10 ms·

Charles de Gaulle manuscripts discovered in a safe

119 points by Thevet 2y ago

ur-whale 2y ago
> “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.
- pyuser583 2y ago
  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. You can do the same with “Duty, Honor, Country.”
  - niemandhier 2y ago
    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.
    - Hilift 2y ago
      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". https://www.seaflags.us/customs/trads.html https://www.seaflags.us/customs/trads.html https://www.seaflags.us/customs/honors.html https://www.seaflags.us/customs/honors.html
      - WesolyKubeczek 2y ago
        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.
    - pyuser583 2y ago
      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.”
  - pyrale 2y ago
    > Makes “For Crown and Country” seem like something a crazy person would say. The "for Crown" part definitely sounds crazy even with context.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Do you recall that definition or have a link to the doc?
- lm28469 2y ago
  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
  - cocacola1 2y ago
    Wouldn’t it be the fact that he lived through a couple World Wars and had his country invaded by Nazis?
    - jajko 2y ago
      Hardships build strong men etc. 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.
      - wqaatwt 2y ago
        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.
        fakedang 2y ago
        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).
        wqaatwt 2y ago
        > t used to be the norm though. 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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lo_zamoyski 2y ago
  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.)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jjk7 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- kergonath 2y ago
  “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.
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    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.
    - kergonath 2y ago
      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.
      - whatshisface 2y ago
        "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.
cyclecount 2y ago
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.
makeitdouble 2y ago
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 ?
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  A museum may acquire them. French law also gives museums the right to preempt auction sales, so wait and see how this one goes.
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  Would you expect to get nothing from selling your grandparent's letters?
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    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.
    - bertil 2y ago
      > I wouldn't expect my interests to prime over the general interest If Charles taught anything to anyone listening, his children, troops, voters, or readers, it would be precisely that.
      - 2y ago
domenic85martha 2y ago
[flagged]

119 points by Thevet 2y ago

> “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.

pyuser583 2y ago
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. You can do the same with “Duty, Honor, Country.”
- niemandhier 2y ago
  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.
  - Hilift 2y ago
    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". https://www.seaflags.us/customs/trads.html https://www.seaflags.us/customs/trads.html https://www.seaflags.us/customs/honors.html https://www.seaflags.us/customs/honors.html
    - WesolyKubeczek 2y ago
      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.
  - pyuser583 2y ago
    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.”
- pyrale 2y ago
  > Makes “For Crown and Country” seem like something a crazy person would say. The "for Crown" part definitely sounds crazy even with context.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Do you recall that definition or have a link to the doc?
lm28469 2y ago
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
- cocacola1 2y ago
  Wouldn’t it be the fact that he lived through a couple World Wars and had his country invaded by Nazis?
  - jajko 2y ago
    Hardships build strong men etc. 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.
    - wqaatwt 2y ago
      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.
      - fakedang 2y ago
        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).
        wqaatwt 2y ago
        > t used to be the norm though. 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.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
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.)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jjk7 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kergonath 2y ago
“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.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  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.
  - kergonath 2y ago
    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.
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      "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.

cyclecount 2y ago

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.

makeitdouble 2y ago

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 ?

mytailorisrich 2y ago
A museum may acquire them. French law also gives museums the right to preempt auction sales, so wait and see how this one goes.
philipwhiuk 2y ago
Would you expect to get nothing from selling your grandparent's letters?
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  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.
  - bertil 2y ago
    > I wouldn't expect my interests to prime over the general interest If Charles taught anything to anyone listening, his children, troops, voters, or readers, it would be precisely that.
    - 2y ago

domenic85martha 2y ago

[flagged]