4 ms·

De Gaulle was ahead of his time. He was very skeptical of the control that the US had over Europe through NATO. He left the alliance to build an independent Fre

De Gaulle was ahead of his time. He was very skeptical of the control that the US had over Europe through NATO. He left the alliance to build an independent French nuclear program which is paying dividends today amid the current leadership situation in the US.

c7b 6mo ago
He also called Brexit before the UK had even joined.
- stingraycharles 6mo ago
  I think that is the part that the parent is referring to.
- corford 6mo ago
  IIRC, De Gaulle & Churchill proposed a UK-FR union at one point (1940?) but it didn't get sufficient support within the French government. Interesting to ponder what the war and later EU trajectories might have looked like if that had happened.
  - philistine 6mo ago
    That union was a last ditch effort to try and keep France in the war. If they had implemented it, it would have been undone once the nazis were beaten you can be sure.
    - thmsths 6mo ago
      From my recollection, the plan was to grant French citizenship to every British citizen and vice versa, in effect "forcing" the governments to defend their citizens to the end. This was very ambitious, hence why it probably did not happen. But if it had happen, I have a hard time seeing how it could be undone, stripping people of their citizenship, even if they have a second one is no trivial matter.
    - UncleSlacky 6mo ago
      It was suggested again in 1956 in the context of the Suez crisis: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6261885.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6261885.stm
      - weitendorf 6mo ago
        That was also a last-ditch effort to maintain pre-WW2 geopolitical structures rather than a bipolar US-sphere vs Soviet-sphere world. Note that this was basically the nail in the coffin that led to their full-fledged decolonization in the following years. At the time the UK still held very significant military and political sway over the middle east, east africa, and asia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#/media/File:British_Decolonisation_in_Africa.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#/media/File:Bri...
byroot 6mo ago
Nitpick, but France never left NATO proper, only the integrated command, and reintegrated it in 2008 under Sarkozy.
- simgt 6mo ago
  Sarkozy, who renamed what descended from De Gaulle's party into "Les Républicains" because of his obsession for the US. Who also got sponsored by Gaddafi, and invited him to pitch his tent in the Elysée's garden. And who ten years ago was still spewing climate change denial crap. He probably still would, but he's too busy talking about how his 10 days in prison was the most atrocious experience a human being had to endure. Funny how much his pathetic 5 years in office keep on giving.
throw0101c 6mo ago
Certainly debatable. De Gaulle started this 'policy' in 1965 and it's mainly the current leadership situation that's been a problem—60 years later. So to a certain extent the policy in question was 'wrong' for decades. How "right" can you really consider them when it was a problem year after year, decade after decade: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny It reminds me of the folks that keep saying there will be a major crash on Wall Street year after year after year… and then it just happens to be occur. * https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2023/12/rich-author-poor-readers/ https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2023/12/rich-author-poor-re...
- c7b 6mo ago
  In what sense was the policy wrong? Emphasizing independence when it comes to security doesn't strike me as self-evidently wrong. Curious to hear your arguments. "They were very happy about it 60 years later" alone isn't evidence of it being wrong.
- dkga 6mo ago
  I disagree. It was a right policy in the sense that it bought France an insurance policy that essentially no other Western country has. Like all insurance policies, you hope to be wrong, but when the time comes, you are protected from some of the worse case scenarios.
  - throw0101c 6mo ago
    Yes, this is the debatable part: the policy is "wrong" for 60 years and extracted a cost to France over those years (at least when it came to nuclear weapons?). There just happened to be a whacko that got into the White House, but if ~70k (out of >100M) had gone the other way in 2016, Hillary Clinton would have won and the world would be a different place. (See also ~500 votes in Bush versus Gore.) I'd be curious to know the 'insurance premium' that was paid by France every year and the total.
    - slfnflctd 6mo ago
      > There just happened to be a whacko that got into the White House My counter to this is that such an occurrence was increasingly likely starting around the time the massive US Evangelical base was essentially fully captured by (and became a wing of) the Republican party. It was more and more obvious over a period of at least 40 of those 60 years you mention.
stingraycharles 6mo ago
[dead]
dboreham 6mo ago
Time to make the "De Gaulle was Right about everything" baseball cap.
- kergonath 6mo ago
  Let’s not get carried away. He was also wrong about many things. He was a good strategist, which was useful during WWII and helped France massively in the post-war years. His domestic policies were very much a mixed bag. He was not exactly authoritarian, but built himself a strong presidential political system. Which would have been fine if he had been right all the time, but he was not.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- UncleSlacky 6mo ago
  Or a "De Gaulle Apology Form": https://i.redd.it/opw3zv6x4qke1.png https://i.redd.it/opw3zv6x4qke1.png
doe88 6mo ago
> to build an independent French nuclear program For which France was helped by the UK, so it certainly would make sense if France helped the europe and uk to build its own nuclear deterrence.
- aubanel 6mo ago
  That was a cooperation, both sides benefitted. So there's no debt to repay.
mistrial9 6mo ago
France is currently contacting selected partners to build a collective nuclear weapon coalition, probably focusing on Norway due to their location and recent oil wealth. Given recent events, reasonable people may disagree strongly on the directions that is leading.
- lostlogin 6mo ago
  Europe isn’t pulling its weight in defence spending. But if it tries to it’s also a problem?
  - xorcist 6mo ago
    The problem is that Europe does not spend enough on US weaponry. Bulding nukes domestically does not help with that. NATO was explicitly built to keep Europe in line. That worked to the benefit of everyone, until national security intrests and land expansion put a stop to it.

c7b 6mo ago

He also called Brexit before the UK had even joined.

stingraycharles 6mo ago
I think that is the part that the parent is referring to.
corford 6mo ago
IIRC, De Gaulle & Churchill proposed a UK-FR union at one point (1940?) but it didn't get sufficient support within the French government. Interesting to ponder what the war and later EU trajectories might have looked like if that had happened.
- philistine 6mo ago
  That union was a last ditch effort to try and keep France in the war. If they had implemented it, it would have been undone once the nazis were beaten you can be sure.
  - thmsths 6mo ago
    From my recollection, the plan was to grant French citizenship to every British citizen and vice versa, in effect "forcing" the governments to defend their citizens to the end. This was very ambitious, hence why it probably did not happen. But if it had happen, I have a hard time seeing how it could be undone, stripping people of their citizenship, even if they have a second one is no trivial matter.
  - UncleSlacky 6mo ago
    It was suggested again in 1956 in the context of the Suez crisis: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6261885.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6261885.stm
    - weitendorf 6mo ago
      That was also a last-ditch effort to maintain pre-WW2 geopolitical structures rather than a bipolar US-sphere vs Soviet-sphere world. Note that this was basically the nail in the coffin that led to their full-fledged decolonization in the following years. At the time the UK still held very significant military and political sway over the middle east, east africa, and asia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#/media/File:British_Decolonisation_in_Africa.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#/media/File:Bri...

byroot 6mo ago

Nitpick, but France never left NATO proper, only the integrated command, and reintegrated it in 2008 under Sarkozy.

simgt 6mo ago
Sarkozy, who renamed what descended from De Gaulle's party into "Les Républicains" because of his obsession for the US. Who also got sponsored by Gaddafi, and invited him to pitch his tent in the Elysée's garden. And who ten years ago was still spewing climate change denial crap. He probably still would, but he's too busy talking about how his 10 days in prison was the most atrocious experience a human being had to endure. Funny how much his pathetic 5 years in office keep on giving.

throw0101c 6mo ago

Certainly debatable. De Gaulle started this 'policy' in 1965 and it's mainly the current leadership situation that's been a problem—60 years later. So to a certain extent the policy in question was 'wrong' for decades. How "right" can you really consider them when it was a problem year after year, decade after decade: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny It reminds me of the folks that keep saying there will be a major crash on Wall Street year after year after year… and then it just happens to be occur. * https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2023/12/rich-author-poor-readers/ https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2023/12/rich-author-poor-re...

c7b 6mo ago
In what sense was the policy wrong? Emphasizing independence when it comes to security doesn't strike me as self-evidently wrong. Curious to hear your arguments. "They were very happy about it 60 years later" alone isn't evidence of it being wrong.
dkga 6mo ago
I disagree. It was a right policy in the sense that it bought France an insurance policy that essentially no other Western country has. Like all insurance policies, you hope to be wrong, but when the time comes, you are protected from some of the worse case scenarios.
- throw0101c 6mo ago
  Yes, this is the debatable part: the policy is "wrong" for 60 years and extracted a cost to France over those years (at least when it came to nuclear weapons?). There just happened to be a whacko that got into the White House, but if ~70k (out of >100M) had gone the other way in 2016, Hillary Clinton would have won and the world would be a different place. (See also ~500 votes in Bush versus Gore.) I'd be curious to know the 'insurance premium' that was paid by France every year and the total.
  - slfnflctd 6mo ago
    > There just happened to be a whacko that got into the White House My counter to this is that such an occurrence was increasingly likely starting around the time the massive US Evangelical base was essentially fully captured by (and became a wing of) the Republican party. It was more and more obvious over a period of at least 40 of those 60 years you mention.

stingraycharles 6mo ago

[dead]

dboreham 6mo ago

Time to make the "De Gaulle was Right about everything" baseball cap.

kergonath 6mo ago
Let’s not get carried away. He was also wrong about many things. He was a good strategist, which was useful during WWII and helped France massively in the post-war years. His domestic policies were very much a mixed bag. He was not exactly authoritarian, but built himself a strong presidential political system. Which would have been fine if he had been right all the time, but he was not.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
UncleSlacky 6mo ago
Or a "De Gaulle Apology Form": https://i.redd.it/opw3zv6x4qke1.png https://i.redd.it/opw3zv6x4qke1.png

doe88 6mo ago

> to build an independent French nuclear program For which France was helped by the UK, so it certainly would make sense if France helped the europe and uk to build its own nuclear deterrence.

aubanel 6mo ago
That was a cooperation, both sides benefitted. So there's no debt to repay.

mistrial9 6mo ago

France is currently contacting selected partners to build a collective nuclear weapon coalition, probably focusing on Norway due to their location and recent oil wealth. Given recent events, reasonable people may disagree strongly on the directions that is leading.

lostlogin 6mo ago
Europe isn’t pulling its weight in defence spending. But if it tries to it’s also a problem?
- xorcist 6mo ago
  The problem is that Europe does not spend enough on US weaponry. Bulding nukes domestically does not help with that. NATO was explicitly built to keep Europe in line. That worked to the benefit of everyone, until national security intrests and land expansion put a stop to it.