Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
The French "Union" Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: De Gaulle or Leclerc
gf0012-aust    4/20/2007 2:04:40 AM
I always considered Lelcerc to be more worthy of being the leader of a post war france/ In my view he did more at the military level than de gaulle but wasn't in the right place at the right time and was not the same political animal. would a France led by Leclerc been much different?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
french stratege       4/20/2007 4:27:03 PM
I always considered Lelcerc to be more worthy of being the leader of a post war france/ In my view he did more at the military level than de gaulle but wasn't in the right place at the right time and was not the same political animal.

would a France led by Leclerc been much different?
Apple and Orange.
De gaulle was a good soldier in its military career and a visionary playing with politic, so its career was stopped as a colonel prewar and he becames general in 1940 after they gave him one of armored division and had some success in 1940 with it (the only success of french armor).Aftear defeat he went to UK and did politics and strategy and not operational level anymore.Its idea was a sort of democratic fascism with freedom.De Gaulle has genious and great leadership including civilian.
 
Leclerc was a good soldier in its military career including general staff with also a good military leadership.
Correct on strategic level.Absolutely not involved in politic and no ideas except conservatives.I don't see Leclerc doing much great things post war and could not impose its will on a political party.
 
Not at same level.You are comparing Churchill and Montgomery
 
And DeGaulle succeded very well in politics.He modernized France and army, solved problem of Algeria and colonialism (in a ruthless way), and restaure our political independance, prestige and leadership in continental Europe and abroad.He did well on economic also with 7/8% growth ANNUALLY of french economy in the sixties.
He will be seen by most of the French as they greatest leader since Richelieu and much better than Napoleon or Louis XIV and their military adventurism which led France to be weaker on long term.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       4/20/2007 6:28:22 PM


And DeGaulle succeded very well in politics.He modernized France and army, solved problem of Algeria and colonialism (in a ruthless way),

De Gaulle was a pain in the arse.  Churchill was right to not let him out of the UK during the war.  As for solving Algeria... if he did such a good job, why did the 1REP want to conduct a coup against him?

 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       4/20/2007 7:41:50 PM
if he did such a good job, why did the 1REP want to conduct a coup against him?

Algeria war was won on a military side.But De Gaulle did not want to give full right and citizenship to ten million muslims as France could have stayed in Algeria only by giving equal rights.Moreover it was a burden (6,5% GDP for armed force) and on foreign policy.
France was seen as the last colonialist country and boycotted by arab world (having oil).
At beginning De Gaulle thought to stay in Algeria or said it to people at least.
Then when he decided to quit, a great part of military (especially after Vietnam war after they already felt betrayed by governement - remember that army had 30 000 KIA in Algeria), french nationalists and white population in Algeria felt betrayed and hated de Gaulle.
SO the numerous attempt to kill him and also OAS (white colons) terrorism from these group killing 1200 people in terrorist bombing in France.
A part of the army tried to do a coup d'Etat which was crushed.1 REP obeyed to putchist (as other units) and was dismantled as a punishment.
De Gaulle was right to leave Algeria.The only thing he did very bad and it is a spot of mud on him, is that he gaved order to sacrify white population protection (in order to compell it to leave) to terrorism of FLN, he ordered even army to shoot white colonialists who were demonstrated without weapons (exemple massacre of Rue d'Isly, and also sacrified all Algerians natives who fought with french army for French Algeria which were massacred (often with their family and in awfull conditions often tortured to death) when French leaved.
ht*p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4WqLky_FLg     (46 dead)
 
Some officers felt that not only he had betrayed them but tarnished their honor and those of the army so the numerous plots(30+ attempts) done by french officers to kill De Gaulle which failed (and they were send to the firing squad).
De Gaulle in order to recapture fidelity of army, gave it a lot of money to develop nuclear weapons, SSBN, fighters and to build two carriers.(a third was even sheduled when De Gaulle leaved office)).
You don't understand french history. See Northern Ireland to make a parallel.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       4/20/2007 7:49:33 PM
150 000 algerian soldiers of french army were abandonned in Algeria defenseless on orders (their weapons were confiscated) then massacred savegely by Algerian supporters of FLN.
Some French officers disobeyed orders and save ten of thousands of them at the price of their military career.
h*tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harki
 
 
Quote    Reply

JIMF    FS   4/20/2007 8:05:40 PM
DeGaulle was given command of the 4th Armored Division in May 1940.  Actually it was more like an armored brigade, and the individual units  had never trained together.  Nevertheless, DeGaulle launched a couple of counter attacks against the Germans, and achieved some minor success.  DeGaulle was quoted during his premiership as saying something along the lines of -I know of one French armored division that did to the Germans what their 10 armored divisions did to us.  DeGaulle's bravery and limited success in the Battle of France was one of the pillars of his subsequent political success.  DeGaulle's efforts seemed to have been embellished while Prioux's much greater success at Gembloux Gap seems to have been ignored, but I guess that's politics.   
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    Leclerc R.I.P.   5/7/2007 5:49:14 PM
General Leclerc de Hauteclocque died in a plane crash while on his way to negotiate with the Vietnamese patriots that had defeated the Japanese invaders on behalf of their country. My dad says that had he made his appointment, there would not have been an Indochina war, no Dien-Bien-Phu, and no Vietnam war either.
He would have reached an agreement with the Vietnamese and granted them their well-deserved independence while preserving French interests in SE Asia, and there would have been a free Vietnam that would never have fallen into the grip of communism.
Since the idiots in Paris insisted on restoring colonial rule in Hanoi after Leclerc passed away, here we are!

 
Quote    Reply

kane    Algerian War   6/10/2007 9:09:27 AM
Can someone explain me this Algerian conflict and why it is not considered as a genocide but the "Armenian conflict" is considered as one????
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       6/10/2007 5:10:35 PM
Can someone explain me this Algerian conflict and why it is not considered as a genocide but the "Armenian conflict" is considered as one????
It was the will of Turks to kill maximum of armenian and to deport them in a "march of death"
France objectives was to kill Algerian terrorists.Not civilians even we did a lot of  collateral damage and even some bloody reprisals on a similar way of My Lai massacre or Vietnam village bombing.
 
Quote    Reply

kane       6/11/2007 10:17:33 AM

Can someone explain me this Algerian conflict and why it is not considered as a genocide but the "Armenian conflict" is considered as one????
It was the will of Turks to kill maximum of armenian and to deport them in a "march of death"

France objectives was to kill Algerian terrorists.Not civilians even we did a lot of  collateral damage and even some bloody reprisals on a similar way of My Lai massacre or Vietnam village bombing.



Then why can't Armenians show the proofs that it was the will of Turks to kill Armenians?

Let's have a look at the conflicts

France, on another countries soil which they have colonised for years bombing and causing death of a million even the troops are admiting the violence and stuff and this happens in a nearer time

In Armenian conflict
Armenians revolt with the support of France and Russia(to build greater Armenia), kill 540 00 Turks and lose
800 000-1m
But in what way?It's not a governmental policy, there is a war going on.Whole country is starving, these guys revolt and even join French and Russian corps, create gangs like Tashnaks.Aim to destory whole Turkish race in region in order to build their Armenian country.Sound more systematic than what Turks did.
Turks on the other hand, has no realy military force in the region having lost 250 k in Gallipoli and 90k in Sarikamis(Russian frontline) and getting hammered in Middle East aganist Brits kill 1.5m Armenians?
When I looked at the archives I saw about 900k Armenian living in whole empire.How did we kill 1.5?
Is there a governmental policy?No because there is no sign of government in the region.
It was more like an ethnic war both sides butchering each other and it is not something qualified as a genocide.
......I can go on lik this, but to tell you the truth what France did in Algeria is worse then whatever happened in Anatolia.
But France is a major European country, thats politic power ;)
 
Quote    Reply

Panther       7/25/2007 3:12:00 AM
I can definitely see what FS is saying, though i've always thought of De Gaulle as the ultimate "major pain in the rear for a politican" that this world had ever produced! Apparently he was what the French exactly needed in order too believe in themseleves again after WWII and somehow... he did it in a hurry.
 
I don't think Leclerc ever really had it in him, the desire to be a cut-throat politican. It appears serving France in a military capacity was honor enough for him!
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics