AHC: French Army copu in 1958 forms a Gaulist dictatorship

Another points to consider is that French army was largely conscripts at this point. Conscripts who are citizens and expect the military to obey the civilian government.

Case in point, when 'un quarteron de generaux factieux' tried a coup at the end of the Algerian war (AGAINST de Gaulle), it failed, among other reasons, because the conscripts regiments refused the orders (as did most of the professional ones; the few who obeyed were disbanded afterward). ANd that was in the middle of fighting a war, which they were winning militarily, with huge local support and with the civilian government being seen as abbandonning what the soldiers and conscripts had bled for.

So some generals may think they can order a coup, but the troops will not obey them (nor will most of the officers).
 
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.

Interesting take on the issue and in particular the structural changes between the 4th and 5th Republic. However did De Gaulle really have the opportunity to be a dictator in 1944? Not to put to fine a point on it but by that point its was effectively the Brits and ever increasingly the Americans running the show, at least until after VE day.
 
Another points to consider is that French army was largely conscripts at this point. Conscripts who are citizens and expect the military to obey the civilian government.

Case in point, when 'un quarteron de generaux factieux' tried a coup at the end of the Algerian war (AGAINST de Gaulle), it failed, among other reasons, because the conscripts regiments refused the orders (as did most of the professional ones; the few who obeyed were disbanded afterward). ANd that was in the middle of fighting a war, which they were winning militarily, with huge local support and with the civilian government being seen as abbandonning what the soldiers and conscripts had bled for.

So some generals may think they can order a coup, but the troops will not obey them (nor will most of the officers).


Except that in 1958 their really was an armed coup where the French Army seized control of Corisca and was only 15 hours away from doing the same to Paris. Needless to say this was in explicit defiance of the legitimate French government, yet many common French soldiers certainly were active participants in the coup.
 
Except that in 1958 their really was an armed coup where the French Army seized control of Corisca and was only 15 hours away from doing the same to Paris. Needless to say this was in explicit defiance of the legitimate French government, yet many common French soldiers certainly were active participants in the coup.

That would be a very interesting PoD. They certainly could take the power, not sure they could hold it.
Say they don't take de Gaulle in and go for full blown coup. One of the generals (de Gaulle for example) would contest that. The army wasn't fully on board with this. Probably the professional core (Foreign Legion, Navy...) but the biggest part of the army were conscript. They were conscript EXACTLY because of fears of this type of scenario.
So, a pro-democracy general would rise up, aided with the lot of officers managing the loyal conscript. If it devolves into civil war, the population probably wouldn't back them and the loyalists would be aided by the colonised people as well as foreign powers who don't want a military junta in France.

However did De Gaulle really have the opportunity to be a dictator in 1944? Not to put to fine a point on it but by that point its was effectively the Brits and ever increasingly the Americans running the show, at least until after VE day.
Not saying it would have been easy but he could definitely have gone harder. Like going for full blown epuration of everybody linked to Vichy, putting his own people in place and saying he needs to stay in to face any possible fascist resurgence, and to be the guardian of the republic or something like that. He had the support of the people and the army at this point, at least on the internal front he was unstoppable
 
That would be a very interesting PoD. They certainly could take the power, not sure they could hold it.
Say they don't take de Gaulle in and go for full blown coup. One of the generals (de Gaulle for example) would contest that. The army wasn't fully on board with this. Probably the professional core (Foreign Legion, Navy...) but the biggest part of the army were conscript. They were conscript EXACTLY because of fears of this type of scenario.
So, a pro-democracy general would rise up, aided with the lot of officers managing the loyal conscript. If it devolves into civil war, the population probably wouldn't back them and the loyalists would be aided by the colonised people as well as foreign powers who don't want a military junta in France.


Not saying it would have been easy but he could definitely have gone harder. Like going for full blown epuration of everybody linked to Vichy, putting his own people in place and saying he needs to stay in to face any possible fascist resurgence, and to be the guardian of the republic or something like that. He had the support of the people and the army at this point, at least on the internal front he was unstoppable

Indeed, it would make for a fun TL. Pity I really don't have the background in French 20th century politics or history (or even just culture) to be able to competently do it, at least not on my own. Maybe I will do some more research over the next week or so and see if I can get enough info to give it a shot.
 
Indeed, it would make for a fun TL. Pity I really don't have the background in French 20th century politics or history (or even just culture) to be able to competently do it, at least not on my own. Maybe I will do some more research over the next week or so and see if I can get enough info to give it a shot.
Can you read French? I recently read "La Troisième République", Editions Fayard which was a very comprehensive parliamentary history. It will tell you all you need to know about the different parties and who won which municipal election. :D
 
My French comprehension is pretty much just from high school and middle school french class. If the book isn't to technical or prosaic I can probably manage (the huge amount of English loanwords from French certainly helps). I will see if there is a translation available.
 
I am having trouble getting the book you mentioned, however i found an E-copy of a book called "Political Leadership in France: From Charles De Gaulle to Nicolas Sarkozy" so that should be a good start.
 
I am having trouble getting the book you mentioned, however i found an E-copy of a book called "Political Leadership in France: From Charles De Gaulle to Nicolas Sarkozy" so that should be a good start.
Thing is, if you start at de Gaulle you only get the Vth Republic. I would say you need to find an history starting in the 30's at least. No need to go all the way to 1870 but the Vth Republic is built on the mistakes from the IIIrd.

It actually occured to me in the last few weeks that the symbol of de Gaulle, the croix de Lorraine, is huge as it is christian. Which means it probably was a call back to the conservatists, all the while having a government backed by communists.

I would at least say you need an in-depth book about Church and State in France, this is THE defining aspect of the IIIrd
 
Ok, I will try to dig up a book looking at the first half of the 20th century in France. I know about how strong a hold the Catholic church held in Quebec in the beginning of the 20th century (I had close family who grew up there and have horror stories about the nuns who thought school). How similar is the situation to France?
 
France was not that bad but precisely because there were MASSIVE efforts to root out the Church.
It almost crossed the line of civil war a couple times actually.

To sum up briefly:

  • In 1871, birth of the IIIrd. The Legitimist, hardcore monarchist almost go through, with a programme against everything the revolution stood for. Backed by the Church and Rome. They fail because Henri V wouldn't recognise the French flag and wanted the White Flag with Fleur de Lys right away. Yes, it was stupid and childish, tell that to history
  • In 1876, attempt at a parliamentary coup by the conservatives
  • At this point, the Republic=atheism (very very broadly)
  • In 1901 comes the law of associations. All associations must be stamped by the state, meaning congregations have to be declared and are not automatically allowed.
  • In 1905, the final blow, Church and state are officially separated.*
All through that, there were huge efforts to bring laic education to the peasants. Leaving them uneducated would mean their source of thought were the priests and local nobles. By bringing schools, you created good republicans.
Regarding the strength and atmosphere of the debate, it's pretty close to the atheist/church debate in the US these days, very very similar. Actually in a lot of ways the US are where France was a century ago (politically).


*Fun fact, since this happened in 1905, Church and state are not separated in Alsace as this was never overturned in 1918.




That's very broad but should give you an idea
 
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.

Was he? He certainly flirted with authoritarianism and even royalism in his past. He was if anything less a republican than Petain.

There were good reasons that so many of the Allies during WWII saw him as a crypto-fascist.
 
That would be a very interesting PoD. They certainly could take the power, not sure they could hold it.
Say they don't take de Gaulle in and go for full blown coup. One of the generals (de Gaulle for example) would contest that. The army wasn't fully on board with this. Probably the professional core (Foreign Legion, Navy...) but the biggest part of the army were conscript. They were conscript EXACTLY because of fears of this type of scenario.
So, a pro-democracy general would rise up, aided with the lot of officers managing the loyal conscript. If it devolves into civil war, the population probably wouldn't back them and the loyalists would be aided by the colonised people as well as foreign powers who don't want a military junta in France.


Not saying it would have been easy but he could definitely have gone harder. Like going for full blown epuration of everybody linked to Vichy, putting his own people in place and saying he needs to stay in to face any possible fascist resurgence, and to be the guardian of the republic or something like that. He had the support of the people and the army at this point, at least on the internal front he was unstoppable

There wasn't that much of an ideological divide between Gaullist Free French and Vichy though.

The real fear for both of them was the Communists. Both during and after the War plenty of Vichy supporters found themselves serving DeGaulle.
 
There wasn't that much of an ideological divide between Gaullist Free French and Vichy though.

The real fear for both of them was the Communists. Both during and after the War plenty of Vichy supporters found themselves serving DeGaulle.
The Free French were made of people from several ideologies ranging from communists to conservatives, while Vichy France was supported at the beginning mostly by the far-right and later only by the far-right.
 
Last edited:
Top