Posted on 03/30/2015 12:03:40 PM PDT by Academiadotorg
Winston Churchill and Charles De Gaulle were eerily similar political figures, said Hillsdale politics professor Will Morrisey at a recent Kirby Center lecture in Washington, D.C. Both had to rally their people and country to fight against the German, Russian and eventually Soviet threats facing them. And, both went about it in different ways.
It all began with geopolitics, which Morrisey defined as “the realm of necessity,” which “can be the realm of liberty.” Morrisey defined liberty as the “relationship of reciprocity, shared rule” like a household’s parent-child relationship. Both France and the United Kingdom were liberty-focused governments and were what Morrisey called “commercial republics.”
Churchill “enjoyed… a long stable regime that accustomed its people to a civic and political life of ruling and being ruled” while De Gaulle had to deal with a fractured political identity where there was significant “regime instability.” French foreign policy was unstable to the point that some felt there was some “exploitation by foreign enemies” at points in their history. Churchill appealed to the Latin roots and “very Anglo-Saxonism” of his countrymen and women, sharing cultural references (such as literature) through his writings to the people. De Gaulle relied on re-educating the French people, strongly suggesting a “strong executive branch” to retain their republicanism while ridding the country of fractured politics in their parliament.
France and the United Kingdom had to confront “the military oligarchies of Wilhemine Germany and Austria-Hungary then the tyrannies of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, and then again with nuclear weapons on both sides, the tyranny and then eventually the oligarchy of the Soviet Union.” But, in defending their states from these external threats and aggressors, Morrisey said, “In prevailing against these illiberal regimes, republics proved the defense of political liberty hard but also possible.” These leaders had to act “in a world of massive, centralized, modern states” and became “defenders of commercial republics.”
The British had a distinct advantage because although “all man may be created equal, but all terrains are,” as Morrisey noted. Terrain “must be entered into the thinking of a nearby ruler,” and so France was in a worse geopolitical and geographical situation located in the flat plains of Western Europe while the British were on an island. To make matters worse, Germany and Russia had centralized, militaristic governments that could easily build military capacity in secret and had enough population to sustain a military campaign. But, France and the United Kingdom could not confront Germany or Russia head-on for those reasons, and relied on a new emerging power across the Atlantic Ocean.
They “saw the rise of a friendly, but worrisome regime in North America, one which had never wielded the worldwide influence it partly fell into but mostly fell into and planned.” Although France and the United Kingdom could predict what Germans or Russian may do, having sparred with them over the years, “these statesmen could not so easily anticipate American conduct.” Also, “they both needed, but to a degree, dreaded, the United States of some of its policies” because of America’s “long standing hostility to European imperialism.”
bookmarking for later reading
Churchill said ‘De-Gaul is a disgrace.’
The Geopolitics of Liberty: What Churchill and De Gaulle Teach Us About the World - Will Morrisey
Hillsdale College
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCXo0djES5U
I recall reading that Churchill said “of all the crosses I had to bear during WW II, the most difficult was the Cross of Lorraine.”
Quote is from memory, so it may not be exactly accurate, but the sentiment is correct.
According to Morrisey it was Roosevelt and DeGaul who hated each other. Churchill and DeGaul argued primarily during WWII over British encroachment on French imperial possessions.
It was all downhill from there between De-Gaul and Churchill.
Churchill is still hated by the commies in Britain to this day. I watched the series “WWII in Colour” which is a British documentary, and they claimed that Churchill knew about the death camps and did nothing to stop them...like he could have at the time.
it sure does sound Churchillian
Churchill was certainly reckless, myopic, and arrogant over his career. Thank goodness for that.
De Gaul was highly overrated, and merely tolerated by the allies lacking any better alternative figurehead to keep “Free France” in the war. I suppose he was the best post-war France could have hoped for.
The French were ga ga about him.
He was certainly a strange guy. (About 7 ft. tall or something crazy like that)
Anyway, he insisted (I guess rightly) that the French troops would march FIRST into Paris, on Liberation Day.
He basically made himself a real pain in the a#@ most of the time.
Since the Brits began to be so successful breaking German codes, there was a lot they couldn’t/wouldn’t do, just so they could hide the fact that they WERE able to read German messages.
They wanted to protect that advantage as long as they could I guess.
Leclerc’s Division was in fact probably the best outfit to give the job of liberating Paris, not just for political reasons vis a vis the French population, but because they had intimate local knowledge of Paris and close contacts with the local FFI (the resistance). There was indeed a considerable battle against the substantial German force trying to hold Paris.
Leclerc’s men infiltrated around the blocking positions and ended up inside the defensive perimeter in a few hours, bypassing the Germans that could have held up the advance for some time. The German forces were quickly isolated in a few pockets.
Time was critical. Though the German commander, Von Choltitz, was reluctant to follow the Hitler order to destroy the city, he probably could not have held out for long against such orders. Leclerc gave him an easy out by making the whole thing moot by forcing the rapid surrender of the garrison.
Great read - “Is Paris Burning” - Collins&Lapierre
Sure, the Free French weren't that much, but DeGaulle did a lot after the war to straighten France out (all jokes aside). Churchill as a post-war leader was too tired and status quo to attempt anything new, but if France is something of a success in the world, DeGaulle gets a lot of the credit.
I saw some film of street fighting AS the liberators marched into the city.
It was as brutal as anything I’ve seen of street fighting in cities which were still being held by Germans.
In one spot, a German was shot down in the street. During the continued fight, a FF woman ran into the street and rolled him over, taking his weapon while he was still thrashing about on the ground. He was finished off once she got away with the rifle...all the while other firing going on all around.
Hard core.
Everybody who had to deal with him hated De Gaulle. Some found Churchill crude, rude, and the cigar and whisky / brandy habit put a few of the more prudish off. But De Gaulle was an all hat and no cattle prickly a$$hole.
De Gaulle was a prickly a**h***, but he wasn’t personally all hat and no cattle. He was an extremely able man.
His problem at the time and later was that he was leading the French, who were in a very poor way.
De Gaulle was all about the interests of France, come what may, no matter what.
Agree with you about the man’s personal qualities of courage and a devotion to country that was Jean d’Arc like. My all hat and no cattle was in reference to his demand that the provisional government of a divided and broken France be treated as an equal ally. And in terms of a frustrating SOB to deal with he never came up to Montgomery’s level. Reading the histories and memoirs every allied commander who had to deal with de Gaulle, and not a few of his French colleagues, seemed to end up despising him. But the people of France loved him.
“And, both went about it in different ways.”
I’d like to see how only one of them could go about it in a different way from the other.
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.