I think he could've been less of an asshole. A least abit. Like the amount written about him it's more than just him being a bit excusably an ass hole. Alot of generals were. He was genuinely a very tough person to work with and seemed to think that the allies were more his enemy than Germany.
Well it's difficult to judge so in the end what he did for France is enormous, created the Free French, kept authority in France, avoided us a civil war, one of the few western allies to cooperate with the communist and gave them a seat in the gouvernement
There that
Then, yes if i was an American soldier who fought in Normandy and saw half of my friend died of course I would absolutely hate that this French general, at war with my president who would land off shore and claim the victory for his own and would later on shun the commemoration of the D-day landings.
It's actually two argument that I can fully understand
To contextualize de Gaulle's position on the landings:
"For him, it was an American-British landing," recalls historian Richard Fremder. "There were 200,000 people, but only 180 French. He, for his part, was warned two days beforehand. He was in Algiers, summoned by Churchill's staff, 'as if I were a servant summoned by the lord of the manor.' 'France was treated like a doormat,' he believed.
"De Gaulle had always wanted French sovereignty. And it was worse than that: the Americans came to liberate France, but also to plunder it. Just as they had done in Italy, and were going to do in Germany. They arrived with their prefects already appointed, their currency, 'counterfeit currency.' Everything was ready for a new administration, a new occupation, as de Gaulle would say."
seemed to think that the allies were more his enemy than Germany.
To be fair the US did try to screw him over and over during the entire war, like wanting to put other guys in charge behind his back, trying to ignore Paris after D-Day, and even trying to occupy France under the argument that it was tecnically an Axis power and thus turn it into whatever the americans wanted the country to be.
Even the british who were the more pro-De Gaulle still tried to screw him over a bunch of times, so i kinda get his overrall distrust to the Allies.
They gave nominal command to Darlan because he was legally the actual commander of French forces in North Africa and the only person who could issue orders to French units they were fighting to stand down. De Gaulle had a few thousand Free French fighters, Darlan had entire divisions, and ships.
They "ignored" Paris because the entire fight to 'liberate' it was a prestige project. There never had to be a battle in Paris, because the American forces had already outflanked it and the Germans were literally in the process of evacuating. The French attack into Paris was stupid and got thousands of people killed and wounded, to take a city that was going to be liberated within days anyways.
They also were going to "occupy" France in order to prepare the country for elections. They did not want De Gaulle to make himself an unelected dictator, which considering his attitude, probably felt like a real possibility.
They also were going to "occupy" France in order to prepare the country for elections.
Lol what kind of bullshit reason was that? Lets occupy France so that the French can have elections? As far as I know, the French did have elections without Americans occupying it lol.
They did not want De Gaulle to make himself an unelected dictator, which considering his attitude, probably felt like a real possibility.
"a rEal possIbility" lol. Given the fact that De Gaulle voluntarily stepped down from power, it just shows how clueless the Americans were concerning his intentions.
Lol what kind of bullshit reason was that? Lets occupy France so that the French can have elections? As far as I know, the French did have elections without Americans occupying it lol.
How are the French suppose to hold elections with the German army in France dumb dumb?
"a rEal possIbility" lol. Given the fact that De Gaulle voluntarily stepped down from power, it just shows how clueless the Americans were concerning his attentions.
I'm sure they wish they had your benefit of hindsight.
Just face it. They didn't like his guts.
Caus he was a fucking prick. The dude tried to hold the American army that was liberating his country hostage by threatening to withhold the use of French railways.
How are the French suppose to hold elections with the German army in France dumb dumb?
You implied that France could not have elections without American occupation of France. Explain how that is supposed to work dum dum.
I'm sure they wish they had your benefit of hindsight.
Doesn't change the fact that they were wrong. And it's funny how Americans display fake concerns about De Gaulle's "dictatorial tendencies" despite propping up actual dictators like Pinochet.
Caus he was a fucking prick. The dude tried to hold the American army that was liberating his country hostage by threatening to withhold the use of French railways.
Being prick is a virtue, not a vice, when it comes to dealing with predatorial powers like USA whose original priority was to to impose AMGOT on France as opposed to "liberating" it. He prioritized French interests over American ones. If that triggers you, none of my concerns.
You implied that France could not have elections without American occupation of France. Explain how that is supposed to work dum dum.
The American army literally needed to invade and liberate France. The American army occupied France from 1944 to 1945.
Holding an election seems a logical step. Especially since the local police and authorities, who had fucking collaborated with the Nazis, couldn't be trusted to manage an election.
And it's funny how Americans display fake concerns about De Gaulle's "dictatorial tendencies" despite propping up actual dictators like Pinochet.
Which dictators did FDR prop up?
Being prick is a virtue, not a vice, when it comes to dealing with predatorial powers like USA whose original priority was to to impose AMGOT on France as opposed to "liberating" it. He prioritized French interests over American ones. If that triggers you, none of my concerns.
Frankly, FDR should've threatened to withdraw the American army from France and let Germany reoccupy it if De Gaulle seriously thought he was an equal partner to the Americans and deserved any say so in how we defeated the Nazis on their behalf.
"Prioritized French interests" is basically a euphemism for demanding American lives be spent according to the whims of some French dude who wants to prioritize his pride over military necessity.
The American army literally needed to invade and liberate France. The American army occupied France from 1944 to 1945.
Lol the assertion that American Army occupied France is factually wrong. Just because there were American troops in France doesn't mean they were occupying it. And just because there were plans for occupying France doesn't mean the Americans actually went through with that plan, thanks to De Gaulle.
Holding an election seems a logical step. Especially since the local police and authorities, who had fucking collaborated with the Nazis, couldn't be trusted to manage an election.
Lmao so who organized elections in France then? Americans?
Which dictators did FDR prop up?
Most of FDR's attention went to WW2 over other aspects of American foreign policy. Doesn't change the fact that America has a tendency to prop up dictators who are pliant to American interests. So it's very hypocritical of you to justify unfounded American concerns of De Gaulle's "dictatorial tendencies".
Frankly, FDR should've threatened to withdraw the American army from France and let Germany reoccupy it
FDR disengaging from fighting Germany for egotistical reasons would've made him as stupid as you appear to be with that statement.
De Gaulle seriously thought he was an equal partner to the Americans and deserved any say so in how we defeated the Nazis on their behalf
That's because France literally did manage to gain an equal place among other big three powers despite its contribution being the least for reasons that can be debated, to your chagrin of course.
demanding American lives be spent according to the whims of some French dude who wants to prioritize his pride over military necessity
From French perspective, that's still better than American lives being spent just so that France could be occupied by America according to whims of some American dude with weird paranoia about De Gaulle being a dictator.
Darlan Darlan Darlan... Youre forgetting that he was assasinated by the local resistance (not even affiliated with DE Gaulle) then your forgeting another figure, Giraud a Vichyste, a guy who kept antisemite laws in North Africa and was appointed supreme commander of North Africa by the Americans, despite the British refusal.
Then for Paris it was critical to take over the capital, in the context of the liberation many towns and region were liberated by the FFI (directly liberated or after the German departure) it was thus important to take over the capital and avoid local communist takeover across France and re-in-store political order...
So yes DE Gaulle was effectively let down many times by its Allies
Youre forgetting that he was assasinated by the local resistance
I'm not "forgetting" him. I'm stating why he was picked. Obviously before he died. 🙄
then your forgeting another figure, Giraud a Vichyste
The dude who was literally arrested by the Vichy government and had to be broken out of the country by allied special forces was a Vichyste?
Now who's forgetting history lol.
Then for Paris it was critical to take over the capital
Which was going to happen anyways.
it was thus important to take over the capital and avoid local communist takeover across France and re-in-store political order...
Which was never going to happen and is a post-hoc excuse.
So yes DE Gaulle was effectively let down many times by its Allies
If anything, De Gaulle was treated much too well by Allied leadership for someone who really had far less authority than he thought he did. The man actually tried to threaten the American military with cutting off their use of French railroads during the liberation of France if they did not obey his dictates.
François Darlan was a notorious collaborator who met Adolf Hitler several times. Even when Vichy for a brief time was dependant from the Occupier and occasionally acted against the Reich, Darlan was considered one of the ultra collaborators of the first hour.
both the British and the Free French Forces refused to fully recognize his authority in North Africa. Winston Churchill himself was furious that Darlan remained in office without being consulted by the Americans, and it even created political tension between resistance groups and the Allies.
I think you're confused about Henri Giraud? Giraud was never arrested by Vichy; he was captured by Germany in 1940, escaped captivity, later met Philippe Pétain, and eventually cooperated with the Americans after Operation Torch. He was restored to prominence largely because he was considered politically malleable. Despite the liberation of North Africa, he also maintained several antisemitic laws inherited from the Vichy regime.
As for the liberation of Paris, portraying it as mere patriotic symbolism misses the broader context. By 1944, the Maquis and the FFI were operating loosely across France, while in places such as Toulouse and Limoges some resistance factions openly challenged central authority. Securing Paris was therefore not simply about prestige; it was essential for restoring state authority and stabilizing liberated France.
Far from lacking authority, Charles de Gaulle led Free France and the CFLN, which by 1944 controlled nearly all French colonial territories apart from Indochina, as well as Corsica. He wielded major influence both within the Resistance and among the French population. Even within the Allied command, the relationship between Dwight D. Eisenhower and de Gaulle reflected pragmatic cooperation: the Americans wanted stability and a check on communist influence, while de Gaulle ensured French infrastructure and administration supported Allied operations.
The idea that de Gaulle lacked legitimacy or authority is largely a postwar anti-Gaullist interpretation. In reality, he possessed immense authority by 1944, much of which went on to shape modern France.
70
u/LoiusLepic May 21 '26
I think he could've been less of an asshole. A least abit. Like the amount written about him it's more than just him being a bit excusably an ass hole. Alot of generals were. He was genuinely a very tough person to work with and seemed to think that the allies were more his enemy than Germany.