What if: de Gaulle does not return?

maverick

Banned
By 1958, the French Fourth Republic was utterly disgraced and on the edge of collapse. Indochina, Suez and Algeria were disasters which the Republic could not survive, and in May 13 of 1958 the last nail on the coffin of the 4th Republic took form as the Algiers Putsch, in which nationalist Generals took over Algeria, Corsica and were threatening to send paratroopers to Paris should General deGaulle not return to power to bring France to her former glory or something.

But...what if de Gaulle had not returned in 1958? What if he had a stroke, or got into a car crash or a deranged communist or Algerian sympathizer shot him?

If that was the case, we're met with two equally unlikely prospects: the Fourth Republic surviving or a Military Dictatorship seizing France in 1958.

Could a similarly strong figure emerge and prevent France from falling into chaos? How would Europe react?

My opinion is that should the French Algerian Generals try to land paratroopers in Paris as they threatened, that would polarize the French Population and create a strong-anti-military sentiment and an even stronger aversion to the Algerian Wars and the crazed Generals leading it, and any potential civil war would be short-lived and most likely end with the Generals being cornered in Algiers between the Republic and the Algerians.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Sadly I'm not sure they have all that many people left with De Gaulle's creds and authority in 1958 who are still alive. It might lead to more fighting in Algeria and the Pieds-Noirs using his death, ironically considering OTL, as a martyrdom for the cause of French Algeria.

It could also lead to the anger on the left boiling over much earlier than OTL though: a military dictatorship would have to face a rather angry population with a possibility of a bloodier, longer and earlier 68 uprising :p
 
IHMO France was too advanced and had too long a democratic tradition for a military dictatorship to survive for long. Not to mention that rest of Europe and the US would go ape.

However, from what I've read of the French generals, none of the above would stop them from trying. The resulting chain of events would likely be ugly, and though a "French 5th Republic" would probably still form, it might be substantially different (ie, more left-leaning and anti-military, and maybe with a somewhat different political structure) than OTL.
 
Very interesting postulate.

First of all, I think you'd have to "kill" De Gaulle - nothing else would have kept him from coming back. You'd also need to decide when he "dies" - in 58, at the height of the Algeria crisis? Before that?

Could I just add something: please don't be too harsh on the Fourth Republic. For all its weaknesses (ministerial instability being the most obvious) the regime succeeded in rebuilding the country after World War 2, contributed to the construction of Europe, started the nuclear programme, the space programme, and ended (painfully) the war in Indochina.

Without De Gaulle, the regime could have reformed itself (constitutional changes were proposed under Félix Gaillard and Pierre Pflimlin), with men like Gaillard, Edgar Faure, Jacques Chaban-Delmas, and of course Pierre Mendès France and François Mitterrand. It would have been slow and painful (after all, even De Gaulle needed 4 years to get out of Algeria); maybe the Army would have tried to intervene, but it could have been done.
 
Without de Gaulle, reform is still possible as men like Debré are still around. But pulling a Constitutional reform without De Gaulle's historical clout? Talk about herding cats. No other man could have looked like a savior to both the Army and the voters. If a politician ever embodied France, he's that guy. And nobody was ever as keen on reforming institutions, so I think taking him out of the picture practically shuts the door on the 5th Republic as we know it.

The idea of reforming the Republic toward a semi-Presidential avatar has been around for decades - the Croix de Feu in the 1930s had very similar ideas, as had André Tardieu. But losing de Gaulle is like losing a link in a chain: while most voters can relate to de Gaulle and Free France in the late 1950s, History has been less kind to the Croix de Feu and Tardieu. That will weaken the position of the reformists, and give partisans of a Parliamentary regime a stronger position to resist change.
 
Perhaps after being driven out of France by a horde of angry voters ala '68, the military government sets up shop in Algiers and declares independence? I think, that with a substantial amount of France's military and the existing pied-noir population, Algeria could survive for at least a few years....I'd also wager that a good majority of the colonial governments might side with the military creating an interesting situation

Meanwhile I think that with the homeland in such turmoil and with the ongoing conflict in Algeria most of the French colonies will break off and declare independence.

One interesting effect might be that after mainland France puts itself together after the abortive military coup, that the EURATOM program might be continued with France, Germany and Italy all collaborating to build nuclear weapons...
 

Thande

Donor
It's an interesting, though potentially alarming, idea. Destabilised France? The world would be watching, for a variety of different reasons. America, worried about a potential collapse in Western Europe. Britain ditto but with the potential for threat closer to home. The Soviet Union, eager to take advantage considering the country in question has always had a stronger mainstream communist current than many. West Germany, still not having come to terms with the war, eager for the chance to use the power vacuum to regain more of a leadership role as a stable democracy.

Guy Mollet is still around; I wonder if sufficient chaos in France would be enough to make him put his Franco-British union proposal on the table again?

Incidentally I am reminded of a line from The Goon Show (broadcast 1956) about the chaos of the late Fourth Republic...

Seagoon:
Oh, I see, yes. Ah but wait a minute-- where are we going to stay in France?

Thynne:
Ah. I've made arrangements with one of the French governments for our prison to be the guest of the Chateau d'if, the historic Gallic penitentiary.
 
It wouldn't be de-stabilized France - as in "chaos sweeps over the country'. Rather, I fear it would be the unstable 4th Republic lingering on, piling meaningless reform after meaningless reform. But remember that from 1946 to 1973, the French economy is growing despite the political ineffectiveness. The chaos would be limited to the political arena, and France's allies would probably wonder how a country that's going so well can be led in such a haphazard way.

As for a Communist coup, let's face it, they don't have the "troops" for that. At best (immediate postwar years) the PCF had 20-25% of the vote, and it steadfastly lost voters in the next 60 years. They will have a "power of nuisance", though, making sure no significant reform passes (even de Gaulle had to bypass Parliament and organize popular referendums).
 

maverick

Banned
Could this actually degenerate into a civil war? Or would the Putschists desist from their purposes once they realize they have very limited support in Metropolitan France?
 
Without de Gaulle, reform is still possible as men like Debré are still around. But pulling a Constitutional reform without De Gaulle's historical clout? Talk about herding cats. No other man could have looked like a savior to both the Army and the voters. If a politician ever embodied France, he's that guy. And nobody was ever as keen on reforming institutions, so I think taking him out of the picture practically shuts the door on the 5th Republic as we know it.

I agree, but would it be so dramatic? One thing is almost certain: without de Gaulle, whatever Constitution is put together will not have a popularly elected Head of State, and in the long run, it might be a very good thing.

To make the Fourth Republic more efficient, one did not have to change everything. The reforms proposed by Félix Gaillard would have made the governments more stable. Get rid of proportional representation and adopt the 2-ballot majority system (as OTL's Fifth Republic did in 58) and you also reinforce ministerial stability and reduce the role of the political parties.

I think it is a mistake to consider that ONLY De Gaulle and ONLY the Fifth Republic could have saved the country from chaos in the early Sixties (and I do admire and respect Charles de Gaulle).

One last thing about OTL's Fifth Republic, established in 1958 and dramatically modified in 1962 by the popular election of the President. François Mitterrand used to say that the institutions were dangerous before him and would still be dangerous after him. When I look at what happened since our current President was elected, I think he was absolutely correct.
 
I agree, but would it be so dramatic? One thing is almost certain: without de Gaulle, whatever Constitution is put together will not have a popularly elected Head of State, and in the long run, it might be a very good thing.

To make the Fourth Republic more efficient, one did not have to change everything. The reforms proposed by Félix Gaillard would have made the governments more stable. Get rid of proportional representation and adopt the 2-ballot majority system (as OTL's Fifth Republic did in 58) and you also reinforce ministerial stability and reduce the role of the political parties.

I think it is a mistake to consider that ONLY De Gaulle and ONLY the Fifth Republic could have saved the country from chaos in the early Sixties (and I do admire and respect Charles de Gaulle).

One last thing about OTL's Fifth Republic, established in 1958 and dramatically modified in 1962 by the popular election of the President. François Mitterrand used to say that the institutions were dangerous before him and would still be dangerous after him. When I look at what happened since our current President was elected, I think he was absolutely correct.


I totally agree. A form of consensus was forming in the late fifties to reform the parliamentary regime along the lines of the German "Kanzlersdemokratie" system, with more stable majorities supporting a designated Prime minister for the duration of the legislature, with the President being able to regulate the system with renewed arbitral powers (it was, notably, Mendès' proposal). The 1958 constitution, in itself, was not contradictory with this idea, and Debré actually considered that the exectuve powers should be primarily in the hand of the Governement, not the President. It, of course, changed after 1962, but, IMHO, not so much because of the direct election of the President than because of De Gaulle's extremely large intrepretation of the Constitution. After all, Austrian and Finnish presidents are also directly elected, and, constitutionnaly, I think that the Finnish president had as much power as the Ve Rep. President ; but they don't use it as extensively. The only limit to De Gaulle's power was his own integrity, since he left after his first lost referendum.


Assuming that Gaullists would have ended their move towards the IV Republic, I suppose that, after the end of the war, we would have a IV Republic Mk II roughly looking like the 1958 constitution, but with a weaker president. I think we wouldn't complain about it, from a constitutionnal point of view. (We wouldn't have the ridiculous caricature of the late Second Empire we're experiencing nowadays, at least)

As for the outcome of the Algerian war :

Military far-right coup : possible, but few chances of enduring success. You shouldn't underestimate the PCF capability of organizing a low-intensity guerilla war or terrorists attacks in the early stages. The coup would be backed by only a minority of people in France proper. I doubt that the US would be happy to have the central element (for logistical purposes, notably) of the western European defence system in turmoil.

Military victory in Algeria : also possible, since almost achieved in OTL. Absolutely useless, though, since the war was politically lost since at least 1956. At worst, bloody protacted war a la Portuguese and international isolation of France.

Political negotiations and Algerian independance : most probable solution, although the Prime minister, whoever he may be, will probably face assasination attempts.

The Rhodesian gambit : unlikely, but to so much. The European population in Algeria, with support from hard-line elements of the Army, secedes from France and establishes a French Algerian state, either on the whole territory or in Oranais, the most European-populated area. Would probably gain support from Francoist Spain and establish ties with Israel, South Africa, Taiwan, and so on.

As for Mollet, I guess he would have lost the SFIO leadership once the Algerian war comes to an end (the Parti Socialiste Autonome was created on an opposition to the war and to Mollet's support for De Gaulle's comeback), either in favour of Savary or Defferre. His Franco-British union idea (which was entierly personal and probably only half-serious) would have let the scene with him, provided, of couse, that it wasn't discarded after the Suez fiasco.Mitterrand would probably not have joined the SFIO, but a center-left coaltion led by the Radicals, who are more likely to survive in a revised Fourth.
 

maverick

Banned
The Rhodesian gambit : unlikely, but to so much. The European population in Algeria, with support from hard-line elements of the Army, secedes from France and establishes a French Algerian state, either on the whole territory or in Oranais, the most European-populated area. Would probably gain support from Francoist Spain and establish ties with Israel, South Africa, Taiwan, and so on.

No matter how crazy, I've always liked this idea. It has a really dystopic feel.
 

Susano

Banned
Well, all questions about the reformability of the 4th Republic in general aside, per the initial opening post the coupists would already be in control of Algiers. So before any reforms can be made, that little crisis needs to be overcome... lets assume that things happen as mav originally said: The coupists occuyp Algiers, demand the return of de Gaulle, who is willing - but dies in a car crash or something, just then. Well, what now?
 

maverick

Banned
Well, all questions about the reformability of the 4th Republic in general aside, per the initial opening post the coupists would already be in control of Algiers. So before any reforms can be made, that little crisis needs to be overcome... lets assume that things happen as mav originally said: The coupists occuyp Algiers, demand the return of de Gaulle, who is willing - but dies in a car crash or something, just then. Well, what now?

They're also occupying Corsica.

Now, let's assume that they have enough common sense to avoid landing paratroopers at Paris (Operation Resurrection) following Operation Corse, and instead broadcast their message through metropolitan France in the hopes of getting other Generals to join them. Clashes in Paris between Communists, Socialists and Nationalists take place for a few weeks, perhaps we have strikes, marches, protests and other stuff against the War in Algeria, even barricades.

Can we assume NATO assistance should the French require it to retake Corsica? What would the other Arab countries do?

I'm also unaware of the loyalties of the French Navy.
 
Top