Charles de Gaulle, good or bad?

I did not know too much about Charles de Gaulle. I only knew him as the leader of the French resistance forces against Nazi Germany and Vichy France during WWII, but after learning more about him (Yes, I used wiki... and I don't regret it.) he is more significant than I ever thought.

I'm very much in favour of "the General" as I'm very much favourably disposed towards France.

He saved the French bacon at least twice. Not that he didn't have flaws or made wrong turns politically.

Mostly he was uncannily prescient about what would be the best possible action � the necessity to modernise the Frencg army and make it armoured and mobile prior to WWII (not that he was listened to in France, only in Germant) � the necessity for France not to surrender in 1940 � the necessity of not compromising one iota of French sovereignity to the US � the correctness of backing the US to the hilt in the Cuban missile crisis � the necessity to end the war in Algeria by granting independence � the correctness in recognising "Red" China while still in a superior position (he told Nixon that the US could recognise Mao's China now, in a position of strength and get the Chinese goodwill, or be forced to do it later and not get it; Nixon listened carefully).

His big failing was to think he could form some kind of European "third block", centered around France, between the US and the Soviets during the cold war. That failed, even if it might not necessarily have been a bad idea. Though shutting the UK out of the EEC at the time probably was.

I'm undecided about de Gaulle's constitution, the one in place right now. It made the presidential power very strong, making for strong governments (the opposite used to be the case, with cabinet changes every six months or so). But it has totally gutted grass-roots party politics in France, which is now a problem as most Frenchmen feel pretty alienated from politics these days.

And he was really clueless in 1968, when the student protests forced his resignation. Old man, out of touch, by then. And France was "getting bored" (famous headline from the time) with his presidency by then.

I don't know enough about De Gaulle to really give a comprehensive analysis. However, from my own knowledge i do believe that De Gaulles policies especially in the Fifth Republic are somewhat unforgivable. His overt nationalism was also rather serious. He was also a paranoid old man, similar in someways to Stalin and certain members in American politics at the time.

Algeria has always been a crisis, I don't think we can judge the man based on the problems in Algeria... But the Paris massacre was fairly terrible.

Many of the failings of the period were out of the control of De Gaulle, Britain was suffering similar problems. Except Britain didn't form some sort of semi-Authoritarian state.

And he was really clueless in 1968, when the student protests forced his resignation. Old man, out of touch, by then. And France was "getting bored" (famous headline from the time) with his presidency by then. He also did say the most frightfully racist things about Arabs from time to time, though that might not be unexpected from a French military man born in 1890.

I do believe he did lose touch with the times, somewhat. Saying 'non' to Britain was perhaps a mistake? And he certainly was not in touch with the times. Nothing compared to the hip Harold Wilson! ;)

Also, Was De Gaule as bad as Mitterand? :P

Looks like our friend Tancr�de is quite rightist.

The battle of Abbeville he conducted was not a great success.
De Gaule converted late to republicanism (after all the godfather of his elder son was P�tain...).
He had a clueless economic policy, if he had one at all.
He shaped (had shaped) the republic for his needs, didn't care about after.
He was anti-Europe.
He stained his hands with a few massacres (Setif, Paris, Madagascar... left the pro-french Algerians behind)
He had a very peculiar idea of what a democracy is/should be; paternalistic to say the least.

Ultimately, he had a lot of bad policies but was blessed by a peiod that required more a saviour than a technocratic leader. Economic growth was there watever he did or didn't do. He was undeniably intelligent and courageous which is already not that bad in this period.