Wikipedia

Talk:Charles de Gaulle/Archive 2

< Talk:Charles de Gaulle
Latest comment: 2 years ago by DFlhb in topic Too long
Archive 1Archive 2
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Charles de Gaulle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

De Gaulle's End Game

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The current article says very little about how De Gaulle managed to persuade/convince/blackmail Churchill and Roosevelt into agreeing to the early re-establishment of the French Republic and to accepting him as a wartime peer. I'd like to know more about how he managed this -- did he send Leclerc into Paris without any authorization so he could present his allies with a fait accompli? Cranston Lamont (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Incredible determination, stroppiness and force of character mainly. It was a slow process during the war, accelerating after Casablanca when he squeezed out Giraud from co-control of the Free French movement. It helped that the Vichy Army from North Africa was then given American equipment and served in the field under Ike in the final year of the war (Free French forces had been pretty small up until then). There was some trouble in the run-up to D-Day when the US wanted to set up a military government with its own currency - by then de Gaulle was able to face this down.

Actually the Free French forces only liberated Paris because of the express wishes of Churchill, who did not want the people of France to feel humiliated by being liberated by non-French forces. Despite earlier events, Churchill was a Francophile and was also a Francophone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.173 (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hardest Cross

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The quote regarding "The hardest cross I had to bear was the Crossx of Lorraine" was in fact not spoken bby churchill, though this is a common misattribution. It was, in fact, one of Churchill's chief aides, whose name escapes me at the moment, who was heavily involved in relations with the Free French Forces who spoke these words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.192.9 (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly it was John Colville. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.173 (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

possible vandalism?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

" He escaped his penis hole to Britain and gave a famous radio address, "

That can't possibly be right. I would edit it myself but am not familiar with the process.

"Charles de Gaulle was an idiot asshole and was a French general and statesman who led the Free French Forces during World War II."

clearly someone hates de Gaulle - or knows about the Vietnam war.


The article has been vandalised many, many times before, and no doubt will in the future--Godwhale (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

DeGaulle on D-Day

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

The article says DeGaulle refused to participate in D-Day. This is not accurate. The Free French were excluded by Britain and America from playing any role on D-Day. Pistolpierre (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"From Algiers, a furious de Gaulle ordered his representative in London, Koenig, to break off discussions then in progress with members of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) staff on questions relating to D-day....He flatly refused to cooperate on the grounds that no mention was made of the French National Committee." Theodore Wilson D-Day, 1944 (1994) Page 193 Rjensen (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to a military role, not political role for the Free French on D-Day. The article says he refused to participate in the D-Day landings. The D-Day landings refers to the actual invasion by the Allied air, land, and naval forces. The D-Day landings does not relate to reconstituting an administrative government in France. Pistolpierre (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The sentence refers to his refusal to participate personally, not to the military role of Free French troops among the allies. I don't think the phrase "refused to participate in the D-Day landings" can reasonably be understood to mean he refused to pick up a gun and jump on the beach. However, if you can think of a better way of phrasing the point, then offer one. Some Free French troops did participate as a part of British forces on D-day, but not as a separate army (they entered in force later, nominally as part of the American army). Obviously the Resistance participated too. There were perfectly sensible military reasons for this. Paul B (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
General de Gaulle was deliberately excluded from the planning and other aspects of the run up to D-Day on the grounds that the operation was too important to take the risk of him messing it up in some way, either by mentioning something in public or to the press that he shouldn't, or discussing it among the wrong people. Churchill and the planners knew that the invasion was a one-off chance and that if it failed they would most likely never be able to try again.
The Free French had unfortunately gained a poor reputation for security in Britain when earlier in the run-up to the Invasion of Madagascar Free French solders had been overheard openly discussing the forthcoming invasion (Operation Ironclad) in London clubs and bars. After that, the French were kept out of such matters.
In addition, it was felt (suspected) that de Gaulle might attempt to take command of French troops and then proceed to mess up the operation by interfering in ways beyond his competence, i.e., not following plans, orders, etc., In other words, that he might become a 'loose cannon' and jeopardise the operation in one way or another. Quite simply, he was thought too much of a risk. Bear in mind that at this point de Gaulle was treading the thin line between soldier and politician.
IIRC, this was all a cause of much of de Gaulle's post-war animosity towards Britain.
OTOH, for the British the view was that they had voluntarily gone into the war in 1939 with France as a formidable ally with one of the largest armies (and navies) in Europe, of over two million men, only for the British to see that army fall apart in 1940 and the French government ultimately surrendering (which they had expressly given assurances to the British they would never do) leaving Britain and her empire metaphorically 'in the s**t' to fight on alone. So when de Gaulle arrived in Britain as a relatively low-ranking army officer he was never regarded by the British as being as important as he felt himself to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.153 (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Well actually, the "formidable" British ally fled at the first gunshot and the French did not surrender but signed an armistice, which is not the same thing. An unconditional surrender or capitulation, you see, is what the British did in Singapore in 1940.Blaue Max (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I was merely giving the contemporary British view at the time, as that was the only one that mattered.
As in 1940 the BEF was only some 340,000 strong, as opposed to a French army of over 2,000,000, one suspects that trying to blame the British for the 1940 French debacle - the BEF was under French command - may be the act of someone clutching at straws. Especially when one reads contemporary British accounts of units of the BEF moving to their positions to attempt to stop the German advance only to meet on the roads straggling columns of French troops going the other way, one suspects that all was not what it should have been with the French defence of their own country.
I think you'll find that if the British had "fled at the first gunshot" as you so state, then Gort would have done it when they still had a usable port to embark-from, rather than waiting till the last minute and having to lift most of the remaining BEF off the beaches of Dunkirk.
You may call it an 'armistice' but if an RAF or other Allied pilot came down anywhere over France he still ended up in a Stalag somewhere in Germany unless he was very lucky. And the Milice were as bad as the Gestapo, as many brave French men and women alive at the time will tell you.
Never mind though, in both cases the British came back, (for France in 1944, and for Singapore, 1945) and so the unfortunate situations were only temporary. They even gave Indo-China back to the French after the Japanese had been looking after it for them. But then again, that's what friends are for.
... then again, the ... "formidable" British ... as you so sarcastically write, may be people for you to scorn and despise, but if so, then why are you on here writing in their language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.153 (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Sending only 300,000 men in a war they had made inevitable ? This is not serious... I assume the British thought the French would die again in their place just like during World War I. The British military credo has always been "blame your allies in case of defeat, take all the credits in case of victory".
If it wasn't for de Gaulle and the role that the Free French took from 42 to 45, France would have been occupied and her colonies scattered as planned by the Anglo-Saxons. Don't bullshit me about friendship, Nations have no friends only interests.
Why do I speak English ? Well "Know your enemy" as could have said Sun Tzu. The problem with the British is that they don't speak other languages and they start to believe in their own propaganda... Blaue Max (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
" ...I assume the British thought the French would die again in their place just like during World War I" - I think you'll find it wasn't British territory that was invaded in 1914. Neither for that matter, was that the case in 1939 either.
Twice in twenty years the British Empire had gone to war in defence not of itself, but of continental countries which had been invaded. From 1914 to 1918 the British Empire suffered around a million casualties in Western Europe all fought for not one acre of British territory, nor for the freedom of one British subject. A 'tradition' retained since the Napoleonic Wars and earlier.
The British don't usually bother stating such facts, as they reason they ought to be fairly self-evident to all but the most geographically-isolated Andean peon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.173 (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charles de Gaulle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Cabinets of Charles de Gaulle

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The list of members of the cabinets of de Gaulle was removed from the article last March. I saved it so a new article could be started, but forgot about it. The list can be found here. Does anyone have any reliable sources that can back up this info otherwise it will be deleted. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Should be found here: http://www.gouvernement.fr/les-gouvernements-de-la-veme-republique Mélencron (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

"In January 1964, France was the first among the Western powers to open diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China"

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The source for this is 404. The UK recognised the PRC in 1950. I'm not sure in what sense this claim is true. FOARP (talk) 08:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Have a look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dates_of_establishment_of_diplomatic_relations_with_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China You'll see that the PRC didn't exactly accept the 1950 recognition by the UK (I expect someone will tell me why not), and it wasn't until after the PRC had a seat at the UN that the UK recognition properly took effect (in 1972). I'm old enough to remember that for a good 20 years the PRC was the elephant in the (diplomatic) room. The Scandinavian countries and Liechtenstein seem to have recognised the PRC before France. I think "amongst the first" isn't too bad. I'm pretty sure it annoyed the US at the time. Thomas Peardew (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Spelling Error

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Under paragraph 2, sentence 2 under the title 'Prisoner', the word Medieval is spelled as follows: "mediaeval"

Respectfully,

LH

Fixed. Thank you. --Chewings72 (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Good catch. I dream of Maple (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
"mediaeval" is a perfectly acceptable spelling, if a little old-fashioned/pedantic.Paulturtle (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep analysis by Acheson and Moravscik

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Acheson is a reliable secondary source by an expert on international relations (the book won a Pulitzer prize and is often cite by scholars). [it is not a primary source because he was not in Paris when deGaulle acted]. WP:SECONDARY states "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Likewise Moravscik, The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht publisher=Cornell University Press is a reliable secondary source. As for "opinion" see WP:OPINION which states: "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy." Rjensen (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Charles de Gaulle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Why was this image removed?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
The removed image

It seemed to be a good infobox image for him, as it shows how he looked like as a statesman and president. What is the protocol for infobox image changes? Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't normally get involved in photos, but that one is better for heading up the whole article.Paulturtle (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Rejection of the EEC

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"he opposed efforts by fellow EEC member countries to move toward some form of political integration that, in de Gaulle's thinking, would impinge on the sovereignty of France, both internally and externally."

As we know from FCO 30/1048 his assesment of the EEC and its intended move to political union was correct and disaterous for sovereignty.

Even so PM Heath took the £25,000 'prize' and took the UK in.

It has indeed been a disaster not only for sovereignty but economically.

Fortunately the UK electorate knew better than the politicians and voted in June 2016 to leave the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.114.111 (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles de Gaulle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

ayez confiance

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The British and American governments persistently felt that the help they had given de Gaulle during the War deserved better recognition than the defiantly independent policies which his government followed in the post-war years. This was reflected in a joke current in Britain and the United States, as follows.

A man goes into a Catholic church in Paris and finds himself kneeling near de Gaulle. The priest is leading the recitation of a litany, each line being repeated by the congregation. "Coeur de Jésu, j'ai confiance en Toi" he intones, and the man is surprised to overhear de Gaulle responding, "Coeur de Jésu, ayez confiance en moi".

I can't see how to fit this story into the article. Maybe it's not appropriate (though viewed correctly it seems a nice story against the puffed-up self-regard of the British and American governments). I leave it here for what it's worth. Deipnosophista (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Return to France

"That evening, the Wehrmacht launched a massive aerial and artillery barrage of Paris in revenge, leaving several thousand dead or injured." Which Heer units? Which Luftwaffe formations? How many casualties? I can find nothing to support this. Nothing at all. There is clear evidence of sniper activity but no serious German military activity. It is extremely doubtful at that point in August 1944 that the German forces had the strength to launch a "massive" attack on Paris. The Normandy Campaign and the retreat had cost the German military nearly all their forces in the West [1]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord#Breakout_from_the_beachhead

Return to France: air raid

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Regarding the claim above, there is in fact plenty of evidence for the air raid, though I haven't found any mention of artillery. De Gaulle himself wrote: "À minuit (26-27 août), ses avions viennent bombarder la capitale, détruisant 500 maisons, incendiant la Halle aux vins, tuant ou blessant un millier de personnes." De GAULLE, Charles. Mémoires de guerre et mémoires d'espoir (French Edition) (p. 694). Place des éditeurs. Kindle Edition.

Many more details at http://francecrashes39-45.net/bomb_paris.php

Cwrwgar (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Too long

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is 164 kb of prose, well over the 100k limit. I am not familiar enough with de Gaulle to say exactly how to break out some sub articles though. Perhaps an article for first presidency, and for second presidency, plus maybe one for his war years and one for early life? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I also support splitting; the article is long, but has good content. Editors willing to tackle this page should favor splits over deletions, and check whether any large removals from this article may deserve reinstatement in splitoff articles. DFlhb (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

A Week Younger?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I believe he was born seven days latter than stated. This would make him; a week younger, he would be born under a different star sign (the half man half horse one with an arrow) and he would share a birthday with the last 20th century president of the French republic, Jacques Chirac, on the penultimate day on the penultimate month of the year, the 29th of November, a day which interestingly (and perhaps significantly) has been chosen by terrorists to carry out atrocities in South London in recent years. It might be a good idea to see what day the great man himself said he celebrated his birthday on by having a look in his autobiography ( 31.52.124.188 (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC) ).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_de_Gaulle/Archive_2&oldid=1249255044"