1947:De Gaulle falls down the stairs

Tyr

How about something a bit different to the norm, can't recall seeing this before.
As the title says- mid 1947 and Charles De Gaulle suffers a freak accident and dies.
How would the path of French, and indeed European, politics change without De Gaulle?
 

SlickWilly

Actually, when he entered Paris post D-day victory and there was a general march through the city, Nazi snipers were taking pot shots at the crowds and most people ducked down when they realised this was happening, but not him of course and he was a very tall man!
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
Elfwine said:
It is?

I'm willing to accept that France was a great power up to and including WWI, but beyond that...um...how?
Click to expand...

The French military is in the top 3 of expeditionary forces and only one of 2 that get's used REGULARY in that role. It's one of the leaders in the European Union, Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council and a nuclear power. You bet your ass it's a great power.
 

ThatGuyOverThere

One interesting difference might be the UK not getting shafted when it tried to join the EEC, with all the effects that would have on British domestic politics as well as European politics
 

Elfwine

HJ Tulp said:
The French military is in the top 3 of expeditionary forces and only one of 2 that get's used REGULARY in that role. It's one of the leaders in the European Union, Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council and a nuclear power. You bet your ass it's a great power.
Click to expand...

1) Which means the French have a good army that is used regularly. So? Prussia had a great army without being a true great power. This is not to dismiss what that means, but "we use our army for something other than self-defense" is proof of aggressive and/or interventionist ideas, not greatness.

2) Not sure what this means in regards to power - this is an ignorant American's unfamilarity with what "leadership" within the EU means. Presumably it means France is strong economically and politically, though "one of the leaders" is a little vague.

3) So? Does the fact that Germany isn't mean Germany is weaker than France?

4) Expensive weapons of mass fail. I suppose its part of sounding like a great and mighty nation to be able to waste resources like that on weapons that should never be used and may never be used, but its not one of your more convincing points.

I accept the points above with the above reservations, but I'm not exactly overwhelmed with evidence here.

I suppose part of my question is "What does a 'great power' mean in the post-Soviet Union context?" So the balance of things has changed.

I'm not trying to slight France here, but the relative position of western Europe to the rest of the world is not the same as it was in 1900.
 
Last edited:
Xgentis

Xgentis

Elfwine said:
1) Which means the French have a good army that is used regularly. So? Prussia had a great army without being a true great power. This is not to dismiss what that means, but "we use our army for something other than self-defense" is proof of aggressive and/or interventionist ideas, not greatness.

2) Not sure what this means in regards to power - this is an ignorant American's unfamilarity with what "leadership" within the EU means. Presumably it means France is strong economically and politically, though "one of the leaders" is a little vague.

3) So? Does the fact that Germany isn't mean Germany is weaker than France?

4) Expensive weapons of mass fail. I suppose its part of sounding like a great and mighty nation to be able to waste resources like that on weapons that should never be used and may never be used, but its not one of your more convincing points.

I accept the points above with the above reservations, but I'm not exactly overwhelmed with evidence here.

I suppose part of my question is "What does a 'great power' mean in the post-Soviet Union context?" So the balance of things has changed.

I'm not trying to slight France here, but the relative position of western Europe to the rest of the world is not the same as it was in 1900.
Click to expand...
France is a great power not a Superpower but a great power nonetheless and so is the United Kingdom.
 

loughery111

Banned
Xgentis said:
France is a great power not a Superpower but a great power nonetheless and so is the United Kingdom.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the definition of Great Power is not applicable when the world is monopolar (maybe, at a stretch, bipolar). There are no more "Great Powers" in Western Europe; they lack the resource and population bases to maintain even their present-day second- or third-tier status for more than another decade, if they continue to act individually. They might possibly continue to fit the definition of regional power, but for one thing; they're all that strong. Regional power projection does no good against someone your own size.

This says nothing about their standard of living or continued first-world status of course, but the only place in which France continues to be a first-rank global power is in the minds of particularly deluded French nationalists. The only way it could regain such a status is as a member state of a federal EU.
 

Mr Qwerty

I think there's a distinct possibility France, under whoever takes the reins after deGaulle dies, follows a similar path. France has a lot to prove, having been defeated and later rescued by allies. They would probably try to rebuild their former World Power status even without him (and still fail, as they simply don't have the resources to dominate the 20th century world).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top