What was his endgame?

Making France great again

>>68216014
keep france relevant
he failed
>tfw a bunch of hippie children made him run away like a little bitch in '68

>>68216014
End ? It was the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle

File: 71473786.jpg (110KB, 600x765px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 600x765px

>>68216014
FUCKING KIKE

FUCK HIM

File: affiche-oas-vaincra.jpg (61KB, 564x800px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 564x800px

>>68216014
MY LEADER IS PETAIN NOT KEKGAULLE AKA KEKOLD

File: france-america.jpg (29KB, 400x200px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x200px

>>68216014
Screw over his best ally

>>68218782
Don't play that card with me.
A nation in which an imperial will is so deeply rooted cannot be best ally with anyone.

You are at war with any other nation since your birth US of A, wether it is visible or not.

De Gaulle knew it when he sent a warship full of american dollars to your coasts to bring back France's gold in 1967.

>>68218536
>>68218565
Bien mémé, crétin.

>>68216014
The total destruction of the Anglo-Teutonic race and liberation of Québec.

>>68216014
Be relevant and not become the Anglo's bitch.

>>68219429
>France without de Gaul
Sorta worked?

File: French Genocide.gif (1020KB, 7344x3640px) Image search: [Google]

1020KB, 7344x3640px

>>68218988
DeCuck's master piece

>>68216014
Unironically? Moving France to the center of the world. And he would've actually succeeded if his successors weren't a bunch of morons.

Let me paint Europe as De Gaulle saw it in the 60s
>France's only equal, Britain, is too busy sucking America's toes to be a real rival (Churchill did tell De Gaulle that if forced to choose between France and America, he'd always choose America)
>Germany is divided, occupied and broken
>The rest are irrelevant countries
This was a pool France could swim in. De Gaulle worked hard and succeeded to subvert the EU (for example he had Adenauer sign the Coal and Steel treaty, making sure that even while America rearmed Germany France would be able to keep an eye on whatever their military was doing) and actually did move France to the center of the EU. He also rejected Britain's application to the EU twice because on the one hand he feared they'd be America's backdoor entrance (see Churchill's quote above) and on the other hand France had no need for rivals competing for the throne (yes, that makes De Gaulle the only de facto EU leader not interested in mindless expansion!).

His "endgame" was La Grande Nation. He saw France could not hold on to its colonies and gave them the option to choose freedom (through referendum, all of France's overseas territories are the colonies that voted against independence). Instead he sought to compensate with Europe what he had lost in Africa and create La Grande Nation: a third block of nations (led by France of course) between America and the Soviet Union (both physically and ideologically) through which France would gain prestige and influence in the world. He left France behind in an excellent condition to pursue this policy, but (as Zemmour explains) after De Gaulle France's leaders were not so much interested in leading the country as much as they were in prostituting it. The left sold it to immigrants, the right to corporations (and really, there's no difference between the two).

Fish lobster on brasilian waters and liberate quebec for one

>>68222078
I have to agree that giscard and Mitterand were awful. Pompidou was meh and we then had meme presidents like Chirac and Sarkozy. To finish now with "i wanna be a normal president" Hollande.

The only mistake de gaulle made was to create a republic that could onlybe truly well governed if the head of state was good.

>>68222342
>The only mistake de gaulle made was to create a republic that could onlybe truly well governed if the head of state was good.
What else was he supposed to do? The 4th Republic failed because in the hour of need parliament kept faffing about. This is also why countries like France and the United States will lead the nationalist renaissance, not countries like the Netherland or Germany (look up how the last elections went here: Geert Wilders' party was the third largest but parliament blocked him from having a majority (and thus being in the government) because nobody wanted to cooperate with him technically this can happen again even if Wilders' party becomes number one (unless he has over 50% of all votes which is virtually impossible)).

>>68222078
Who would he lead though? Without Britain this leaves Germany and Austria(broken), Italy(unable to govern itself) and Benelux(meme countries). Spain was still under Franco, Portugal under Salazar and Switzerland fiercely neutral. Everything east of Germany was commie territory.

It wouldn't take long before Germans got ideas again, especially if DeGaulle pissed off the Yanks as he had the tendency to do.

>>68222078
good post

know any books on de gaulle (not his autobiographies)? always been interested in the guy but never really read much

>>68222610
>tthis leaves Germany and Austria(broken), Italy(unable to govern itself) and Benelux(meme countries).
The combined economies of these countries is nothing to sneeze at, bro. Even today only combining France and Western Germany would make that union a solid third economy of the world, ahead of Japan and about half what China has. Not only that, it effectively means he'd have Europe on lockdown. You're effectively berating him for not having Merkel's approach of inviting everyone and their mother to inflate on-paper GDP.

>It wouldn't take long before Germans got ideas again, especially if DeGaulle pissed off the Yanks as he had the tendency to do.
Hence the Coal and Steel Treaty: the Germans would be unable to build up anything militarily speaking without the French keeping an eye on it (and presumably acting, either politically or with force, if that happened).

>>68222530
>what else was he supposed to do?

Make a presidential system with a safecard that allows the ministerial cabinet to run things if the elected president is a failure. He was pretty close to it, fillion's governments were a proof of that. but it's not enough when there's a Hollande or mitterand in office.

>>68222836
>Make a presidential system with a safecard that allows the ministerial cabinet to run things if the elected president is a failure.
Isn't that already what France has, being one of the only countries in the world with both a president and a prime minister? I guess it simply doesn't work if both of them are incompetent, but then you're asking De Gaulle to do the impossible: to create a government that works even if everyone is an incompetent moron who hates his country.

>>68222836
Concerning France's foreign policy, Mitterrand was way better than Giscard and even Pompidou ; though he did betray his program and his electors, he did not submit as much to the US.

In that regard Chirac -shit, even Hollande- were way better than Sarkozy, Mr. "getting back into NATO, selling french's gold reserve"

>>68222963
Never said it would be easy. but even with a president and a PM our current system still revolve around one person (one of the latter twos). excessive centralization has always been france's problem anyway. you should read "Paris et le désert Français". interesting book.

>>68223080
Foreign policy alone doesn't make one's term good. Let's not forget he nearly alienated germany during the reunification by hesitating to aknowledge it. (when he should have been the first one to.) He also allowed the iron bitch to walk out of the EU with her fucking cheque.

>>68222822
>The combined economies of these countries is nothing to sneeze at, bro

It's not but it still couldn't rival either the US or the USSR. Also, this supposed third block would be pretty shit when it came to military considering Germans were forever verboten from having anything they could inavde Europe with.

>the Germans would be unable to build up anything militarily speaking without the French keeping an eye on it (and presumably acting, either politically or with force, if that happened)

>French
>act

I distinctly remember there being the same sitution in between the wars and the French failed at that task.

>>68223412
>It's not but it still couldn't rival either the US or the USSR.
Perhaps not rival, but certainly stand up to them. It would be the biggest third world (in cold war terminology) block that would be impossible for either party to ignore.

>Also, this supposed third block would be pretty shit when it came to military
Force de Frappe combined with Charles de Gaulle's insistence on giving France nuclear armaments. He at some point said that due to France's ability of destroying 60 million Russians, the Russians would never risk destroying 600 million Frenchmen even if that many Frenchmen existed.
>considering Germans were forever verboten from having anything they could inavde Europe with
Bruh, the Americans were actively re-arming West Germany. They were the third biggest recipient of Marshall aid.The Morgenthau plan was rejected, remember?

>I distinctly remember there being the same sitution in between the wars and the French failed at that task.
And pray tell, who criticized that policy? Who was the only one who actually read up on Guderian's doctrine? Who effectively wrote the book on Blitzkrieg that the Germans ended up reading more than the French?

You'd think that what happened in 1940 would learn you a more general lesson: don't underestimate the enemy based on what happened in the last war. De Gaulle designed the Coal and Steel treaty specifically for that purpose: he probably thought to himself that WW2 could've been prevented if France could somehow prevent Germany from building up a war economy. Which becomes incredibly easy if France can doublecheck everything Germany does in relation to coal and steel (as well as other related industries).

>>68216014
>Tito was what he wished to be