AHC: French Army copu in 1958 forms a Gaulist dictatorship

I never really knew much about the Algiers crisis, but recently I decided to do a bit of research on it and the founding of the Fifth Republic and it appears that in 1958 their was a real, and effective coup d'etat by the French army: French paratroopers invaded and occupied Corsica (Operation Corse) and the army threatened to invade Paris and directly depose the government (Operation Resurrection) in the event of any one of three scenarios: if de Gaulle was not approved as leader of France by Parliament, if de Gaulle asked for military assistance to take power, or if it seemed that communist forces were making any move to take power in France. French President Rene Coty appealed to De Gaulle to become Prime Minister of the Forth Republic (Supposedly only 15 hours before Operation Resurrection was supposed to be put in place). De Gaulle accepted only under the conditions that De Gaulle had accepted Coty's proposal under the precondition that a new constitution would be introduced creating a powerful presidency in which a sole executive, the first of which was to be himself, ruled for seven-year periods. Another condition was that he be granted extraordinary powers for a period of six months. My question is what are the chances that De Gaulle could have successfully pushed further since he had the army's backing, to install himself with permanent emergency powers and the formation of a more permanent military backed dictatorship in France? De Gaulle's new constitution, including the new Executive powers, was approved by popular referendum by a whopping 79% so he certainly had a lot of popular support for what he was doing, do you think he could have got similar support for a more radical constitution? Furthermore if such a dictatorship happened (assuming it was possible and it endured) how would it have affected France's place in NATO and the gradual formation and evolution of the European Union.


Also if there are any French AH.com or members who have a good understanding of post-ww2 french politics members here, how are the Army and De Gaulle's actions viewed today by the people in France and in French schools? Are they seen as just given the political turmoil in France at the time and the Algerian War? I fully admit that I am a neophyte in area (I have only visited Paris twice in my life and I am not even European) so I would welcome any input on this topic.

Also on an aside note this sort of constitutional changes made by De Gaulle makes me think of the attempted constitutional changes that want to be made by Turkey's current president Racep Tayyip Erdoğan, especially the part about concentrating power in the executive position (ie. themselves). Are they in some way comparable, or am I way off base here?

Responses to any or all of the above questions would be appreciated and if anyone knows a TL already written here that deals with this please post the link.
 
I have little knowledge of French history or politics but I too think this a very interesting scenario. If De Gaulle is an actual dictator does the Algerian War continue to drag on? Or does he still let it go? If so, maybe someone anti-independence would try and utilize this dictatorial precedent for themselves. Or maybe this De Gaulle lets Algeria go as a sort of Rhodesia as a compromise?
 
I have little knowledge of French history or politics but I too think this a very interesting scenario. If De Gaulle is an actual dictator does the Algerian War continue to drag on? Or does he still let it go? If so, maybe someone anti-independence would try and utilize this dictatorial precedent for themselves. Or maybe this De Gaulle lets Algeria go as a sort of Rhodesia as a compromise?

Well historically what happened was that De Gaulle did come into power but then in the early 1960s there was another coup attempt by the army to overthrow De Gaulle when he started preparing for a referendum on independence for Algeria.
 
De Gaulles had 2 clear opportunities to become dictator. He rejected both. For him to consider that, you need a personality transplant. But if he has a personality transplant so he consider becoming dictator, he won't do what he did in ww2, so he won't be in position to become dictator. De Gaulle as dictator is less plausible than Washington crowning himself emperor of America.

If the army tries a coup to put him in power, he will go on the radio to give them the order to go back to their barracks and to arrest the officers giving the orders..... And he will be obeyed.
 

Archibald

Banned
"Vous croyez vraiment qu'a l'age de 67 ans, je vais commencer une carrière de dictateur ?"

"Do you really think that, aged 67 I'll start a new career as a dictator ?" :D those were De Gaulle own words at a press conference in 1959
 
De Gaulles had 2 clear opportunities to become dictator. He rejected both. For him to consider that, you need a personality transplant. But if he has a personality transplant so he consider becoming dictator, he won't do what he did in ww2, so he won't be in position to become dictator. De Gaulle as dictator is less plausible than Washington crowning himself emperor of America.

If the army tries a coup to put him in power, he will go on the radio to give them the order to go back to their barracks and to arrest the officers giving the orders..... And he will be obeyed.


They actually made a videogame exactly about that, with Washington setting himself up as Emperor of America (it was an Assassins Creed expansion) :D.

As to him not having the personality to be a dictator, fair enough. I don't really know much about his personality beyond his few mentions in North American popular media and obviously in OTL he did not choose to found a dictatorship in France, but this thread is really more about whether her could if he had wanted to. I mean he was already willing to gain power on the back of a military coup in OTL and was willing to leverage that power to re-write the French Constitution to, among other things, make himself personally more powerful, would it be so impossible for him to take the next step and become kind of like a modern Napoleon?
 
"Vous croyez vraiment qu'a l'age de 67 ans, je vais commencer une carrière de dictateur ?"

"Do you really think that, aged 67 I'll start a new career as a dictator ?" :D those were De Gaulle own words at a press conference in 1959

Thanks for the quote :)

And to be fair De Gaulle did put his new Constitution to a popular referendum, but since he did rise to power on the back of a coup and he did have the support of the French army (including a direct promise to invade France if De Gaulle needed help to establish power) it seems that he could have at least had a good shot of establishing himself as a dictator if he had wanted to.

Also I just want to note most dictators of the world generally dont openly declare themselves as dictators, generally they still pretend to the rest of the world that their countries are democracies, even if they are not, indeed they often put "democratic" right in their country's name: Think of all the countries with names that start with "Peoples Democratic...".
 
Even more important he went home after losing another* (thought arguably so did Pinochet)



*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_constitutional_referendum,_1969


Good link, thanks. I do find it quite interesting that his popular support lasted so long, since he still was President in 1969! De Gaulle's appeal to the masses not just as a legendary figure but as a real head of state seemed to have endured much better than most other WW2 heroes. He seems at least well positioned to take on the role of dictator if he had chose too and with France and that famous history of Generals/Liberators sweeping to power (and ultimately rule) on a wave of popular love an military backing, it makes the historical parallels with De Gualle's and France in 1959 really appealing to conjecture about. It would be really neat to see a timeline on this, still unfortunately it is not my area of expertise (My homeland, Canada, has perhaps the most boring history of all, indeed even on AH.com its main purpose in aternate history seems to be conquered by the Americans :rolleyes:).
 
I am kind of surprised there are so few comments here. I know this is an English language board but I was hoping to get some input from a French person or a Continental European. Oh well, I guess I can always post a thread about the American Civil War or Sea Lion, everyone always flocks to those.
 
There are so few answers because it goes against the very core of de Gaulle personality and moral: yes gaulism and bonapartism have a lot in common, but de Gaulle was first and foremost a convinced democrat and republican.

To have him set up a dictatorial regime would go against all he ever stood for. He gained power on the possibility of possible military coup, but had the army decided to go with it, he would have certainly condemned it.

In my opinion, AFAIK, a true Gaulist dictatorship would be ASB. A military coup is a possibility, but you can't have de Gaulle backing it. And I don't see any other general who could have taken power as long as he is alive.
 
There are so few answers because it goes against the very core of de Gaulle personality and moral: yes gaulism and bonapartism have a lot in common, but de Gaulle was first and foremost a convinced democrat and republican.

To have him set up a dictatorial regime would go against all he ever stood for. He gained power on the possibility of possible military coup, but had the army decided to go with it, he would have certainly condemned it.

In my opinion, AFAIK, a true Gaulist dictatorship would be ASB. A military coup is a possibility, but you can't have de Gaulle backing it. And I don't see any other general who could have taken power as long as he is alive.


OK, I can totally accept that De Gaulle never WOULD have done this (supported by the fact that he didn't in OTL, obviously) but the question then is, COULD he have done this if he had wanted to? Did the fate of French democracy rest on the moral fortitude of one French Politician, less than 60 years ago?

This sort of hero/liberator turned dictator ATL has been explored before with fairly modern figures, most notably George Washington (They even made a videogame about it:http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_King_Washington). What would make the De Gaulle case so interesting is that it is pretty recent (rather than being in the age of absolute monarchs), well within the living memory of many people, during a time when dictatorships were being progressively expunged from Europe (aside from Franco, most notably), and during a time of increasing globalization and the formation of large multi-national blocs (eg. NATO, the European Coal and Steel Community).

So what do you think, if De Gaulle had been so inclined could he have successfully ruled France with the through the military (putting aside that in OTL all the evidence suggests that he was morally opposed to the idea). Also if so how would this have affected the the major groups France was part of in the context of the Cold War and the burgeoning Pan-Europeanism movement?
 
OK, I can totally accept that De Gaulle never WOULD have done this (supported by the fact that he didn't in OTL, obviously) but the question then is, COULD he have done this if he had wanted to? Did the fate of French democracy rest on the moral fortitude of one French Politician, less than 60 years ago?

So what do you think, if De Gaulle had been so inclined could he have successfully ruled France with the through the military (putting aside that in OTL all the evidence suggests that he was morally opposed to the idea). Also if so how would this have affected the the major groups France was part of in the context of the Cold War and the burgeoning Pan-Europeanism movement?

It is because he had such moral that he was popular. If he ever took power with a coup in 1958 after the French government refuse his demand, he would lose all his credibility. It was because he didn't tried to become a dictator in 1945 that he was highly cconsidered in 1958.

Yes, he did made some shady moves to get back, but it was all legal, and he stayed republican. If he take power with a military coup, he would no longer be considered legitimate in his actions.

Many will compare him to Pétain, which would really damage the trust in his government. You will certainly see a communist uprising: communism was very strong in France at the time.

However, I don't think you would have a French civil war. It would only damage the French government even further, and the army can not take control in such case. With the war in Algeria, they can't afford it, and there were a lot of ex-resistant in the army, and a lot of communist too.

In the end, I think de Gaulle would be overthrow very fast if he ever tried to become a true dictator. He will have to give back some power to stay in power, and even then, he won't be legitimate anymore and would lose his seat, one way or another.

I don't think it was even possible for him to become a dictator. Any kind of military dictatorship would be doomed due to what Pétain did and was for the French society.
 
It is because he had such moral that he was popular. If he ever took power with a coup in 1958 after the French government refuse his demand, he would lose all his credibility. It was because he didn't tried to become a dictator in 1945 that he was highly cconsidered in 1958.

Yes, he did made some shady moves to get back, but it was all legal, and he stayed republican. If he take power with a military coup, he would no longer be considered legitimate in his actions.

Many will compare him to Pétain, which would really damage the trust in his government. You will certainly see a communist uprising: communism was very strong in France at the time.

However, I don't think you would have a French civil war. It would only damage the French government even further, and the army can not take control in such case. With the war in Algeria, they can't afford it, and there were a lot of ex-resistant in the army, and a lot of communist too.

In the end, I think de Gaulle would be overthrow very fast if he ever tried to become a true dictator. He will have to give back some power to stay in power, and even then, he won't be legitimate anymore and would lose his seat, one way or another.

I don't think it was even possible for him to become a dictator. Any kind of military dictatorship would be doomed due to what Pétain did and was for the French society.

Thats an interesting idea. I wonder how the US an NATO would react to the prospect of communists seizing power in France, even if it was mostly peaceful. I remember reading that in the Italian elections after WW2 the CIA funnelled a lot of money into stopping the Italian Communist party from winning a majority, and in the case of Greece after WW2 when the Communists threatened to take control the UK sent in an army.

Assuming that in this TL De Gaulle was committed to ruling as a dictator I think you might be underestimating his ability to stay in office. Unless he is dumb enough to declare himself "Emperor of France" or "Napoleon IV" it may not be obvious to the public that he even is a dictator, at least not right away. Most dictators today still put on the pretence that their country is a democracy, (sometimes even with phoney elections that they of course always win in a landslide) so I really doubt that De Gaulle would lose all his popular support overnight, it may happen eventually though. De Gaulle could also bolster his support by claiming he was taking power to prevent a possible communist uprising (a position that would definitely have sat well with French military). The second, and hugely important tool De Gaulle had access to was the French Army. We can see by their actions in OTL (invading Corsica planning to invade Paris if De Gaulle were not put in power or even more crucially: if he needed help to assume power) that the French Generals leading this coup were willing to suspend democracy and to threaten their own people to get their way. If De Gaulle was willing to promote the same interests as the military leaders I have little doubt that the military would continue to prop him up in power. In OTL they even gave him the option of calling in an invasion of Paris if he needed it. Seeing this in the context of the Cold War and what you said about a possible communist uprising De Gaulle could declare martial law and call in the army under the pretence of preventing the spread of communism, which was actually the third criterion stated for French army to occupy Paris (perhaps this would mollify the concerns of US and NATO as well?). In fact putting the country in a state of long term or permanent "State of Emergency" (aka martial law) is a popular way military strong men and Juntas have held onto power for years or even decades, so it seems like a useful tool for the military backed ATL De Gaulle.

What do you think of this? Do you think that military support and rallying the public against communism would have helped De Gaulle stay in power mid or long term? Or do you still think he would have been quickly overthrown?
 
What do you think of this? Do you think that military support and rallying the public against communism would have helped De Gaulle stay in power mid or long term? Or do you still think he would have been quickly overthrown?

Actually, a military government was close to impossible at the time in France. It was something unbearable to French people after WW2 (or, more precisely, after Pétain). It was quite clause to the German trauma.

And communism had a really good image in France. A lot of mayor were communists, and the French communist party was republican and respectful of democracy. The same can't be said about the army. Republicanism was (and still is) deeply entranched in French society, so getting power through a coup would seriously wound de Gaulle capacity to keep his position, whatever title he might give himself. Unless he trully gives back his political power, as he did OTL.

You have to remember that even after the referendum for the constitution of the fifth republic, de Gaulle was heavily frowned upon as he was not legitimate in the eyes of many people. It was not until he was fairly elected in december 1958 that those criticism stopped.

Thus yes, I don't see how you could see a Gaulist military dictatorship, or any other military dictatorship (though to be fair, a Gaulist one has more chance than any other, but I see them as really really really close to nill). The army was way to unpopular, so it would seriously damage de Gaulle reputation if he went along a coup.

So yes, for me, no coup would create a lasting dictatorship in France.

PS: you talked about the CIA, but do you think the USSR would stay still if they thought they could win France over? And do you truly think any country would send an army there? The UK and the US know far to well what happened when an army last occupied France, and occupying a country you liberated once is not a very good publicity for your cause.
 
Actually, a military government was close to impossible at the time in France. It was something unbearable to French people after WW2 (or, more precisely, after Pétain). It was quite clause to the German trauma.

And communism had a really good image in France. A lot of mayor were communists, and the French communist party was republican and respectful of democracy. The same can't be said about the army. Republicanism was (and still is) deeply entranched in French society, so getting power through a coup would seriously wound de Gaulle capacity to keep his position, whatever title he might give himself. Unless he trully gives back his political power, as he did OTL.

You have to remember that even after the referendum for the constitution of the fifth republic, de Gaulle was heavily frowned upon as he was not legitimate in the eyes of many people. It was not until he was fairly elected in december 1958 that those criticism stopped.

Thus yes, I don't see how you could see a Gaulist military dictatorship, or any other military dictatorship (though to be fair, a Gaulist one has more chance than any other, but I see them as really really really close to nill). The army was way to unpopular, so it would seriously damage de Gaulle reputation if he went along a coup.

So yes, for me, no coup would create a lasting dictatorship in France.

PS: you talked about the CIA, but do you think the USSR would stay still if they thought they could win France over? And do you truly think any country would send an army there? The UK and the US know far to well what happened when an army last occupied France, and occupying a country you liberated once is not a very good publicity for your cause.



So was the French military operating on a bluff then? Because by their own statements it seems that if they didn't get what they wanted or if they thought communists were going to take power they would have sent in the tanks and occupied Paris just like they did with Corsica, constituting a real coup. If as you say the military was very unpopular in France at the time it seems likely a significant portion of the people may have ended up actively resisting this, setting the stage for a nasty situation indeed. The situation in France in 1958 is undoubtedly very unstable in OTL and De Gaulle seems to be the decisive figure at the centre of it so would do you think would be a more plausible ATL (obviously not including the peaceful outcome in OTL) if not a military backed dictatorship?

Also:
Do I think the US or Nato would send an army to France if communist rose to power? No, especially if the brand of communism that takes power is a western-style democratic communism rather than a Soviet aligned group. 1958 France isn't post-war WW2 Greece, however I do think that the US and NATO would throw a lot of money, political capital and intelligence resources to stopping any sort of far left (especially explicitly communist) party from from taking power in a Western country, particularly one as strategically important in the Cold War context as France. I would think their interventions would be behind the scenes and closer to what happened in Italy. My examples were really just to illustrate that the US and NATO were willing to subvert the democratic process if needs be to prevent Communists from taking power in strategically important western countries, either through non-violent mechanisms (Italy) of military intervention (Greece). Make no mistake though, a communist party of any sort rising to power in France in 1958 would provoke a great deal of anxiety within the US political class and the wider public especially if it is at the tail end of the "Red Scare" period with McCarthyism still not dead yet. As to USSR intervention, that stands as very unlikely due to the risk of provoking war. Indeed the USSR was willing to let communists get rolled over in other countries (notably Greece) They may offer help behind the scenes to the French communists but I think they would realize that directly and openly supporting the French communist party would most likely hurt their movement in France.
 
Last edited:
So, pre-WWII there was a huge dichotomy in France between the army and conservatives and the more progressive incarnated by Blum for example. A dictatorship by de Gaulle could work on a national level, there were a lot of themes that could resonate and de Gaulle was (and still is) considered the saviour of France. He did after all turn a country that had been beaten into one of the victors.
Regardless the incompetence of the FFL in the colonies after, he's a hero. Add to that the full support of the army and that could work. The referendum isn't a big show of democracy. In France, referendums have a particular weight as they call back to Napoleon. It's entirely bypassing the authority of the parliament to take power and legitimacy directly from the people, not from the guardian of the constitution and laws. As such it is very dangerous: Napoleon III got to power like that.

In a lot of ways, the Vth republic is a call back to constitutional monarchism, except the king is elected regularly.

But yeah, de Gaulle wouldn't be a dictator as OTL shows. He had a chance in 44, didn't take it. He came to stabilise a failing regime where the cabinets were basically on free spin like in the 30's. A harder line (like was defended from the 1880's) stabilises the regime and allows the State to be more decisive. It's important to note the demise of June 50 was attributed to the IIIrd republic and its paralysis, which is not correct but believed anyway.
 
Top