De Gaulle understood that only nations are real

Few may celebrate the half-century since Charles de Gaulle’s triumphs of 1958, says Robin Harris, but this realist genius understood that, in geopolitics, the nation-state was all

Almost exactly half a century ago, on 1 June 1958, Charles de Gaulle became the last Prime Minister of the French Fourth Republic and immediately began the construction of the Fifth. The Fourth Republic, be it said, was not as bad as it was painted, not least by de Gaulle. The economy had grown, the communists were kept out, and France took the first steps to becoming a nuclear power. But the system was incestuous and unstable, a small group of small men swapping posts in nominally different governments — all incapable of decisive action. Inflation corroded the franc, while collapse abroad, first in Vietnam but imminently in Algeria, corroded French self-respect far more.

Yet it was, above all, the old man’s cunning — he was already 67 — which saw him first, in June, enter the Palais Matignon and then, in December, the Elysée. As civil war threatened in May 1958, the General stood prominently aloof. But his agents were in hourly touch with the military leaders in Algiers as they semi-publicly planned their coup to topple the Republic. De Gaulle’s contempt for his political enemies was, as usual, justified. They crumbled and begged him to rescue France, and he promptly agreed.

Yet 50 years on, the French still find it difficult to come to terms with their self-appointed saviour. He is too large a figure for either critics or admirers to gain a purchase on. No French leader, except Napoleon, has had such an impact. In 1944 the General single-handedly devised the incredible but salutary public myth that France achieved its own liberation by its own efforts.

The nationalists will win out in the end against the EU.

From its origins, the EU had the silly idea that someday it could be like the US. For what was the US, but just a bunch of foreign countries called States, under the umbrella of a central government?

You see the flaw in this idea.

Certainly, at the onset, the people of the 13 colonies thought of themselves as “Virginians” and the like. But what the Europeans fail to realize is that while Virginians as a rule love Virginia, if their family moves to New York, they became New Yorkers. And thereafter, New York is “their” State, though they might retain affection for Virginia.

But how many French people think of Nicolas Sarkozy as French? His father was Hungarian, and his mother French Catholic and Greek Jewish. Most likely, they think of him as Hungarian. He is not, nor can he ever be “French”.

And this is where nationalism gets its power.

At the same time, Europeans are perplexed by Americans who call themselves “Italian”, “Irish”, “African”, or anything else other than “American”, even though they only speak American English and have never even visited those other places.

Americans are loathe to call themselves Americans. But does this mean that they are not Americans? Certainly not! They love America and are proud to be Americans.

This is the paradox. Being American utterly defines us, and yet, telling someone we are an American tells them nothing!

So we are being polite.

We are letting them know what our particular “blend” of American is, so they will have at least a vague idea of what our personal Americanism represents.

And this about drives Europeans bonkers. They have no parallel to this. They are reliant on their national labels, with the possible exception of the English, who for the time being seem to abhor their nation.

But what does this bode for the EU? Granted, Hungarian and French Catholic and Greek Jewish Nicolas Sarkozy may be fully invested in France. But he can’t be French. He is, and his family will always be, immigrants. Foreigners.

Someday a real Frenchman, like Charles de Gaulle, will ascend the throne in France, and like de Gaulle, will understand that France is for the French. Everyone else are just tourists. And while they may speak in politically correct multinationalist terms, at least for a while, they will do nothing that does not advantage “their” people, most likely to the disadvantage of those who are not “their” people.

And it is not limited to France. The Germans will be the same, as will the English. Perhaps even the Spanish and the Poles (who right now are fully aware that they *are* Poles).

The eastern Europeans, far more heterogeneous than some of the other states, will also assert themselves, as well as the Norse nations. The last vestiges of transnationalism will be found in the most homogeneous of lowland countries.

And the EU will become much like the Holy Roman Empire before it. A collective of bureaucrats who issue decrees that no one cares about.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.