N your opinion, why did General de Gaulle lapse into primitive anti-Americanism?

[Julie4]

[nightdrot]

Actually, I disagree with the premise. DeGualle was a French nationalist. His was not an anti-Americanism except insofar as American national interests clashed with the interests of France. Nations being what they are, that clash will happen even between the best of allies.

As Lord Palmerston said, "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." Better still, as Cavour, an Italian aristocrat, said when asked what he would do to repay the liberal revolutionaries who helped him unite Italy, he would "Astonish them with my ingratitude."

This was what motivated DeGualle. Although the United States pushed for the liberation of Europe from Germany and Italy in World War II, it was nevertheless deeply hostile - both as a matter of national interest and ideological conviction - to the empires that Britain, France and various other European powers managed to retain through the 1950s.

Thus, the 1956 Suez Crisis, when President Eisenhower - literally the man who commanded the American forces that liberated Europe in 1945 - backed Egypt's disreputable President Nasser and undermine Britain and France. That event, in due course, proving to be the death blow to the European empires - including France's empire.

Yet in the Cuban Missile Crisis, DeGualle would give his wholehearted support to the United States against the Soviet Union. For DeGualle, these were questions not of sentiment or anti-Americanism, but of a stark, cold calculation of the French national interest. This being, as the staunch French nationalist that DeGualle was, being his primary consideration.

Just to add, even in the US-UK "special relationship," such tensions were very real. See also the aforementioned Suez Crisis above, which pitted the UK in an alliance with its' historic rival France against the USA. See also Churchill's, complaints about US treatment of the UK even during World War II. These and much else documented in Derek Leebaert's superb history, "Grand Improvisation: America Confronts the British Superpower, 1945 - 1957."

When studying history, when studying contemporary international affairs, indeed, when studying the United States itself, Lord Palmerston's statement above must never be forgotten. See also the American President John Quincy Adam's famous remark, "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

This is not necessarily a bad thing either. In an imperfect world of imperfect beings, this is the best that can be hoped for. As the American President Theodore Roosevelt said, "World peace comes not from human kindness or moral restraint, but from balanced power; equilibriums of force restraining the selfish aims of nation-states."

This was the ethos that motivated General - then President DeGualle. It was not mere anti-Americanism. It was, rather, cold ruthless calculation designed to foster and balance French national interests. Viewed through that prism, undoubtedly Americans were and often still are frustrated by France, but it is completely understandable and even admirable in its' way.

[Julie4]

I agree with you for the most part.

But Raymond Aaron, of whom Kissinger said, "No one has had a greater intellectual influence on me than Raymond Aron. He was my teacher during the last period of my university studies. He was a sympathetic critic when I held official positions. His approval encouraged me, while his criticism sometimes held me back. And I was moved by the warm, affectionate nature of his feelings, and by his inexhaustible kindness.

Raymond Aaron, who knew de Gaulle very well, says these are just a few excerpts.

"General de Gaulle aroused the latent anti-Americanism of the French people and made them forget that the Soviet Union.
militarily established in the center of Europe, was the only real threat to our national independence.

"Certainly, during the Berlin and Cuban crises. de Gaulle expressed his solidarity with the West. But he changed his language in 1963.

"He accustomed the French to mistaking the enemy, to taking the Soviet Union as their ally, and the American Republic as their enemy.

for the Great One who jeopardizes France's independence. France's independence.

Today, twelve years after the General's death, French diplomacy remains half-paralyzed by this inversion of roles, by a representation of the world that I deem contrary to reality."

[nightdrot]

That is not entirely untrue. The statecraft practiced by DeGualle - and Kissinger for that matter - was subtle and given to nuance. In the echo chamber of the public arena, that is problematic.

DeGualle could not necessarily control how the public responded to, and interacted with, his statecraft. That does not mean, however, that he shared the anti-American sentiments that he unleashed in the French public.

Throw in that, at several points in history, France and Russia had been allied and it made for fertile anti-American soil. Even then, at the end of the day, a nation will follow its' interests and the French did so - following a basically pro-American, if somewhat more variable course.

[Julie4]

You're not wrong, but what do you call a man who banned music that paid tribute to American soldiers who died helping France? Sounds a bit like anti-Americanism to me 😅

Anyway , I hope you and your family are well 😊

[nightdrot]

Well, give me the context and the circumstances. To be sure, DeGualle wanted to restore French pride and if American music was - unintentionally or not - making France seem like a lesser power dependent on the Americans, then likely he would have moved to discourage that.

It could have been anti-American. It could just as easily have been an effort to restore French pride and make them feel not so dependent on the USA.

Anyhow, thanks and hope all is well with you and yours too!

[Matthias345]

Can you tell me who this Raymond Aaron is? I suppose that if Mr. Kissinger had so much respect, it's because Mr. Aaron was important.

[nightdrot]

@Matthias345 Not sure who you were asking, but if you don't mind, I will answer but cheat on this one.

Take a look:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Aron

[Matthias345]

@nightdrot Thank you very much for sharing. I better understand Mr. Kissinger's praise.

[nightdrot]

@Matthias345 Not at all. Glad you found it useful. All the best.

[Lliam]

"People were pouring French wine and champagne in the gutters when he withdrew French forces from NATO [in 1966], and when he made a speech in Cambodia [in 1966] that was highly critical of America’s role in Vietnam. De Gaulle was seen by many in the US as very, very anti-American, which he wasn’t. He was ultimately a very reliable ally; he just was not subservient to America.

"His most lasting contribution domestically was establishing the legitimacy of institutions, providing the state with legitimate institutions to create a working, viable government apparatus, one that has lasted since 1958. Also [for] his resistance against the Vichy regime that collaborated with the Nazis, and, in the post-war period, setting up a functioning government and avoiding both civil war and an American occupation."

He was a nationalist, dedicated to the best interests of his own country and the preservation of its culture. He opposed Ango-American domination and endeavored to make France an equal partner, or at least independent voice, rather than a subservient puppet. American leadership always characterizes such independence as hostility.

[Julie4]

I agree with you. And I myself am an admirer of de Gaulle. But I recognize that without the USA, Europe would have been swallowed up by the USSR.

[Lliam]

@julie4. What most people don't know is, FDR and Churchill colluded with Stalin to give the eastern half of Europe to the USSR. WWII would have ended sooner if the allies had driven straight up from Italy into Eastern Europe instead of pulling back to allow Russia to advance into Germany.
There would have been no reason to invade Normandy.

[RavVid]

I think it is how things happened during WW2 that caused enduring resentment and a desire for revenge..

Churchill picked Charles de Gaulle to be the French gov't in exile. The US went through a couple of other Vichy French leaders in preference to de Gaulle. I forget the exact men Roosevelt preferred to de Gaulle but de Gaulle was not the sort of man to be passed over without bitter resentment being aroused. FDR saw de Gaulle as a future bonapartist and thought of replacing France with a new state after the war. Far from being Churchill's lap dog as FDR thought him, de Gaulle acted against the allies interests with a couple of French colonies off Newfoundland.

It is a really foreign situation now. Churchill offered France union with GB but the French cabinet preferred the Germans to being a British dominion, Vichy France and Free France. Britain shelled the French Fleet at Morocco, but the French fleet at Alexandria quietly accommodated the British.

I can't pretend to understand the period after the fall of France.

All over the shop but neither Churchill or FDR treated de Gaulle with the deference he expected. I think a British officer gave him the advice of he course he had to spit the dummy but he also had to suck it up.

It didn't help that FDR and Churchill both liked doing business as pals together which didn't fit in with de Gaulle's temperament so he was socially marginalized from the pals.

Then there was NATO usurping Frances proper position due to US/British dominance.

I think de Gaulle's resentment over how his status and France's status were disregarded by US & Britain that drove him. The two were indivisible to de Gaulle I should think.

Causing a run on the US dollar was his best revenge.

[Julie4]

Yes, but at the same time, without the USA, Europe would have been under the domination of the USSR, and the situation would have been much worse.

[RavVid]

It was something of a luxury for de Gaulle to take offence. He didn't get an invitation to Yalta and would have been irrelevant in any discussion on how the war would be fought.

Logically de Gaulle should have been grateful to the US, GB and Canada and very much aware of the risk of USSR domination instead of trying to undermine the US dollar & NATO. The US could have dealt with him better. Roosevelt could have ditched his personal antithesis to de Gaulle.

Certainly FDR toyed with the idea of replacing France with the nation of Walloon or a name like that and basically split it up. He was pro Vichy France and wanted to make France a protectorate like Germany without sovereignty and unable to issue currency.

Part of the price of the US defeating Germany was the effective abolishment of the French and British empires.

It seems there was more than wounded pride on de Gaulle's side to be fair. If FDR had not died in office... we can only speculate. Truman didn't know about the atomic bomb when he assumed Presidency so he may not have been au fait with FDR plans for France.

In short US primitive anti-Frenchism might have engendered primitive anti-Americanism.

[KrakenAttackin]

It's easy to want to bash the French, but Americans must remember that without the French we almost certainly would not have been able to push the British out during the Revolutionary War.

I like to think we repaid that debt with the invasion of Normandy and subsequent liberation of France.

Having been to France, I found the French to be polite and even warm as long as you followed their cultural mannerisms.

Suffice it to say the U. S. and France have a complicated relationship.

[Drewtate]

After the war he was upset that France wasn't treated as an equal to the likes of Britain, he was jealous of Britain's "special" relationship with America, the US opposing France's desire to retain its colonial possessions, the US response to the Suez crisis. Then there was NATO which in Degaul's view made France subsurvient to America

[RedInnocent68]

Did he really though? And was it primitive, particularly post-WWII? The French have a chip on their shoulder, second to the British who are still kind of in denial, around loss of empire. It’s worse for the French because of language. Why more so than the Spanish, Portuguese, Italians, and lesser European colonial powers is interesting…

[Julie4]

I agree with you. And I myself am an admirer of de Gaulle. But I recognize that without the USA, Europe would have been swallowed up by the USSR.

[RyanEC]

I can understand to a degree why because after WW2 America was the big player so De Gaulle wanted to protect his country from our influence.
The fact that French cinemas are now playing American films and France is the nation with the most McDonald’s outside of America shows he was right.

[Julie4]

I deeply admire de Gaulle and he was right to protect French culture.

But at the same time, without the USA, Europe would have been swallowed up by the USSR and the Russian dictatorship would have reigned supreme.

I'd much rather be under American influence 100,000 times over than under the influence of the USSR, Russia or China today.

[RyanEC]

He seems like a good leader.
A French conservative girl told me that French conservatives have a phrase that basically says since De Gaulle every president has been worse.

I think as western peoples we are on the same team.
I would prefer a more equal relationship between Europe and America l.

[Julie4]

This equality cannot exist, because quite simply the USA is far too powerful and the European states too small.

I personally have certain criticisms to make of the USA, especially what annoys me most about the USA is the Extraterritoriality of American law. I think this should be an international scandal, but at the same time the USA is only defending its interests, as all nations do.

After all, what would Europe have become without the USA after the Second World War? It was the USA that enabled Europe to recover economically and benefit from American protection to avoid ending up under Russian colonization.

And today, without Nato, Europeans would return to their old rivalry, and we'd once again be at risk of a global catastrophe.

After that, if you want my opinion, I'd dream of a Europe under French preponderance, as Louis XIV or Napoleon had dreamed.

[RyanEC]

America may have a bigger economy and larger population then any European country but Europe as a whole has a larger economy and population then the US.

In the face of a Eurasian BRICKs alliance I think Europe and America need to create an economic and military alliance to replace the EU and NATO.

In the charter of that alliance it should be a rule that there will be no cultural or economic imperialism.

I was thinking of creating a post about this idea actually.

[Julie4]

Create a post on this idea it might be interesting to see what you have in mind

[RyanEC]

Okay I will later today or tomorrow.

[Guanfei]

Because americans openly showed that they were here to take control of Europe, not liberate it. They were very clear about it, and even Churchill was ok with it.
They wanted a puppet government, and even started to print a new money for France.
For anyone who like his country, that's unacceptable.

[zagor]

His ego was even bigger than his nose.

Most accounts I've read of him on a personal basis are not flattering. I think he tended to mix up the interests of France with his own aspirations. He seemed to resent the power and influence of the post-war US, as compared to the waning of the French colonial empire.

[exitseven]

My WW2 vet father used to say that DeGaulle was the best ally Hitler ever had. He never had anything good to say about the French.

[Julie4]

Your father said anything, because de Gaulle is the one who opposed the Nazi regime while it is the Vichy regime that collaborated, and the U. S. government largely preferred the collaborationist government of Vichy.

[KostasKouvalis]

I didn't even know he did, but considering all the bad things the US has done, I'm nor surprised. What year was he. Because I know the American soldiers raped French women during WWII

[AngryCarl2]

I didn't know he had. I know he hated the British and kept us out of the EU for at least a decade. He needn't have bothered, we left anyway.

[Julie4]

Admitting that de Gaulle was right to reject the United Kingdom

[AngryCarl2]

Yes, we suck! lol

[Avicenna]

Because being anti-German or anti-British wasn’t available anymore.

[LiamJHayden]

FDR.