong Presidential system is the only option for a coherent stable long term government to exist in France. The 5th tries to do everything to ensure there's a strong figure and a majority they can work with; the first time there has been no majority, and it's total chaos, reminiscent of how the 3rd and 4th (didn't) worked. And their existence over multiple decades shows that if deputies were forced to compromise more often, it still wouldn't help.
> Alternatively, looking back at the disasters of the 3rd and 4th republics
The 3rd republic was interrupted when the nazis invaded, and was replaced by an undemocratic collaboration government. I don't see what the 5th constitution would have changed in that situation. I would say that the 3rd was, by very far, the republican system that endured the worst situations in France, and it survived most situations.
The 4th republic was interrupted by a military putsch, and replaced by the 5th, who barely survived a second putsch a couple years later. Likewise, no constitutional point of the 5th would have prevented this to happen.
Like it or not, the 5th republic never had to survive any situation comparable to what the 4th and (especially) the 3rd republic survived. Personally, I'm happy that we don't have world wars and civil wars anymore, but that's unrelated to our constitution.
I meant more generally. The 3rd and 4th were very unstable and struggled to function under regular conditions. There were many governments that didn't survive more than a few months, and the average was around a year. As a result long term planning and serious policy making were really really hard to achieve (e.g. the disaster of appeasement).
I think the issue with this common misconception stems from governments falling being seen as a sign of unstability nowadays. Actually, it is just a sign of a fail-fast political culture. Sure, some governments failed in a week, but that was part of the discovery process. The Barnier government, which was doomed from the start and did nothing, took 3 month to be named, and another 3 months to fail. If Barnier had failed in a week, we would have been much better off.
If you want to assess the resilience of the third republic, you have to look at the challenges it overcame. The fifth is far behind in that aspect.
> The 5th republic presidential system, which we owe to De Gaulle, is a large part of the issues we have, though.
The current political issues are caused by a lack of majority in parliament. So arguably this is really the one scenario the "Presidential system" cannot be blamed for.
Lack of majority in parliament is nothing new. The 5th made it harder to happen, but when it does, the constitution gives no way to handle the situation. Hard to get MPs to compromise on something when they know that, soon enough, they'll compete the mother of all election where one side wins all.
It's the same in parliamentary systems. There is no majority so it's very hard to form a government and that government is very unstable. This has little to do with the 5th Republic, which is actually designed to avoid unstability as much as possible, but it cannot do miracles...
I don't know why discussions on constitutional issues in France always get stuck on the same flawed or outright false claims, but it's annoying.
> It's the same in parliamentary systems.
Coalitions happen all the time in parliamentary systems. Even in countries with a strong presidential executive, having legislative elections on a separate schedule that help incumbents getting re-elected independently from the head of state helps a lot in getting bipartisan deals. Even in France, the Senate, notwithstanding its issues, is frequently a welcome source of balance of powers for this very reason.
> There is no majority so it's very hard to form a government and that government is very unstable.
Many countries have parliamentary systems and manage to be stable and working democracies. Many more have mixed systems which are much less forceful than France and also work fine.
> Many countries have parliamentary systems and manage to be stable and working democracies. Many more have mixed systems which are much less forceful than France and also work fine.
And over the 70 years of the 3rd Republic and 12 of the 4th, stable and working are not labels that could be applied. The average length of a government in that period is around a year, with many being in power even less than that.
Not sure what's annoying or a "false claim" here...
Coalitions may or may not happen in parliamentary systems or now in France.
> having legislative elections on a separate schedule that help incumbents getting re-elected independently from the head of state helps a lot in getting bipartisan deals
That's how it is in France unless the terms somehow align, which is more common now that Presidential and Parliamentary terms are both 5 years but not guaranteed.
In any case this has nothing to do with coalitions, which are a result of a lack of majority, not of the constitutional system per se.
> Many countries have parliamentary systems and manage to be stable and working democracies
Yes but that's beside the point.
The issue in France is that the strong Presidential system is seen as "right wing" not least because it was created by a General so the left likes to criticise. The reality is that it has worked well and that more parliamentarism would not be a silver buller to solve issues, real or perceived.
> That's how it is in France unless the terms somehow align
The terms always "somehow" align, because the president can reset the term of MPs, which is extremely beneficial just after winning the presidential election.
Because of that and because the president's mandate now has the same duration has the legislature, the two terms are synchronized, we rarely have snap elections (this year was the first time ever since the 5-year presidential mandate was introduced).
The senate works differently, but since it can't block laws, it's less relevant.
> but not guaranteed.
Situation: you get elected but the Assemblée Nationale is against you. Why would you ever not call snap elections? That's what Mitterand did in 1981 and 1988, and it worked both times. We are extremely likely to have new MP elections in 2027, just after a new president gets elected.
> In any case this has nothing to do with coalitions
Of course it does. Because the president has so much weight on the executive, and because appearing as principled and uncompromising is important to prepare for the next election, coalitions are too risky for opposition politicians to enter them: they risk too much and they gain too little by entering a coalition.
> Yes but that's beside the point.
Why? Explaining the lack of coalitions using the concrete constitutional mechanisms that make it impractical makes much more sense than trying to explain it by some immaterial virtue of french political ethos.
> The issue in France is that the strong Presidential system is seen as "right wing" not least because it was created by a General so the left likes to criticise.
Not sure what you are arguing for or against at this point...
If you're the President and Parliament is against you and you don't want to quit you have to step aside as happened in 1986, 1993, and 1997 and the system does become essentially parliamentary.
Again, coalitions stem from lack of majority and potentially large number of parties, not parliamentary vs Presidential systems per se. You enter a coalition only when you have to. If you have the majority you don't.
Countries that have a "culture" of coalitions are those where there are many parties and potentially proportional representation so that majorities in Parliament are rare.
Hence the UK which is completely parliamentary but very rarely has coalitions because the system is designed to create majorities, whereas Germany rarely has outright majorities so often has coalitions.
> If you're the President and Parliament is against you and you don't want to quit you have to step aside as happened in 1986, 1993, and 1997 and the system does become essentially parliamentary.
For a cohabitation to happen, you still need a majority. The legislatures in '86, '93 and '97 all had clear majorities. The current situation doesn't have it. Also cohabitation is likely a thing of the past since the constitutional reform of 2000.
> not parliamentary vs Presidential systems per se.
The system and the chronology of elections it creates has an impact on political strategies and the willingness to compromise.
> Countries that have a "culture" of coalitions
Countries that have a "culture" of coalitions have it because making coalitions isn't punished by the electoral system. France had a "culture" of coalition before the rules were changed. In fact, that "culture" is not some hard-to-pin virtue, it's political agents understanding the rules of the game, and optimizing their chances to win.
> You enter a coalition only when you have to.
Here is the thing: you never "have to" enter a coalition, and if you do so, you get milked by the senior party, because having the president on their side gives them an overwhelming edge. And so, at the next elections, you get destroyed because you've pushed little of your program and enabled the other side. It's much more rewarding to stay in the opposition.
And do you think that laws are the solution to that? Just take a look at Germany right now; their system is much less chancellor-ized, and it is still a clusterfuck right now.
Like tech is not the solution to social problems, laws are not the solution to political issues.
De gaule was part of the exception, most politicians have always been cowards but some were also resistant and got jailed during ww2 by Vichy or joined de gaule.
You still see politicians step up today, especially in times of war. I also wonder how much a modern media environment manufacturs or amplifies flaws of politicians, I once met someone in person who was convinced that Obama hated veterans.
Did Giuliani actually step up after 9/11, or did he just read Churchill bedside (as was reported at the time) and imitated what he didn't have?
I used to give him the benefit of the doubt on the above question, but based on the last decade of his actions reported in the press, I'm less clear. There is stepping up, and then appearing to step up. Which would a politician be best at? Or is it the press as you say... the press ignoring things in situations that require unity, and reporting bad things in comfortable times when people are jockeying and its time to get clicks/views...
24/7 news certainly plays a role, as well as independent media, it's much easier to control your image when you have a few newspapers and a few tv stations that are public or owned by friends.
I still believe people like Macron, Scholz, Trump or Biden look like absolute buffoons, for different reasons, compared to the average leaders of the last 50 years
Yes for sure, but thats not enough. Otherwise we would see a lot of similar moral leaders ie in Africa or South America and reality is very different, isn't it.
De Gaulle was a general not a politician, though. Until he went to England instead of surrendering like most other French generals and politicians.
Not exactly a career path that’s easy to follow in any stable western country. You can’t really just jump from the military to government regardless of how capable and qualified you are.
Back in his time, it used to be the norm though. Douglas MacArthur and Eisenhower come to mind.
Even today, a not-insignificant number of US reps and congressmen are people who have served in the military. Same goes for Singapore, India and Indonesia (if we're going by stable democracies). I think Europe is an exception to the norm, even if there are some cases (like the current Czech President).
Yes as a consequence of WW2 not before (outside of other major wars) or currently.
I’m not saying that there is anything wrong or particularly strange about a former officer or general standing for office.
But it’s not quite the same, de Gaulle, Eisenhower and (to some extent McArthur) were pretty much slingshotted to the top because of who they were and what they did during the war. They skipped all the traditional steps and “filters” that most politicians have to pass and had huge amounts of political capital. That doesn’t really happen during peacetime in stable countries.
e.g. US had 5 presidents which didn’t hold any elected office before becoming president:
3 of them (Taylor, Grant, Eisenhower) directly leveraged their success as military commanders during major wars to get elected, Hoover was a cabinet secretary for 8 years so he barely counts and the last one is Trump.
How do you suggest he suddenly appeared in a government in 1940? De Gaulle had been in contact with Paul Reynaud since 1936. He was also in contact with several other high-ranking politicians, and actively trying to convince them to support his ideas on reshaping the army.
Tried to create a pan-African currency backed by gold, French government intervened with backing of NATO, a whole region with millions of people was pushed into misery.
Yeah I imagine it forges you better than business schools, 90% of french politics come from two schools, they more or less all have the same background, and then they rotate between government jobs for a few decades before finishing in the private sector
Plato has the answer in the Republic. Since de Gaulle (or before de Gaulle), we’ve passed from timocracy, in which honor is the highest motivating value, to oligarchy, in which love of money and avarice replace honor. We’re now passing into democracy in which all desires are given equal importance, and a preoccupation with base and even depraved appetites dominates.
It's the media and common populace that (1) has a lower IQ (democracy more widely accessible) encouraging talking down; and (2) demands that muppets have equal opportunity to enter politics as the well-educated élite.
We could give multiples higher salary to MPs, stack the commons with the best Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, LSE, etc. have to offer ... but you can't do that, because matey earning a living wage or whatever already thinks they're grossly overpaid and that extra income besides their MP salary should be illegal - when a software engineer could earn more. So woman of the people who left school at sixteen to work retail gets his vote, that's who we need in power, not these educated toffs.
Fantastic. Have to go in order to drop out though don't you. On average someone who dropped out is going to perform worse than the best graduates. I didn't proffer any hard rules.
This felt like an actual "this belongs in a museum" moment, in particular when it comes to notes from a former president.
Granted the benefit partly goes to an officially recognized well meaning fund:
> A portion of the auction’s proceeds will be donated to the Anne de Gaulle Foundation. Named for de Gaulle’s daughter, who had Down syndrome, the foundation provides housing and support to people with disabilities.
The "portion" part is still intriguing, I assume most of the proceeds will go elsewhere ?
The family has been relatively selective in sharing his personal notes, mainly because some of his ideas are now out-of-fashion (for example, it’s rumoured that he decided to let Algeria become independent after a bloody independence war, not because of the cost of the war but because demographers pointed out most French people would be Muslim by the year 2000) but it’s very likely the contents of the notebooks that are historically significant will be public.
Auction houses typically make a decent cut of the proceeds (in the US it's rarely lower than 10%, and usually closer to 20-25%) and the costs of authentication, chain of custody, etc probably eats up another smaller slice. Beyond that, I'm sure a few others will be making some retirement fund francs for it.
Often there are national laws that enable preemption of the sale after the auction. Essentially the auction is used to determine fair market value to compensate the owner (who is then paid with taxpayer euros).
If he was considered a founding father of my country's current political system, yes I wouldn't expect my interests to prime over the general interest. They wouldn't get nothing either, we're talking about not randomly selling them to the highest bidder.
I don't know if it matters if DeGaulle's child were/are pretty affluent and were always part of the high society in France. Their success and extremely recognizable pedigree was supported by their grandfather's shine, so I'd think they got enough from it to give up on hyper-monetizing historic papers.
I don’t really like him as a person, or really his political ideas, but yes. One cannot deny that he was willing to make sacrifices for the good of the country.
What you are saying would make some sense if having Muslim beliefs or being Muslim or looking Muslim were some sort of disease which a nation must be "protected" from.
Unfortunately for you, this childish fantasy of ethnic and nationalist purity has never existed. No amount of ellipses will change that fact.
The modern state of France is founded on liberal values that go completely against the tenets of Islam. I don’t have any stakes in it myself but I could understand the hostility.
Well yeah. If small groups of people want to meet to pray to a god that has no meaning for their social reality then they can go ahead, I don’t care. But they shouldn’t be able to bother anyone else about it.
> Muslim were some sort of disease which a nation must be "protected" from
Your words but if we focus on the period after 1950 then yes that is a more or less broadly accurate conclusion.
> fantasy of
You mean of secularism and liberal democracy?
Or the rather the fantasy that the political beliefs of most practicing muslims in muslim majority countries are seemingly entirely compatible with those concepts? Must be a random coincidence…
Nation: a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language
The French culture will die if no one protects it. Without limits to cultural admixture, 'Frenchness' will be diluted into a sea of other cultures. It is a fundamental mistake to assume assimilation.
This is not a controversial take, even amongst liberals. In Canada for example, the disappearing cultures of First Nations (Indigenous Canadians) is protected with public funds through various programs. Yet for some reason, it's a bad thing to protect European culture?
You should call it by its name, it's the "Great Replacement" theory.
The theory was put into words by a French guy, so sure a portion of French people will be sensible to it.
Then you'd also look at last election's results, and more than half the people rejected the National Rally, mostly because of that kind of "make France great again" ideology.
“The French people” is not a bunch of people frozen in formaldehyde. It is changing, whether some people want it or not. Not that long ago, the dirty foreigners (the term “migrant” was not fashionable yet) included Italians (fleeing famine), Armenian (fleeing a genocide), Spaniards (fleeing Franco and the civil war), Portuguese (fleeing Salazar and dire economic prospects), etc. Now all their descendants are proper French people and some of them even stand for election for a right-wing nationalist party. The French people will have a future in any case, unless the whole country is carpet bombed with nuclear warhead. The problem is that some people don’t like what French people actually are.
If only it was just migrants. Famously, the Paris Commune was run by people who weren’t even French. But there is a difference between a highly mobile group of basically atheistic communards and traditional religious communities that would much rather transform France into something that looks a lot more like Taliban or ISIS controlled territory.
It is easier in America, because America has many minority religious communities that are able to keep to themselves; the way the French state is set up, everyone must be socially integrated, and that means conflict arises when one group of people has one set of values and they are forced to live among those with completely different values, often antithetical to their own and disruptive of the lives they wish to live.
Now, of course I would want this to be reformed (in France), but you must understand that would probably require the collapse of the French state as such.
> Famously, the Paris Commune was run by people who weren’t even French.
That is not famous, for the simp reason that it is completely untrue. I really have no idea where you got that from.
> But there is a difference between a highly mobile group of basically atheistic communards and traditional religious communities that would much rather transform France into something that looks a lot more like Taliban or ISIS controlled territory.
That is definitely a novel way to look at it. There was literally zero common factor between the Paris commune and Jihadi groups. Again, I would like to know where you got that from, because it is as far from actual history as I can imagine.
> that means conflict arises when one group of people has one set of values and they are forced to live among those with completely different values, often antithetical to their own and disruptive of the lives they wish to live.
That would be a tiny bit credible if ratonnades did not predate Islamic terrorism by about half a century, to mention only a single example. The descendants of all the anarchists who dropped bombs in the late 19th century or OAS racists who did the same in the 1960s are Frencher than French now. Crying about terrorism is just window dressing: nationalists are perfectly happy closing their eyes when it is convenient.
> Now, of course I would want this to be reformed (in France), but you must understand that would probably require the collapse of the French state as such.
Right. Let’s start with reforming how History is taught so we never have to read such tripe again.
Yes assimilation works if the groups are immigrating into the country, their number is rather limited and they are willing to assimilate.
However If France somehow managed to hold onto to Algeria and (eventually) granted the Muslim majority full civil (which is not far fetched, as far as we can tell only a tiny fraction of Algerians actively supported supported FLN until both sides started engaging in extreme violence; of course by de Gaulle’s time it was far too late..) what would have happened?
Would the vast majority of the Muslim Algerian population and their descendants embraced liberal secularism or would they have supported parties which represented their local interests? Why do you think that most of them would have suddenly turned into “French people” for no reason?
Calling them "a people," is basically the same as calling them a race. I wonder how this term came to be accepted. It frames your mind to think about the DNA of France rather than its culture or traditions.
No, it really is not and there is no parallel. The French constitution is quite clear, and “French people” refer to citizens and nationals, including naturalised citizens. The common factor is participating in the democratic process and being part of the Nation.
As any label, it can be used by xenophobes, but there is no comparison with race, which is pseudo-scientific bullshit. There are many ways of becoming a citizen, it is not a frozen label that is assigned to you by oppressors.
"The French people" and "French people" are subtly grammatically distinct. People is the plural of person but a people (singular) means a race or ethnicity.
When someone refers to "The X people", they are referring to the Nationality. Historically citizenship and nationality were interlinked, but they are separate.
"The Irish people inhabit Ireland, as Irish Citizens" is not a tautology.
Nationality does not require race or ethnicity; some nations require common descent (blood quantum). The French people do not have such requirements.
Modern usage of language has really blurred the lines, and it is confusing.
You are confusing 'State' vs 'Nation'. A nation does not need a legal entity to exist. 'Kurdish', 'Jewish', and 'Burman' are the literal names of the nation.
Belonging to a nation is amongst the other members to determine, not me. If the Irish people consider an assimilated German to be Irish, so be it. A German who does not assimilate, would likely not be considered an 'an Irish person' but rather an 'Irish Citizen' or more correctly, 'A Citizen of Ireland'.
The Jewish people includes the diaspora, the Jewish state is Israel, and the Jewish nation is something that might have existed before Israel was recognized. A people (singular) is neither a nation nor a state. It's closest to a race or ethnicity. The Kurdish nation might exist, but it doesn't include the diaspora, while the Kurdish people would.
> People is the plural of person but a people (singular) means a race or ethnicity.
No. It means a group of individuals. What they have in common is being invested in how the country is run and having citizenship. It does not imply anything about genetic makeup, skin colour (race is such a useless concept), or ethnicity. There is zero ambiguity about that in French.
People is used in international law which is often written in english, or otherwise translated to english. There it means exactly what your parent said. A group of individuals taken as a whole. It is often implied they have some shared culture, heritage, laws, language etc. It is never about race or ethnicity.
A Kurdish person living in Norther Europe can belong to the Kurdish people on the grounds of the shared culture and heritage, and an Arab person that has lived in Erbil for over 20 years and has learned fluent Kurdish can also belong to the Kurdish people on the grounds of shared language, law, culture, etc.
This is the reason taking children from of a group to be raised outside the group is considered a genocide. You are forcibly removing an child from its people, even though the child is 100% of the same ethnic makeup as the group.
Not to become part of the belt of chaos, the zone rouge, is not a crime. Some cultures can not form and keep up institutions, be they state or company. Not to have something working degrade down to that chaos is not racist. And the imperialism of the past is no excuse for 1.4 billion people stuck in permawar.
Legally, it’s a bit of paper that says that you are. Culturally, there are many aspects: adhering to the democratic pact; participating in the country by using one’s rights and accepting one’s duty; recognising oneself as part of the nation.
The thing is that nobody can say that you are not French when you actually are. That’s why there is so much wrangling about the significance of second- or third- generation immigrants. By the fourth generation, immigrants are indistinguishable from all the other citizens. Just look at the number of people with foreign family names everywhere, including amongst nationalist politicians. Yesteryear’s foreign bogeyman is today’s xenophobe. That’s a big reason why all discussions about who is “truly” French and who is not are so stupid. In the long run, it is not us who will decide what next century’s France will look like.
