To what extent could Pearson have retaliated against DeGaulle?

In response to the De Gaulle "Vive le Quebec Libre" speech, could Canada have done something equally as damaging to interfere in internal French politics? Like openly supporting Corsican independence?
 
Sure, Lester Pearson could have done so, but it would likely have been written off as so much grandstanding, given that Canada was not the ancestral nation (for lack of a better term) of the Corsicans. The (misplaced?) ancestral pride expressed by de Gaulle for Francophone Canadians was backed by France's status as a (declining rapidly) major power: in those days, France still sort of counted for something, as opposed to its present status of near-total irrelevance.
 
It's several years too late to say anything about Algeria, though I could see Pearson calling the French hypocrites for having fought so long (and, ultimately, in futility) to stop the cries of "Vive l'Algérie libre!"

However, while I can't see Pearson going this far, I could see Trudeau offering moral support to the May 1968 protesters, or at least holding them up as proof the de Gaulle doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
He could have mentioned that De Gaulle would be nothing without the thousands of Canadians sons who died in the Allied effort to liberate France. A country which was conquered through its own incompetence.
 
Sounds good, but that presumes there exists a national sense of gratitude on the part of the French. There's not a significant body of evidence that supports that notion.
 

Ancientone

Banned
Sure, Lester Pearson could have done so, but it would likely have been written off as so much grandstanding, given that Canada was not the ancestral nation (for lack of a better term) of the Corsicans. The (misplaced?) ancestral pride expressed by de Gaulle for Francophone Canadians was backed by France's status as a (declining rapidly) major power: in those days, France still sort of counted for something, as opposed to its present status of near-total irrelevance.

I must disagree that France counted for something in 1967. In fact the country's prestige was lower then than in the last quarter-century, possibly has bad as the immediate post-war era.
The country was riven with radicalism and strikes, de Gaulle had just taken the country out of Seato and Nato (because not enough French Generals were given top jobs), was cosying up the USSR and China, alienated the UK by vetoing ( for the second time) Britain's membership of the EEC--this also alienated all of the other EEC countries as did the insistence of French being used as the "premier" language of Europe and he alienated the Americans every time he opened his mouth.
de Gaulle was widely considered as being half-mad by the French themselves and completely mad by everyone else and France was considered a joke.
 
It's several years too late to say anything about Algeria, though I could see Pearson calling the French hypocrites for having fought so long (and, ultimately, in futility) to stop the cries of "Vive l'Algérie libre!"

However, while I can't see Pearson going this far, I could see Trudeau offering moral support to the May 1968 protesters, or at least holding them up as proof the de Gaulle doesn't know what he's talking about.
de Gaulle however was the one that got France out of Algeria, and suffered several attempts on his life cause of it. Saying something like that would boost his support if anything. Canada would look a bit silly.
 
In response to the De Gaulle "Vive le Quebec Libre" speech, could Canada have done something equally as damaging to interfere in internal French politics? Like openly supporting Corsican independence?

I taught of the same thing, Pearson teast DeGaulle by saying he could support Corsica and Brittany.
 
Not happening. Pearson was a mild-mannered diplomat, he's not going to do that. Not even the Cabinet hardliners advocated this according to Newman. If somehow Pearson did it would only further damage Franco-Canadian relations, which had been deteriorating since 1964 anyways.
 
Formally expel him from Canada permemently, along with the French Military (allsorts) and cultural ataches for conduct incompatable with diplomatic status. Threaten to sever diplomatic relations.
 
If Pearson does try to get back at de Gaulle, how would that be perceived in Quebec? Would such a counter-attack have boosted the nascient sovereignty movement?
 
If Pearson does try to get back at de Gaulle, how would that be perceived in Quebec? Would such a counter-attack have boosted the nascient sovereignty movement?

Considering the number of Breton flags i saw in montreal, if he retaliated by saying 'y breig brehonneg' (or whatever the correct phrase for 'Breton Brittany' might be), he might GAIN support in Québec.
 
Top