What do you think?
Rate this book
Life & Times
A Certain Idea of France: The Life of Charles de Gaulle
In six weeks in 1940, France's armies were decisively beaten by Germany. A junior French general, refusing to accept defeat, made his way to England. On 18 June he spoke to his compatriots on the BBC, urging them rally to him in London. Through that broadcast, Charles de Gaulle entered into history. For the rest of the war, de Gaulle in London frequently bit the hand that fed him. Insisting on being treated as the true embodiment of France, he quarrelled violently with Churchill and Roosevelt. But through force of personality and willpower he managed to have France recognised as one of the victorious powers at the end of the War. For ten years after 1958 he was President of France's Fifth Republic, which he created and which endures to this day. Drawing on a vast range of published and unpublished documents, Julian Jackson's magnificent biography reveals this extraordinary figure as never before. The portrait which emerges is of a man of many paradoxes. Some considered him a delusional mystic and vainglorious showman; others a cynical Machiavellian with no fixed beliefs. The tension between reason and sentiment, ambition and moderation, visions of grandeur and respect for circumstance, lay at the core of his conception of political action. Few leaders have reflected more self-consciously on the nature of leadership. As he wrote of Napoleon: 'Once the balance between ends and means is snapped, the manoeuvres of a genius are in vain.' But although de Gaulle had a clear sense of what a leader should be, he was surprisingly flexible about what one should do. The man who did so much to make France what it is today was himself a battlefield on which the French fought out their history.
887 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2018
About the author
Julian T. Jackson
21 books68 followersOne of the leading authorities on twentieth-century France, Julian Timothy Jackson is Professor of History at Queen Mary, University of London. He was educated at the University of Cambridge where he obtained his doctorate in 1982, having been supervised by Professor Christopher Andrew. After many years spent at the University of Wales, Swansea, he joined Queen Mary History Department in 2003. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and of the Royal Historical Society.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 124 reviews
July 4, 2019
As many have noted, de Gaulle was an exceptionally complex man. Julian Jackson’s biography goes far toward explaining him, and is much more readable than other biographies (LaCouture, Fenby). A few things are worth pointing out about de Gaulle at the outset: he did not care about money and lived quite simply; he loved literature and learning (as President he read two or three books a week); he was intensely private, one might even say shy, which made him stiff and formal; he had a photographic memory, he was a devout Catholic, and he was a man of complete physical courage. The last bit was demonstrated first in WW1; he was wounded leading his company in a charge in 1914, and again at Verdun, where he was bayoneted and taken prisoner by the Germans. His soldiers commented on his complete disregard for enemy fire, and this was seemingly part and parcel of his moral courage; no other French leader said “No” to the armistice in 1940 as early or as clearly as de Gaulle. As a consequence he was sentenced to death in absentia by Vichy.
Jackson brings all this out in chapter after chapter of clear, expository prose; Jackson is so much clearer to English-speaking readers than LaCouture, whose great three volume biography assumes a lot of a priori knowledge on the part of the reader about French politics and history. But in my view Jackson lacks the passion of LaCouture, and also, Jackson leaves out many telling anecdotes about de Gaulle that in LaCouture’s account give the reader a better understanding of de Gaulle as a man. LaCouture dwells at length on the humanizing effect that de Gaulle’s daughter Anne, born with Downs syndrome, had on the General; for example, LaCouture’s account of de Gaulle’s comment to his wife at Anne’s death makes you grieve with him. de Gaulle spent years trying to gain admittance for Anne to normal schools, rather than the "institutions" to which children like Anne were consigned at the time, and he was told over and over, "But Colonel, she is not like the others, you know". As they left the funeral service for Anne, de Gaulle said to his wife, "Maintenant, elle est comme les autres". LaCouture gives many examples of de Gaulle’s humor, which tended to be very obscure, but his jokes and repartee revealed an extremely quick wit. Sadly, Jackson leaves out much of that, but where Jackson excels is in clearly, lucidly describing de Gaulle’s path to leadership of the Free French and then to his role as President in 1946 and again from 1958-1969.
De Gaulle is often remembered for being uncannily prescient about the future. After his first day of combat in WW1, he wrote a letter which clearly recognized that French strategy and tactics were completely wrong – brave bayonet charges were pointless in the age of machine guns and massed artillery. The Allied high command never really did learn this lesson, right through to the end of the war; de Gaulle apprehended it in one day of fighting in 1914. His 18 June 1940 speech was exactly right about how the war would turn out, and he was clear-eyed about many, many other issues. De Gaulle saw immediately, as the Battle of France turned to debacle, that the right path for France in 1940 was to evacuate its Army and Air Force to Algeria and continue the fight against Germany from there – Algeria was at the time a province of France. But the government was taken over by Petain, and then all that was left for de Gaulle was to deny the legitimacy of Petain, rightly so, and of the armistice he signed.
For a soldier, de Gaulle was a remarkably adroit politician, and he honed his skills in the fights for recognition of the Free French by the US and British as France’s legitimate government; part of why he felt he had to demand France’s rights so stridently was that the Vichy regime and the Nazis repeatedly tried to paint him as a lap dog of the British and Americans. But it was also personal, because he felt keenly the disgrace of France, and he was almost physically disgusted by his dependence on the Allies for all support: material, political, military. Roosevelt foolishly and pointlessly made an enemy of de Gaulle by opposing him and trying to unseat him as leader of the Free French. When the Americans tried to replace de Gaulle, not once but twice, with someone more pliable, de Gaulle developed a lifelong distrust of the Americans, and to an almost equal degree, of the British. Fortunately, Eisenhower understood the situation well enough to know he needed de Gaulle to organize the Resistance and to rally the French when D-Day came, and more to the point, he understood that de Gaulle was the legitimate leader – the Allies couldn’t just pick someone else and expect the French to support him, as they attempted with Giraud. Incidentally, by the end of WW2 the Free French forces under de Gaulle had fielded 14 Army divisions, a not inconsiderable contribution – by way of comparison, the US Army had about 70 divisions in Europe by war's end.
De Gaulle’s great achievement in 1958 in his return to power was the writing of a new constitution that made the French government more stable by virtue of having an elected president, as in the US, rather than a parliamentary system in which governments could (and did) fall frequently. His ruthlessness in extracting France from Algeria was exactly what was needed; de Gaulle had already concluded that colonialism was dead, so he made it his policy that only those overseas territories which freely chose to remain part of France would do so. De Gaulle tried to establish a bilateral “European Union” with Germany, but this was undone by the exit of Konrad Adenauer as Chancellor after his defeat in 1963. His development of the independent French nuclear force was privately acknowledged by Eisenhower as a sensible move, and in some ways helpful to NATO. The book is a bit light on details as to how de Gaulle influenced the Trente Glorieuses economic revival in France; there is only one reference to Airbus, a perfunctory nod to the Citroen DS, none to nuclear power, and none to the Concorde project. Much is said about de Gaulle's deliberate obscurity, and though this came naturally to him, it was also a tactic to give him room to maneuver politically. Nowhere was it more useful than in using the Army to help him gain power in 1958, and then crushing the Army’s power to intimidate the government and establishing, permanently, the principle of civilian control of the military.
Ultimately, the book is fair to de Gaulle, I think. He was a brilliant man and a great man, and he was what France needed in 1940 and in 1958. His ego was colossal, but so was his accomplishment in “making France present at the victory” over Germany, and in bringing stable government and a sense of pride to the French in the period of his presidency. He was a conservative who was nonetheless very suspicious of capitalism, and he was an Army officer who distrusted the Army and crushed the “putsch” of the four generals. In return, he was hated by many in the Army, and disaffected army officers mounted over twenty assassination attempts against him, two of which nearly succeeded. He could be scathing and he was prone to terrifying tirades, and yet he loved literature and history and he was endlessly tolerant of criticism from real geniuses like Sartre because, as he said, “One does not arrest Voltaire”. He was pragmatic, and he could be Machiavellian in achieving his goals, but at the end of the day, everything he did was to further the interests of the country he loved. He was incorruptible, and he did not tolerate corruption. This very complicated man believed in France, he salvaged the honor of France in WW2, and he made France great and relevant in the 1960’s.
I would like to give the book five stars, and maybe I should, but I missed the anecdotes and the bon mots recited by LaCouture. If Jackson's book had those it would be a five star, and unquestionably the best biography of de Gaulle.
Jackson brings all this out in chapter after chapter of clear, expository prose; Jackson is so much clearer to English-speaking readers than LaCouture, whose great three volume biography assumes a lot of a priori knowledge on the part of the reader about French politics and history. But in my view Jackson lacks the passion of LaCouture, and also, Jackson leaves out many telling anecdotes about de Gaulle that in LaCouture’s account give the reader a better understanding of de Gaulle as a man. LaCouture dwells at length on the humanizing effect that de Gaulle’s daughter Anne, born with Downs syndrome, had on the General; for example, LaCouture’s account of de Gaulle’s comment to his wife at Anne’s death makes you grieve with him. de Gaulle spent years trying to gain admittance for Anne to normal schools, rather than the "institutions" to which children like Anne were consigned at the time, and he was told over and over, "But Colonel, she is not like the others, you know". As they left the funeral service for Anne, de Gaulle said to his wife, "Maintenant, elle est comme les autres". LaCouture gives many examples of de Gaulle’s humor, which tended to be very obscure, but his jokes and repartee revealed an extremely quick wit. Sadly, Jackson leaves out much of that, but where Jackson excels is in clearly, lucidly describing de Gaulle’s path to leadership of the Free French and then to his role as President in 1946 and again from 1958-1969.
De Gaulle is often remembered for being uncannily prescient about the future. After his first day of combat in WW1, he wrote a letter which clearly recognized that French strategy and tactics were completely wrong – brave bayonet charges were pointless in the age of machine guns and massed artillery. The Allied high command never really did learn this lesson, right through to the end of the war; de Gaulle apprehended it in one day of fighting in 1914. His 18 June 1940 speech was exactly right about how the war would turn out, and he was clear-eyed about many, many other issues. De Gaulle saw immediately, as the Battle of France turned to debacle, that the right path for France in 1940 was to evacuate its Army and Air Force to Algeria and continue the fight against Germany from there – Algeria was at the time a province of France. But the government was taken over by Petain, and then all that was left for de Gaulle was to deny the legitimacy of Petain, rightly so, and of the armistice he signed.
For a soldier, de Gaulle was a remarkably adroit politician, and he honed his skills in the fights for recognition of the Free French by the US and British as France’s legitimate government; part of why he felt he had to demand France’s rights so stridently was that the Vichy regime and the Nazis repeatedly tried to paint him as a lap dog of the British and Americans. But it was also personal, because he felt keenly the disgrace of France, and he was almost physically disgusted by his dependence on the Allies for all support: material, political, military. Roosevelt foolishly and pointlessly made an enemy of de Gaulle by opposing him and trying to unseat him as leader of the Free French. When the Americans tried to replace de Gaulle, not once but twice, with someone more pliable, de Gaulle developed a lifelong distrust of the Americans, and to an almost equal degree, of the British. Fortunately, Eisenhower understood the situation well enough to know he needed de Gaulle to organize the Resistance and to rally the French when D-Day came, and more to the point, he understood that de Gaulle was the legitimate leader – the Allies couldn’t just pick someone else and expect the French to support him, as they attempted with Giraud. Incidentally, by the end of WW2 the Free French forces under de Gaulle had fielded 14 Army divisions, a not inconsiderable contribution – by way of comparison, the US Army had about 70 divisions in Europe by war's end.
De Gaulle’s great achievement in 1958 in his return to power was the writing of a new constitution that made the French government more stable by virtue of having an elected president, as in the US, rather than a parliamentary system in which governments could (and did) fall frequently. His ruthlessness in extracting France from Algeria was exactly what was needed; de Gaulle had already concluded that colonialism was dead, so he made it his policy that only those overseas territories which freely chose to remain part of France would do so. De Gaulle tried to establish a bilateral “European Union” with Germany, but this was undone by the exit of Konrad Adenauer as Chancellor after his defeat in 1963. His development of the independent French nuclear force was privately acknowledged by Eisenhower as a sensible move, and in some ways helpful to NATO. The book is a bit light on details as to how de Gaulle influenced the Trente Glorieuses economic revival in France; there is only one reference to Airbus, a perfunctory nod to the Citroen DS, none to nuclear power, and none to the Concorde project. Much is said about de Gaulle's deliberate obscurity, and though this came naturally to him, it was also a tactic to give him room to maneuver politically. Nowhere was it more useful than in using the Army to help him gain power in 1958, and then crushing the Army’s power to intimidate the government and establishing, permanently, the principle of civilian control of the military.
Ultimately, the book is fair to de Gaulle, I think. He was a brilliant man and a great man, and he was what France needed in 1940 and in 1958. His ego was colossal, but so was his accomplishment in “making France present at the victory” over Germany, and in bringing stable government and a sense of pride to the French in the period of his presidency. He was a conservative who was nonetheless very suspicious of capitalism, and he was an Army officer who distrusted the Army and crushed the “putsch” of the four generals. In return, he was hated by many in the Army, and disaffected army officers mounted over twenty assassination attempts against him, two of which nearly succeeded. He could be scathing and he was prone to terrifying tirades, and yet he loved literature and history and he was endlessly tolerant of criticism from real geniuses like Sartre because, as he said, “One does not arrest Voltaire”. He was pragmatic, and he could be Machiavellian in achieving his goals, but at the end of the day, everything he did was to further the interests of the country he loved. He was incorruptible, and he did not tolerate corruption. This very complicated man believed in France, he salvaged the honor of France in WW2, and he made France great and relevant in the 1960’s.
I would like to give the book five stars, and maybe I should, but I missed the anecdotes and the bon mots recited by LaCouture. If Jackson's book had those it would be a five star, and unquestionably the best biography of de Gaulle.
October 18, 2023
Great book.
During World War I, De Gaulle was shot, returned to action after a short stay in the hospital, was shot again, returned to action, then was stabbed by a bayonet while surrounded and captured by the Germans. He was a P.O.W. for 32 months, during which time he made several failed attempts at escape.
This is perhaps the 3rd most interesting era of De Gaulle’s life.
De Gaulle, even though he was never one to be humble, did not look at his WW1 experience with pride. He was upset that he couldn’t take part in the fighting and did not view his P.O.W experience as an accomplishment. When his rival Henri Giraud was proudly telling a story about his own experience where he escaped captivity as a P.O.W., De Gaulle rudely interrupted asking him “perhaps you could recount to us the circumstances in which you were taken prisoner”. De Gaulle is one of the few people in the world who would have both the brashness and credibility to talk trash about the war record of someone like Henri Giraud.
I enjoyed reading about how De Gaulle basically willed himself into being the leader of the Resistance, even though he was not well known and not well liked. He had the resolute courage to stand up for what he believed in and gave every bit of himself toward defending French independence. This includes defending French interests from the other Allied powers, which he did relentlessly even though his critics argued that it sometimes detracted from the greater war effort. He had a knack for getting what he wanted from the other Allied powers, even though he was in a weak bargaining position, a skill that foreshadowed his later success as a politician.
The book helped me understand Vichy France a lot better. I never really understood it before this, but the book did give me some comfort that it is natural to not understand it well. The nature of Vichy France was constantly changing over time, and there were internal factions that had quite different views for how deeply it wanted to collaborate with Germany versus pursuing independence. Also, the Allied leaders had quite different views regarding how closely they should work with Vichy France versus De Gaulle and the Resistance.
Skipping ahead to 1958, he came to power as head-of-state for the second time, this time with enhanced powers to write a new constitution. He came to power in a kind-of-sort-of coup that I won’t try to summarize, but I’ll just say I was fascinated to read about it, and it was one of those “Wow that really happened? How did I not know this?” moments for me. The kind-of-sort-of coup was led by military officials and other leaders who were hoping he would crack down on the Algerian independence movement. But when he took office, he did the exact opposite, and led the process towards peace in Algeria and recognizing independence. He was able to do this while keeping a firm grasp on power and high overall popularity ratings, though there were a lot of rocky adventures along the way.
It’s difficult to summarize what exactly De Gaulle stood for. The one obvious thing is French independence and grandeur. On other issues it’s quite complicated and he doesn’t really fit into a traditional right/left framework. He is something of a populist and a realist, where he was willing to adapt on a lot of issues if it served the greater purpose of uniting the country and increasing France’s standing on the international stage. He was also an authoritarian, believing the leader of the country (at least while it was him) should be given more power. His critics labeled him a Dictator, which is not without at least some grain of truth. I was surprised to learn how much power the French government had in the 1960’s to suppress free speech.
Even though I came into this book with only a passing awareness of De Gaulle, I found it accessible. Though, it was an intense read and I had to be fully focused to avoid quickly getting lost. It was worth the investment to learn about such an important and complicated person. What an amazing life. There will never be another Charles De Gaulle.
During World War I, De Gaulle was shot, returned to action after a short stay in the hospital, was shot again, returned to action, then was stabbed by a bayonet while surrounded and captured by the Germans. He was a P.O.W. for 32 months, during which time he made several failed attempts at escape.
This is perhaps the 3rd most interesting era of De Gaulle’s life.
De Gaulle, even though he was never one to be humble, did not look at his WW1 experience with pride. He was upset that he couldn’t take part in the fighting and did not view his P.O.W experience as an accomplishment. When his rival Henri Giraud was proudly telling a story about his own experience where he escaped captivity as a P.O.W., De Gaulle rudely interrupted asking him “perhaps you could recount to us the circumstances in which you were taken prisoner”. De Gaulle is one of the few people in the world who would have both the brashness and credibility to talk trash about the war record of someone like Henri Giraud.
I enjoyed reading about how De Gaulle basically willed himself into being the leader of the Resistance, even though he was not well known and not well liked. He had the resolute courage to stand up for what he believed in and gave every bit of himself toward defending French independence. This includes defending French interests from the other Allied powers, which he did relentlessly even though his critics argued that it sometimes detracted from the greater war effort. He had a knack for getting what he wanted from the other Allied powers, even though he was in a weak bargaining position, a skill that foreshadowed his later success as a politician.
The book helped me understand Vichy France a lot better. I never really understood it before this, but the book did give me some comfort that it is natural to not understand it well. The nature of Vichy France was constantly changing over time, and there were internal factions that had quite different views for how deeply it wanted to collaborate with Germany versus pursuing independence. Also, the Allied leaders had quite different views regarding how closely they should work with Vichy France versus De Gaulle and the Resistance.
Skipping ahead to 1958, he came to power as head-of-state for the second time, this time with enhanced powers to write a new constitution. He came to power in a kind-of-sort-of coup that I won’t try to summarize, but I’ll just say I was fascinated to read about it, and it was one of those “Wow that really happened? How did I not know this?” moments for me. The kind-of-sort-of coup was led by military officials and other leaders who were hoping he would crack down on the Algerian independence movement. But when he took office, he did the exact opposite, and led the process towards peace in Algeria and recognizing independence. He was able to do this while keeping a firm grasp on power and high overall popularity ratings, though there were a lot of rocky adventures along the way.
It’s difficult to summarize what exactly De Gaulle stood for. The one obvious thing is French independence and grandeur. On other issues it’s quite complicated and he doesn’t really fit into a traditional right/left framework. He is something of a populist and a realist, where he was willing to adapt on a lot of issues if it served the greater purpose of uniting the country and increasing France’s standing on the international stage. He was also an authoritarian, believing the leader of the country (at least while it was him) should be given more power. His critics labeled him a Dictator, which is not without at least some grain of truth. I was surprised to learn how much power the French government had in the 1960’s to suppress free speech.
Even though I came into this book with only a passing awareness of De Gaulle, I found it accessible. Though, it was an intense read and I had to be fully focused to avoid quickly getting lost. It was worth the investment to learn about such an important and complicated person. What an amazing life. There will never be another Charles De Gaulle.
August 4, 2023
Charles the Gaul.
When Charles de Gaulle walked along the Champs-Elysées on 26/08/1944 after the liberation of Paris in the Second World War, a new France had been born. As leader of the Free French and self proclaimed ruler in exile de Gaulle had risen to the top of French politics. But he had rejected Vichy France and had been speaking to his countrymen via radio broadcasts from the BBC. Many didn’t know who he was or what he stood for, but they had heard the name. The walk was still extremely dangerous, snipers were still present in Paris, but as throughout his life he knew how to put on a show, how to present himself to the French people (perhaps getting this wrong only in his first television appearance) and how to speak to them. The streets were aligned with rows of people eager to see this man everyone called ‘the General’.
Julian Jackson tells the story of the man who had as much influence on 20th century France as Napoleon had on the previous century. He was difficult to work with, rarely apologised or admitted a mistake. He was also pragmatic and believed solely in the interests of his people. He was loved and loathed in equal measure by his countrymen, but today has found himself in popular memory of the French. Born in 1890 into a middle class monarchist family, de Gaulle held monarchist leanings for the rest of his life, meeting the pretender the Comte de Paris on several occasions and admitting he would have served under him. He was also very religious and when he moved into the Élysées Palace he installed a private chapel so he could hold mass. He studied France’s 1000 year history from the reign of Clovis and believed in tradition and continuity through the monarchy and religion. With this came the old beliefs of the natural enemies: England and Germany, both in different senses. What is most remarkable about de Gaulle for me is that he was a Lieutenant in the French Army in 1913 and survived the First World War, where so many of his contemporaries perished. When war came in 1914 he fought to defend France before begin injured. He returned for the slaughterhouse of the Battle of Verdun in 1916, rising to the rank of captain. He was captured and spent the rest of the war as a POW, escaping and then being captured again.
When war came again in 1939, he was a colonel and was put in charge of the French Fifth Army’s tank division. A competent commander, he rose to prominence within the political and military circles due to the success in his operations in the defence and fall of France. This gave him promotion to a brigadier-general and eventually a government minister under Prime Minister Paul Reynaud. He was however, still relatively unknown to the wider French population and when France fell and the a hated Vichy regime was installed under Marshal Pétain he declared himself the leader of the Free French and government in exile. Although recruitment of soldiers and personnel proved extremely difficult. Throughout the war and thereafter he pushed for France’s agenda, coming into conflict with Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt as a result. What he did was give hope to the French during the war and ensured his people were not left or forgotten.
Following victory in Europe, de Gaulle remained in power until 1946 when he stepped down. However he returned in 1958 when France was facing a military coup organised by generals dissatisfied with the handling of the Algerian crisis. This would dominate French politics for the rest of his life and would be the backdrop of two near civil wars. He eventually embraced Algerian independence as there was no other way to go on, causing anger from the military. Jackson shows a complex man, who was in some ways contradictory and in other ways straight forward. As I have mentioned above he was extremely nationalistic and believed in the sense and story of France. Although a monarchist he worked with socialists and communists in his governments. He was realistic about his country, internal affairs and international status. He was a family man and tragically lost his daughter Anne at a young age as she suffered from Down syndrome. His two other children Philippe (still alive in 2023) and Élisabeth had successful lives.
He was however, most famously the man who saved France, who led them to liberation in 1944 and stood up for the French in the aftermath of WWII. For that was his calling and finest hour and for what most people remember today. Jackson does a great job in providing a full and rounded picture of de Gaulle, the man who UK PM Harold Macmillan described as the ‘Emperor of the French’ when he refused to admit the UK in the common market. A strong, tall, difficult and politically aware man. He dominated most around him. I have found I understand de Gaulle the private and public well from Jackson’s work. The book is heavy and at 900 pages is a slow read. There is so much to take in, especially for those who know little on the subject and as a result, this would take more than one read through to get everything the book has to offer. I throughly enjoyed this book.
When Charles de Gaulle walked along the Champs-Elysées on 26/08/1944 after the liberation of Paris in the Second World War, a new France had been born. As leader of the Free French and self proclaimed ruler in exile de Gaulle had risen to the top of French politics. But he had rejected Vichy France and had been speaking to his countrymen via radio broadcasts from the BBC. Many didn’t know who he was or what he stood for, but they had heard the name. The walk was still extremely dangerous, snipers were still present in Paris, but as throughout his life he knew how to put on a show, how to present himself to the French people (perhaps getting this wrong only in his first television appearance) and how to speak to them. The streets were aligned with rows of people eager to see this man everyone called ‘the General’.
Julian Jackson tells the story of the man who had as much influence on 20th century France as Napoleon had on the previous century. He was difficult to work with, rarely apologised or admitted a mistake. He was also pragmatic and believed solely in the interests of his people. He was loved and loathed in equal measure by his countrymen, but today has found himself in popular memory of the French. Born in 1890 into a middle class monarchist family, de Gaulle held monarchist leanings for the rest of his life, meeting the pretender the Comte de Paris on several occasions and admitting he would have served under him. He was also very religious and when he moved into the Élysées Palace he installed a private chapel so he could hold mass. He studied France’s 1000 year history from the reign of Clovis and believed in tradition and continuity through the monarchy and religion. With this came the old beliefs of the natural enemies: England and Germany, both in different senses. What is most remarkable about de Gaulle for me is that he was a Lieutenant in the French Army in 1913 and survived the First World War, where so many of his contemporaries perished. When war came in 1914 he fought to defend France before begin injured. He returned for the slaughterhouse of the Battle of Verdun in 1916, rising to the rank of captain. He was captured and spent the rest of the war as a POW, escaping and then being captured again.
When war came again in 1939, he was a colonel and was put in charge of the French Fifth Army’s tank division. A competent commander, he rose to prominence within the political and military circles due to the success in his operations in the defence and fall of France. This gave him promotion to a brigadier-general and eventually a government minister under Prime Minister Paul Reynaud. He was however, still relatively unknown to the wider French population and when France fell and the a hated Vichy regime was installed under Marshal Pétain he declared himself the leader of the Free French and government in exile. Although recruitment of soldiers and personnel proved extremely difficult. Throughout the war and thereafter he pushed for France’s agenda, coming into conflict with Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt as a result. What he did was give hope to the French during the war and ensured his people were not left or forgotten.
Following victory in Europe, de Gaulle remained in power until 1946 when he stepped down. However he returned in 1958 when France was facing a military coup organised by generals dissatisfied with the handling of the Algerian crisis. This would dominate French politics for the rest of his life and would be the backdrop of two near civil wars. He eventually embraced Algerian independence as there was no other way to go on, causing anger from the military. Jackson shows a complex man, who was in some ways contradictory and in other ways straight forward. As I have mentioned above he was extremely nationalistic and believed in the sense and story of France. Although a monarchist he worked with socialists and communists in his governments. He was realistic about his country, internal affairs and international status. He was a family man and tragically lost his daughter Anne at a young age as she suffered from Down syndrome. His two other children Philippe (still alive in 2023) and Élisabeth had successful lives.
He was however, most famously the man who saved France, who led them to liberation in 1944 and stood up for the French in the aftermath of WWII. For that was his calling and finest hour and for what most people remember today. Jackson does a great job in providing a full and rounded picture of de Gaulle, the man who UK PM Harold Macmillan described as the ‘Emperor of the French’ when he refused to admit the UK in the common market. A strong, tall, difficult and politically aware man. He dominated most around him. I have found I understand de Gaulle the private and public well from Jackson’s work. The book is heavy and at 900 pages is a slow read. There is so much to take in, especially for those who know little on the subject and as a result, this would take more than one read through to get everything the book has to offer. I throughly enjoyed this book.
August 15, 2019
Superbly written, minutely detailed and just scholarly enough, Professor Jackson's warts-and-all biography of de Gaulle is a must-read for those with an interest in the history of modern France, de Gaulle being its most important figure. Larger than life (in every sense) de Gaulle was not an easy man to like, let alone know, but he kept the honor of France alive in its most dire hour and relentlessly sought a role suitable to his vision of the country as its President from 1958 to 1969. It is interesting to compare the warm relationship he had with Conrad Adenauer with the cold and distant ones he had with Eisenhower and with Harold Macmillan, both of whom he had known and worked with during World War II. It was as if he could forgive the Germans for invading and defeating France, but he could never forgive the British and the Americans for helping him and France in their hour of need. He could be a gigantic pain in the ass (just ask Churchill, Eisenhower, FDR, or Georges Pompidou) but he succeeded in extricating France from its Algerian quagmire and, even more significantly, created the constitution of the 5th Republic, which gave France a stable democracy for the first time in its history. In international relations, well, he found it difficult to behave like a 300-pound gorilla when his country only weighed 120, but he gave it his best, for good or ill. Not a simple man! I recommend this book heartily.
October 4, 2019
Ambitious reconsideration of the French General-President who dominated European politics for three decades. Jackson (France: The Dark Years, etc.) proves a tough-minded, critical biographer who enjoys puncturing Gaullist myths and cutting his subject down to size. On full display are de Gaulle's arrogance, vanity and self-importance, traits even his admirers struggle to downplay. De Gaulle's wartime leadership, he argues, was largely a case of luck: a two-star general of no particular renown, his willingness to denounce Petain's Vichy regime and encourage resistance from London elevated him from minor functionary to the self-appointed leader of France. Jackson ably charts de Gaulle's feuds with Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, along with his own Free French compatriots, who viewed de Gaulle as an exasperating ally of convenience. Yet de Gaulle's greatness revealed itself, arguably not in spite but because of these traits: his will, self-confidence and willingness to badger other statesmen encouraged the French public even as he irritated his allies. His personality also served him as two-time President of France, in a short-but-influential postwar tenure and later, in 1958, rescuing France from Algeria and the floundering Fourth Republic. His advocating a "certain idea of France" as an independent power, balancing the Cold War states and bringing harmony to Europe ensured his country's postwar renewal, even if his vision often outpaced reality.
Jackson most frequently describes de Gaulle as "gnomic." Despite his conservative background and authoritarian instincts, de Gaulle's true ideology was nearly impossible for contemporaries to pin down. And little easier for biographers: the closest Jackson comes is branding him a "pragmatic conservative" who adjusted his instincts to the times. He had no interest in becoming a dictator but often acted like one; he nourished a cult of personality that allowed for little introspection or self-doubt, possessing a single-mindedness that exasperated his aides, political partners and cabinet members as it had his wartime allies. De Gaulle, acutely aware of the shortcomings of French democracy (having witnessed the collapse of two republics in his lifetime), created a stronger Fifth Republic that, for better or worse, has endured to this day. If he wasn't a natural democrat, at least he recognized the need for popular consent, stable government and, most importantly, the limits of his own power.
In many ways, de Gaulle's presidency was a success. Under his watch, France became economically prosperous and politically powerful in a way few could have foreseen in 1945. But his successes were often qualified or counterbalanced by setbacks. His ending the Algerian War, Jackson persuasively argues, was less the triumph often accorded to him than a belated acceptance of reality (though it's still to de Gaulle's immense credit that he persisted in the face of protest and terrorism). France's continued meddling in Africa (and the General's private diatribes against Arabs and blacks) belied his self-image as a decolonizer, whatever he said about Quebec or Vietnam. Similarly, his role in constructing the European Economic Community helped repair the continent's economic and political structure after fifty years of war...but his rhetoric and methods also alienated his British and American allies. And faced with the May '68 protests, ambitious subordinates (Georges Pompidou, in particular), emboldened opposition and a public no longer awed by him, de Gaulle's mystique frayed. The General became an exile, leaving office in 1969 with his reputation in doubt: his death, and postmortem myth-making, embellished it beyond his dreams.
Though skeptical, Jackson proves commendably balanced in his assessment of de Gaulle. Admittedly, his efforts to humanize the General (the passages on Anne, his beloved handicapped daughter, are genuinely heartwrenching) fail to truly puncture his stern public image. But the book's main demerit is that Jackson, for all his detailed portraiture, spends little effort sketching the political and cultural context in which de Gaulle moved. Thus, the failures of the Fourth Republic aren't explored beyond generalities; the main discussion of Algeria is crammed into a single chapter; de Gaulle's Cold War maneuvering is discussed mostly in passing; a few paragraphs suffice to introduce May '68 without clarifying the issues which triggered it. This, and Jackson's workmanlike prose, prevent it from becoming the promised "definitive biography" (Jean Lacouture's multi-volume work, even in its abridged English translation, remains the gold standard). But Jackson deserves praise for making Le Grand Charles seem flawed and human, if still not quite approachable - a visionary statesman capable of both greatness and folly.
Jackson most frequently describes de Gaulle as "gnomic." Despite his conservative background and authoritarian instincts, de Gaulle's true ideology was nearly impossible for contemporaries to pin down. And little easier for biographers: the closest Jackson comes is branding him a "pragmatic conservative" who adjusted his instincts to the times. He had no interest in becoming a dictator but often acted like one; he nourished a cult of personality that allowed for little introspection or self-doubt, possessing a single-mindedness that exasperated his aides, political partners and cabinet members as it had his wartime allies. De Gaulle, acutely aware of the shortcomings of French democracy (having witnessed the collapse of two republics in his lifetime), created a stronger Fifth Republic that, for better or worse, has endured to this day. If he wasn't a natural democrat, at least he recognized the need for popular consent, stable government and, most importantly, the limits of his own power.
In many ways, de Gaulle's presidency was a success. Under his watch, France became economically prosperous and politically powerful in a way few could have foreseen in 1945. But his successes were often qualified or counterbalanced by setbacks. His ending the Algerian War, Jackson persuasively argues, was less the triumph often accorded to him than a belated acceptance of reality (though it's still to de Gaulle's immense credit that he persisted in the face of protest and terrorism). France's continued meddling in Africa (and the General's private diatribes against Arabs and blacks) belied his self-image as a decolonizer, whatever he said about Quebec or Vietnam. Similarly, his role in constructing the European Economic Community helped repair the continent's economic and political structure after fifty years of war...but his rhetoric and methods also alienated his British and American allies. And faced with the May '68 protests, ambitious subordinates (Georges Pompidou, in particular), emboldened opposition and a public no longer awed by him, de Gaulle's mystique frayed. The General became an exile, leaving office in 1969 with his reputation in doubt: his death, and postmortem myth-making, embellished it beyond his dreams.
Though skeptical, Jackson proves commendably balanced in his assessment of de Gaulle. Admittedly, his efforts to humanize the General (the passages on Anne, his beloved handicapped daughter, are genuinely heartwrenching) fail to truly puncture his stern public image. But the book's main demerit is that Jackson, for all his detailed portraiture, spends little effort sketching the political and cultural context in which de Gaulle moved. Thus, the failures of the Fourth Republic aren't explored beyond generalities; the main discussion of Algeria is crammed into a single chapter; de Gaulle's Cold War maneuvering is discussed mostly in passing; a few paragraphs suffice to introduce May '68 without clarifying the issues which triggered it. This, and Jackson's workmanlike prose, prevent it from becoming the promised "definitive biography" (Jean Lacouture's multi-volume work, even in its abridged English translation, remains the gold standard). But Jackson deserves praise for making Le Grand Charles seem flawed and human, if still not quite approachable - a visionary statesman capable of both greatness and folly.
January 10, 2020
I was born a year after De Gaulle came back to power via a military coup and then raised in a French family quite critical of the régime he instituted. Having been exposed from the start to wide-ranging skepticism on its subject, I am certainly not as starry-eyed about it as the author of this very well written, and interesting throughout, but enthralled biography.
Quite a few important, and even fundamental points are missing :
1 - De Gaulle's forefront, hugely malevolent responsibility in ruining the European project. Europe never recovered from two of his deliberate actions, which are played down in this biography:
a) his 1952/54 campaign against the European Defense Community, which would have created a Franco-German-Dutch-Belgian army; Europe would now be a much stronger player in the dangerous, post-American 21st century than it now is and Germany would not be a peacenik nation incapable of policing anything anywhere beyond its borders;
b) his 1965/66 EEC boycott ("politique de la chaise vide"), which ended with the abandonment of majority voting and thus effectively killed European institution building. Once the unanimity rule was in place, there was no way to get rid of it. It has allowed all kinds of inneficiencies to arise. If everything takes so long in the EU and if some of the most basic common institutions in a political union are still not in place 50 years on (eg a coherent tax system, or a significant budget, etc) it is thanks to De Gaulle's myopic obduracy. That is one of his worst and most enduring legacies.
2 - The author sweeps under the carpet a very real mass crime which De Gaulle enabled and into which he was knowingly complicit, the Algerian murder of at least 60,000, and possibly up to 140,000 former harkis - the French army's local suppletives - who were denied refuge in France. Only a minority managed to reach France with their family, and many of these were interned for years in what can only be described as concentration camps. This episode is one of the most shameful and morally disgusting in recent French history.
3 - Like his subject, the author does not understand economics at all, and so fails to even mention a lot of the, often grotesque, economic policies that De Gaulle pursued in the 1960s, some of which had terrible long-term consequences:
a) although he dwells at length on the daily, manic political meddling by De Gaulle in France's former African colonies, he fails to mention that the direct consequence of this was that French firms focused on the African market, which meant low added-value exports of consumer goods and corruption-driven armament, commodity and infrastructure contracts. Because of its captive African markets, French industry lost ground to all others in Europe, delivering either cheap consumer goods unfit for the US or European markets, or technically advanced goods, but which sold through a mixture of bribery and political meddling. The latter criminalized both large firms and the State, which was actively complicit in getting those contracts, and still puts French firms as among the most corrupt in the Western world according to the rankings published by Transparency International.
b) between 1946 and 1980, like Japan and Western Europe, France was a catching-up economy, importing know-how and capital. During that period, its PPP per capita GDP went from 35% of that of the most technologically advanced economy, the USA, to 77%, its all-time peak. Catching-up economies do profit from some active state involvement and planning, as for instance Japan and Korea have showed, but under De Gaulle's 1958-69 stint, France started introducing so much planning, grand designs, regulatory rigidity and State meddling that it has been since been a lagging developped economy, whose PPP per capita GDP has been stagnating at around 70% of the USA's.
c) in a modern, developped economy, the most important asset is an educated population in a large city. France should thus have profited enormously from owning Paris, one of the largest Western capital cities. Unfortunately, De Gaulle and his henchman Paul Delouvrier inflicted brutal authoritarian and myopic planning to the Paris area, destroying in January, 1968 the institutions that would have permitted it to adapt organically (and building the ugliest suburbs anywhere west of Smolensk, an eyesore of epic proportion). Its (car-centric) infrastructure thus rigidly remains broadly what they planned for the 1970s, and has become a huge drag on working and living in the Paris area. In 2005, violent riots erupted in the suburbs.
d) through his insistence on the EEC's Common Agricultural Policy, he durably slowed down the economic adaptation of the French countryside, which to this day has remained unnecessarily bloated.
4 - De Gaulle himself may have been scrupulously honest and modest in his own monetray dealings with the State (notably making, as often reported, a point of paying for his own electricity consumption at the Elysée palace) but ... he carved for his family and his faithful huge power holdouts. Very visibly, his son and stepson had stellar, unwarranted military careers. Gaullists were systematically put in charge of administrative units and large firms. "Après l'occupation allemande, l'occupation gaulliste", as the saying went.
5 - The author does a very good job of describing initial American hostility to De Gaulle, which obviously antagonized him, but unsurprisingly, being British, fails to trace at least part of the enduring, post-1945, French anti-Americanism and anti-British sentiment shared by De Gaulle to the unwarrantedly brutal destructions and the large number of civilian casualties (50,000) inflicted by British and American bombing of France during WWII, as if it were not an allied but an enemy country.
On the plus side, this biography does emphasize some important points:
1) De Gaulle was foremost an actor, who never stopped acting in his dealings with people, and enormously enjoyed making scenes.
2) He was a pious catholic, yet self-centered, indifferent to the suffering of others, callous, and extremely vindictive.
3) He talked all the time, expressing an extraordinary number of contradictory and time-incoherent opinions, as if randomely-generated.
4) He had an amazing short-term memory.
5) His breakthrough was due to the combination of, post WWI, one prescient hunch about mobile tank warfare, which in 1940 turned him into a moral visionary authority, and relentlessly aggressive carreering and the incessant courting of political figures.
6) He did not know America at all and had no understanding of the post-1945, American-policed, world.
7) He entirely misunderstood the nature of both nazism and communism.
8) His responsibility in starting the (disatrous) Indochina war in 1945 was in fact rather important.
Quite a few important, and even fundamental points are missing :
1 - De Gaulle's forefront, hugely malevolent responsibility in ruining the European project. Europe never recovered from two of his deliberate actions, which are played down in this biography:
a) his 1952/54 campaign against the European Defense Community, which would have created a Franco-German-Dutch-Belgian army; Europe would now be a much stronger player in the dangerous, post-American 21st century than it now is and Germany would not be a peacenik nation incapable of policing anything anywhere beyond its borders;
b) his 1965/66 EEC boycott ("politique de la chaise vide"), which ended with the abandonment of majority voting and thus effectively killed European institution building. Once the unanimity rule was in place, there was no way to get rid of it. It has allowed all kinds of inneficiencies to arise. If everything takes so long in the EU and if some of the most basic common institutions in a political union are still not in place 50 years on (eg a coherent tax system, or a significant budget, etc) it is thanks to De Gaulle's myopic obduracy. That is one of his worst and most enduring legacies.
2 - The author sweeps under the carpet a very real mass crime which De Gaulle enabled and into which he was knowingly complicit, the Algerian murder of at least 60,000, and possibly up to 140,000 former harkis - the French army's local suppletives - who were denied refuge in France. Only a minority managed to reach France with their family, and many of these were interned for years in what can only be described as concentration camps. This episode is one of the most shameful and morally disgusting in recent French history.
3 - Like his subject, the author does not understand economics at all, and so fails to even mention a lot of the, often grotesque, economic policies that De Gaulle pursued in the 1960s, some of which had terrible long-term consequences:
a) although he dwells at length on the daily, manic political meddling by De Gaulle in France's former African colonies, he fails to mention that the direct consequence of this was that French firms focused on the African market, which meant low added-value exports of consumer goods and corruption-driven armament, commodity and infrastructure contracts. Because of its captive African markets, French industry lost ground to all others in Europe, delivering either cheap consumer goods unfit for the US or European markets, or technically advanced goods, but which sold through a mixture of bribery and political meddling. The latter criminalized both large firms and the State, which was actively complicit in getting those contracts, and still puts French firms as among the most corrupt in the Western world according to the rankings published by Transparency International.
b) between 1946 and 1980, like Japan and Western Europe, France was a catching-up economy, importing know-how and capital. During that period, its PPP per capita GDP went from 35% of that of the most technologically advanced economy, the USA, to 77%, its all-time peak. Catching-up economies do profit from some active state involvement and planning, as for instance Japan and Korea have showed, but under De Gaulle's 1958-69 stint, France started introducing so much planning, grand designs, regulatory rigidity and State meddling that it has been since been a lagging developped economy, whose PPP per capita GDP has been stagnating at around 70% of the USA's.
c) in a modern, developped economy, the most important asset is an educated population in a large city. France should thus have profited enormously from owning Paris, one of the largest Western capital cities. Unfortunately, De Gaulle and his henchman Paul Delouvrier inflicted brutal authoritarian and myopic planning to the Paris area, destroying in January, 1968 the institutions that would have permitted it to adapt organically (and building the ugliest suburbs anywhere west of Smolensk, an eyesore of epic proportion). Its (car-centric) infrastructure thus rigidly remains broadly what they planned for the 1970s, and has become a huge drag on working and living in the Paris area. In 2005, violent riots erupted in the suburbs.
d) through his insistence on the EEC's Common Agricultural Policy, he durably slowed down the economic adaptation of the French countryside, which to this day has remained unnecessarily bloated.
4 - De Gaulle himself may have been scrupulously honest and modest in his own monetray dealings with the State (notably making, as often reported, a point of paying for his own electricity consumption at the Elysée palace) but ... he carved for his family and his faithful huge power holdouts. Very visibly, his son and stepson had stellar, unwarranted military careers. Gaullists were systematically put in charge of administrative units and large firms. "Après l'occupation allemande, l'occupation gaulliste", as the saying went.
5 - The author does a very good job of describing initial American hostility to De Gaulle, which obviously antagonized him, but unsurprisingly, being British, fails to trace at least part of the enduring, post-1945, French anti-Americanism and anti-British sentiment shared by De Gaulle to the unwarrantedly brutal destructions and the large number of civilian casualties (50,000) inflicted by British and American bombing of France during WWII, as if it were not an allied but an enemy country.
On the plus side, this biography does emphasize some important points:
1) De Gaulle was foremost an actor, who never stopped acting in his dealings with people, and enormously enjoyed making scenes.
2) He was a pious catholic, yet self-centered, indifferent to the suffering of others, callous, and extremely vindictive.
3) He talked all the time, expressing an extraordinary number of contradictory and time-incoherent opinions, as if randomely-generated.
4) He had an amazing short-term memory.
5) His breakthrough was due to the combination of, post WWI, one prescient hunch about mobile tank warfare, which in 1940 turned him into a moral visionary authority, and relentlessly aggressive carreering and the incessant courting of political figures.
6) He did not know America at all and had no understanding of the post-1945, American-policed, world.
7) He entirely misunderstood the nature of both nazism and communism.
8) His responsibility in starting the (disatrous) Indochina war in 1945 was in fact rather important.
September 4, 2018
I read this enormous book much faster than I expected to. Jackson is a wonderful, very English writer, and de Gaulle was such a preposterously outsized character that I kept reading through the occasionally over-detailed passages. The book seems very objective: both de Gaulle’s strengths and weaknesses, his successes and failures, are described clearly and convincingly. I learned a lot about 20th century French history from the book, but it has the limitation of all biographies which is that it almost entirely ignores events that didn’t involve de Gaulle more or less directly.
November 1, 2023
English version follows:
De Gaulle était déjà un personnage de légende lorsque j'étais adolescent dans les années 60. Comme tous les amateurs d'histoire de la seconde guerre mondiale, mes nombreuses lectures m'ont amené à prendre conscience du rôle crucial qu'il a joué en particulier pour assurer à la France une place parmis les nations vainqueurs du conflit. Le livre de Jackson couvre les aspects que je connaissais moins, durant les années de jeunesse, comme jeune officier et surtout son implication politique de 1946 jusqu'à son décès en 1970. De Gaulle a permis à la France de recouvrer son honneur entre 1940 et 1944 et a été l'architecte de la Cinquième République.
Le livre de Jackson tente d'expliquer les comportements, les motivations, de cette personne très complexe souvent en proie à des sentiments contradictoires. On en vient à comprendre que De Gaulle le militaire et De gaulle le politicien sont deux facettes de l'homme d'état qui était particulièrement au diapason avec les humeurs du peuple français. Jackson présente un portrait équilibré de l'homme avec ses forces, et ses travers très marqués. Son impact a été si considérable qu'on est endroit de se demander ce que serait devenue la France sans son apport; en particulier suite à la défaite catastrophique et humiliante de 1940 et l'établissement du régime de Vichy, un épisode noir de l'histoire de la France.
Dans les années soixante De Gaulle était une légende et il est devenu un mythe cinquante ans après sa mort ce qui illustre jusqu'à quel point il a su marquer l'imaginaire du peuple français et aussi à l'international; les artistes , politiciens, historiens, écrivains s'y sont intéressés. je crois que c'est parce qu'il a étét un leader hors norme qui a réussi à sauvegarder la réputation et l'influence de la France pourtant un pays vaincu victime de la trahison de ses propres élites.
Charles de Gaulle was already a legendary figure when I was an adolescent in the 1960s. Like all World War II history enthusiasts, my numerous readings led me to realize the crucial role he played, especially in securing a place for France among the victorious nations of the conflict. Jackson's book covers aspects that I was less familiar with during my youth, such as his early years as a young officer and, most notably, his political involvement from 1946 until his death in 1970. De Gaulle enabled France to regain its honor between 1940 and 1944 and was the architect of the Fifth Republic.
Jackson's book attempts to explain the behaviors and motivations of this very complex individual, often plagued by conflicting emotions. We come to understand that De Gaulle the military leader and De Gaulle the politician are two facets of the statesman who were particularly in tune with the mood of the French people. Jackson presents a balanced portrait of the man with his strengths and pronounced flaws. His impact was so significant that one can't help but wonder what France would have become without his contribution, especially following the catastrophic and humiliating defeat of 1940 and the establishment of the Vichy regime, a dark episode in French history.
In the 1960s, De Gaulle was a legend, and he became a myth fifty years after his death, illustrating to what extent he left a mark on the imagination of the French people and internationally. Artists, politicians, historians, writers all took an interest in him. I believe this is because he was an exceptional leader who managed to preserve France's reputation and influence, despite being a defeated country victimized by the betrayal of its own elites.
De Gaulle était déjà un personnage de légende lorsque j'étais adolescent dans les années 60. Comme tous les amateurs d'histoire de la seconde guerre mondiale, mes nombreuses lectures m'ont amené à prendre conscience du rôle crucial qu'il a joué en particulier pour assurer à la France une place parmis les nations vainqueurs du conflit. Le livre de Jackson couvre les aspects que je connaissais moins, durant les années de jeunesse, comme jeune officier et surtout son implication politique de 1946 jusqu'à son décès en 1970. De Gaulle a permis à la France de recouvrer son honneur entre 1940 et 1944 et a été l'architecte de la Cinquième République.
Le livre de Jackson tente d'expliquer les comportements, les motivations, de cette personne très complexe souvent en proie à des sentiments contradictoires. On en vient à comprendre que De Gaulle le militaire et De gaulle le politicien sont deux facettes de l'homme d'état qui était particulièrement au diapason avec les humeurs du peuple français. Jackson présente un portrait équilibré de l'homme avec ses forces, et ses travers très marqués. Son impact a été si considérable qu'on est endroit de se demander ce que serait devenue la France sans son apport; en particulier suite à la défaite catastrophique et humiliante de 1940 et l'établissement du régime de Vichy, un épisode noir de l'histoire de la France.
Dans les années soixante De Gaulle était une légende et il est devenu un mythe cinquante ans après sa mort ce qui illustre jusqu'à quel point il a su marquer l'imaginaire du peuple français et aussi à l'international; les artistes , politiciens, historiens, écrivains s'y sont intéressés. je crois que c'est parce qu'il a étét un leader hors norme qui a réussi à sauvegarder la réputation et l'influence de la France pourtant un pays vaincu victime de la trahison de ses propres élites.
Charles de Gaulle was already a legendary figure when I was an adolescent in the 1960s. Like all World War II history enthusiasts, my numerous readings led me to realize the crucial role he played, especially in securing a place for France among the victorious nations of the conflict. Jackson's book covers aspects that I was less familiar with during my youth, such as his early years as a young officer and, most notably, his political involvement from 1946 until his death in 1970. De Gaulle enabled France to regain its honor between 1940 and 1944 and was the architect of the Fifth Republic.
Jackson's book attempts to explain the behaviors and motivations of this very complex individual, often plagued by conflicting emotions. We come to understand that De Gaulle the military leader and De Gaulle the politician are two facets of the statesman who were particularly in tune with the mood of the French people. Jackson presents a balanced portrait of the man with his strengths and pronounced flaws. His impact was so significant that one can't help but wonder what France would have become without his contribution, especially following the catastrophic and humiliating defeat of 1940 and the establishment of the Vichy regime, a dark episode in French history.
In the 1960s, De Gaulle was a legend, and he became a myth fifty years after his death, illustrating to what extent he left a mark on the imagination of the French people and internationally. Artists, politicians, historians, writers all took an interest in him. I believe this is because he was an exceptional leader who managed to preserve France's reputation and influence, despite being a defeated country victimized by the betrayal of its own elites.
March 31, 2020
I notice some other readers, mainly French people, have strong opinions one way or the other on De Gaulle before they ever read this book. I can truthfully say that I have none, I am Australian, have never been to France and was born in 1980 a full decade after De Gaulle died. My interest is entirely academic and historical.
That said De Gaulle is a fascinating and infuriating figure.
At crucial times he displayed both physical and moral courage that qualifies him as a legitimate hero. At other moments he displayed such pettiness, vindictiveness and cynical political cunning that he makes our current crop of political swine look good.
For me De Gaulle's historic achievements are such that one can't ignore him. He has to be read about and understood even as our world leaves him behind in the dust of times past.
A recurrent theme through the book is De Gaulle's "vision" of France. There is no denying the man was a true patriot who passionately loved his country and did his best to make it great.
This is an excellent biography, very well written.
That said De Gaulle is a fascinating and infuriating figure.
At crucial times he displayed both physical and moral courage that qualifies him as a legitimate hero. At other moments he displayed such pettiness, vindictiveness and cynical political cunning that he makes our current crop of political swine look good.
For me De Gaulle's historic achievements are such that one can't ignore him. He has to be read about and understood even as our world leaves him behind in the dust of times past.
A recurrent theme through the book is De Gaulle's "vision" of France. There is no denying the man was a true patriot who passionately loved his country and did his best to make it great.
This is an excellent biography, very well written.
March 5, 2019
This was a massive biography (about 800 pages excluding footnotes and references at the back) but a consistently compelling one. The author does a good job of showing the entire life of De Gaulle and why it mattered.
He avoids the common failing of trying to make the subject of a biography always sympathetic or heroic. De Gaulle was arrogant, petty, frequently treacherous, and a constant liar. He betrayed almost everyone at one point or another. At the same time he was charismatic, brilliant, and almost always fearless. Jackson does a good job of showcasing why so many people both loved and hated him.
My only real complaint is that the book is light on technical and economic details. This was probably necessary to keep it less than 1000 pages, but it does make some sections rather vague. De Gaulle was never an economist or technician, but changes in technology and the economy were a huge part of his career.
Still this is a massive, well researched book on the subject.
He avoids the common failing of trying to make the subject of a biography always sympathetic or heroic. De Gaulle was arrogant, petty, frequently treacherous, and a constant liar. He betrayed almost everyone at one point or another. At the same time he was charismatic, brilliant, and almost always fearless. Jackson does a good job of showcasing why so many people both loved and hated him.
My only real complaint is that the book is light on technical and economic details. This was probably necessary to keep it less than 1000 pages, but it does make some sections rather vague. De Gaulle was never an economist or technician, but changes in technology and the economy were a huge part of his career.
Still this is a massive, well researched book on the subject.
March 7, 2020
A well written and meticulously researched book. Charles De Gaulle throughout his many careers comes across as an awkward and at times difficult man. I get this impression of this about him in almost every page. There are moments of tenderness, but throughout his actions he is awkward and at times difficult which grinds you down where the book is just shy of 800 pages long. Not the fault of the author judging by the primary evidence. Perhaps my reservations are because I am also an awkward and at times difficult man. Thoroughly enjoyed the final third of the book that chronicles his presidency, especially his increasingly unpredictable foreign policies, social conservativism, cabinet squabbles not to mention the events of May ‘68. The book concludes with an important analysis of his legacy which still leaves a long shadow over France.
September 12, 2022
An extremely comprehensive biography, which does everything right, but should never be read as a whole block.
Certain books benefit from being dipped in and out of. This is not a bad thing, but it means that when they are taken as a whole sum, the enjoyment of reading them dips significantly. Julian T. Jackson has written one of the most comprehensive biographies I have ever read, of a figure whose name is often better known than their actions. Charles de Gaulle, from a British perspective, is often seen as France's discount Churchill. If for nothing else, Jackson well and truly expelled this vision of de Gaulle, and painted a vivid portrait of the man who led the Free France Movement and spearheaded the French Fifth Republic.
I know painfully little about French history. The breadth of this book was surprising. It covers the majority of de Gaulle's life, as well as an obligatory exposition piece on his parents. However I was surprised by how little context was given to the events happening in de Gaulle's life. There was very little time given to the history of Franco-German international relations, almost no time on the historical significance of the Fifth Republic, and a brief gesture towards France's colonial actions in the 19th century. The latter becomes significant in the final parts of the book, with Vietnam and Algeria taking center stage in French politics.
Instead, Jackson gears the contextual depth towards de Gaulle himself. Instead of painting a broad picture, Jackson effectively gives the reader as much information and historical hindsight as de Gaulle or his advisors would have had when making the decisions he did. Rather fantastically, this means the teleological and hagiographical aspects which plague some biographies, are side stepped. The sacrifice is the reader's comprehension of events significance, but Jackson is a good enough writer that certain events still carry substantial portents. It is an effective strategy by Jackson, and allows for a sharp focus on de Gaulle himself and the politics he existed in. The first and final thirds of the book are very good, demonstrating keen analytical skill and never becoming excessively dull.
However the biggest problem is the weighty middle third, which covers the principle moment of de Gaulle's life, the Second World War. Jackson's lean against broader context becomes a massive problem here, because the reader very quickly becomes disconnected from the actual stakes of the conflict. This is not an easy period to write about, and Jackson focuses on de Gaulle's efforts to make alliances, secure France's future and be commanding. Therefore, the conflict in France, north Africa and the middle east, almost becomes a board game happening in the background which is a very difficult dissociation for the reader to experience.
More than anything else though, the book's largest weakness is its length. The whole audiobook clocks in at about 35 hours, but there is no chance I would have been able to stomach a few chapters in written format. Each chapter spans to over an hour on average, which makes it an unwieldy piece to tackle in a full read through. Generally, this would be best suited to a student who could use the index to locate the relevant passages and sections. Jackson has helpfully divided each chapter into sections, but these are less effective in audiobook format, where the producers have simply chopped the piece into chapters. For a typical person, simply wanting to know more about de Gaulle, this book would only be recommended to the most dedicated reader. Otherwise, a leaner, briefer analysis is advisable.
On the whole, this is a magnificent piece of biographical writing. Jackson brings a new style and technique to the field. But it is too long, weighty and narrow in its focus to merit a look in by anyone not studying the figure himself.
Certain books benefit from being dipped in and out of. This is not a bad thing, but it means that when they are taken as a whole sum, the enjoyment of reading them dips significantly. Julian T. Jackson has written one of the most comprehensive biographies I have ever read, of a figure whose name is often better known than their actions. Charles de Gaulle, from a British perspective, is often seen as France's discount Churchill. If for nothing else, Jackson well and truly expelled this vision of de Gaulle, and painted a vivid portrait of the man who led the Free France Movement and spearheaded the French Fifth Republic.
I know painfully little about French history. The breadth of this book was surprising. It covers the majority of de Gaulle's life, as well as an obligatory exposition piece on his parents. However I was surprised by how little context was given to the events happening in de Gaulle's life. There was very little time given to the history of Franco-German international relations, almost no time on the historical significance of the Fifth Republic, and a brief gesture towards France's colonial actions in the 19th century. The latter becomes significant in the final parts of the book, with Vietnam and Algeria taking center stage in French politics.
Instead, Jackson gears the contextual depth towards de Gaulle himself. Instead of painting a broad picture, Jackson effectively gives the reader as much information and historical hindsight as de Gaulle or his advisors would have had when making the decisions he did. Rather fantastically, this means the teleological and hagiographical aspects which plague some biographies, are side stepped. The sacrifice is the reader's comprehension of events significance, but Jackson is a good enough writer that certain events still carry substantial portents. It is an effective strategy by Jackson, and allows for a sharp focus on de Gaulle himself and the politics he existed in. The first and final thirds of the book are very good, demonstrating keen analytical skill and never becoming excessively dull.
However the biggest problem is the weighty middle third, which covers the principle moment of de Gaulle's life, the Second World War. Jackson's lean against broader context becomes a massive problem here, because the reader very quickly becomes disconnected from the actual stakes of the conflict. This is not an easy period to write about, and Jackson focuses on de Gaulle's efforts to make alliances, secure France's future and be commanding. Therefore, the conflict in France, north Africa and the middle east, almost becomes a board game happening in the background which is a very difficult dissociation for the reader to experience.
More than anything else though, the book's largest weakness is its length. The whole audiobook clocks in at about 35 hours, but there is no chance I would have been able to stomach a few chapters in written format. Each chapter spans to over an hour on average, which makes it an unwieldy piece to tackle in a full read through. Generally, this would be best suited to a student who could use the index to locate the relevant passages and sections. Jackson has helpfully divided each chapter into sections, but these are less effective in audiobook format, where the producers have simply chopped the piece into chapters. For a typical person, simply wanting to know more about de Gaulle, this book would only be recommended to the most dedicated reader. Otherwise, a leaner, briefer analysis is advisable.
On the whole, this is a magnificent piece of biographical writing. Jackson brings a new style and technique to the field. But it is too long, weighty and narrow in its focus to merit a look in by anyone not studying the figure himself.
August 4, 2023
A balanced, terrifically detailed take on the defining figure of 20th century France (qui est, en plus, extrêmement bien traduite).
July 24, 2020
Lives up to its promise as a thoroughly researched, readable and measured biography of one of the most important figures of the 20th century. Probably only Mao, Stalin, Hitler and maybe Churchill and FDR exercised an equivalent influence over an extended period of time as "Le General." Jackson underscores the role de Gaulle's mythic sense of himself as the incarnation of the nation played in shaping his decisions, but he also provides a clear idea of the realpolitik that went into the evolution of his position on Algeria, for example. I centered on the sections concerning de Gaulle in the Sixties, and Jackson's excellent on the "Republican monarchy" of the Fifth Republic (which de Gaulle agreed to head when granted expansive powers with France on the verge of civil war in the late 1950s). It's easy to condemn de Gaulle as a proto-fascist, but as he said when forced into a run-off election in 1965, no Fascist would have found himself in that position.
By far the best book I've found on de Gaulle.
By far the best book I've found on de Gaulle.
Want to read
April 1, 2020Notes:
March 19, 2020: Added to TBR after recommendation from Dimitri
October 18, 2022
The job of a biographer has to be hellish - how does one use any sort of first-person language without bordering into flagrant speculation?
April 6, 2020
When France fell in 1940 Charles de Gaulle was a nonentity--a brigadier general and undersecretary of defense who was so obscure when he made his first broadcast that many listeners assumed "de Gaulle" was a pseudonym. He became so important that four years later, as Paris was liberated, neither Churchill or Roosevelt could get rid of him despite their best attempts.
What's amazing is that he did this not just with no resources with almost none of the qualities that seem to be required in leaders. He wasn't warm and didn't inspire personal loyalty. He was not a brilliant administrator, didn't have any great talent for details and was not a great judge of talent. He was arrogant, jealous, authoritarian and dismissive. What he did have was a considerable intellect, stubborn resolve and the foresight to be on the right side of history when almost everyone else in France hesitated.
I wasn't sure I'd be engaged by a long biography of de Gaulle--he's a mixed figure and not very sympathetic--but Jackson's writing takes advantage of the fact that de Gaulle was both colorful and intelligent to make for a very engaging read. Highly recommended for anyone considering the book.
What's amazing is that he did this not just with no resources with almost none of the qualities that seem to be required in leaders. He wasn't warm and didn't inspire personal loyalty. He was not a brilliant administrator, didn't have any great talent for details and was not a great judge of talent. He was arrogant, jealous, authoritarian and dismissive. What he did have was a considerable intellect, stubborn resolve and the foresight to be on the right side of history when almost everyone else in France hesitated.
I wasn't sure I'd be engaged by a long biography of de Gaulle--he's a mixed figure and not very sympathetic--but Jackson's writing takes advantage of the fact that de Gaulle was both colorful and intelligent to make for a very engaging read. Highly recommended for anyone considering the book.
October 16, 2023
This is an exhaustive and monumental biography of the rare phenomenon that was/is general de Gaulle. It's extremely well written and, whilst it's clear that Jackson admires his subject, he is also forthright about the flaws in his character.
The book deals with the role played by 'the general' in some of the 20th century's key events, from Verdun to Algeria, the Second World War to the 'evenements' of May 1968 and more besides.
De Gaulle emerges as a particularly arrogant, insufferable and ungrateful individual with ambitions which verge on the dictatorial. However, his speech making, grasp of the importance of broadcast media and uncanny prescience, particularly in regard to the Israeli/Palestinian powder keg, are fascinating aspects of this man who is difficult to like but impossible not to admire, even if that admiration does stem from the sheer brazenness of some of his actions on the world stage.
A fascinating portrait of flawed character whose appeal was clearly waining by the mid 1960s, I would recommend this to anyone with an interest in 20th century history.
The book deals with the role played by 'the general' in some of the 20th century's key events, from Verdun to Algeria, the Second World War to the 'evenements' of May 1968 and more besides.
De Gaulle emerges as a particularly arrogant, insufferable and ungrateful individual with ambitions which verge on the dictatorial. However, his speech making, grasp of the importance of broadcast media and uncanny prescience, particularly in regard to the Israeli/Palestinian powder keg, are fascinating aspects of this man who is difficult to like but impossible not to admire, even if that admiration does stem from the sheer brazenness of some of his actions on the world stage.
A fascinating portrait of flawed character whose appeal was clearly waining by the mid 1960s, I would recommend this to anyone with an interest in 20th century history.
April 23, 2023
Reading this massive biography right after Caro's first volume of his Johnson work is like getting a double dose of ego and narcissism. De Gaulle literally thought he was France. This is not an exaggeration. And while the author is, Jackson, is sympathetic to what The General achieved, he is also does not shy away from CDGs contemptible personality.
I've wanted to read this for years and I am glad I did although my timing was bad, given some personalities I am presently dealing with in my own life.
Highly recommended as a globe sweeping examination of one of the unavoidable people of the 20th century and as a detailed look at how France still sees itself from all political points of view.
I've wanted to read this for years and I am glad I did although my timing was bad, given some personalities I am presently dealing with in my own life.
Highly recommended as a globe sweeping examination of one of the unavoidable people of the 20th century and as a detailed look at how France still sees itself from all political points of view.
April 6, 2023
I absolutely loved this book. It’s very detailed (I’ll admit that some of the sections about the intra-Resistance fights during WW2 dragged a bit) but is still a remarkably clear analysis of someone who I now think is one of the true political geniuses of the last century. The sections on Algeria and the political machinations during the liberation of France were particularly interesting. My big takeaway from this book is that France is very lucky not to have emerged from the 20th century with its liberal democracy intact.
May 3, 2023
Vive Charles de Gaulle! Vive la République! Vive la France!
Read
June 15, 2022Fair play this biography was fucking outstanding. Over a month with the General. It’s been an honour.
March 24, 2024
Magisterial is over-used for reviewing biogs but sometimes it's le mot juste. Hard to imagine how it could be bettered, a peerlessly interesting subject. Strong recommend.
June 17, 2021
I learned a lot about French history in the fifties and sixties that I didn’t know
March 28, 2022
Thomas Carlyle is the originator of the Great Man theory as a dominant influencer of history. In his 1840 lecture, Carlyle asserted:
"Universal History, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at the bottom of the History of the Great Men who have worked here. They were the leaders of men, these great ones; the modellers, patterns, and in broad sense creators, of whatsoever the general mass of men contrived to do or to attain; all things that we see standing accomplished in the world are properly the outer material result, the practical realization and embodiment, of Thoughts that dwelt in the Great Men, sent into the world: the soul of the whole world's history, it may justly be considered, were the history of these."
Carlyle’s Great Man view as the dominant influencer of events has competitors. These include economics, geography, eugenics, population, climate, to name a few. Nonetheless, Carlygle’s assertion has had legs; its adherent includes William James, Kierkegaard Spengler. Examples of Great Men include Gandhi, Mao Tse Tung, Abraham Lincoln, especially Napoleon. To most Anglo Saxons, Churchill is regarded as the exemplar. However, as Julian Jackson demonstrates, pride of place belongs to one man, General Charles de Gaulle.
The underlying presumption is that the Great Leader is born, not made, possessing inherent traits and characteristics that will enable them to lead when circumstances grant them the opportunity to demonstrate leadership which they can demonstrate. The theory encompasses a mystical conviction that the leader is destinated by God or the environment into which the hero is born to take command. It is as if there is a symbiotic relationship between events and leadership. In most cases, the great man’s dominance “rescues” a people or nation from crisis or other negative circumstances.
De Gaulle's life and the times he participated, in fit these moulds. He emerged into a; position of prominence immediately following the collapse of France’s resistance to the 1940 German assault. The signing of an Armistice represented for de Gaulle a betrayal of France that tore at his very soul. De Gaulle can only be understood in the context of France as an existential vision, a living being represented by honour, God and a history traced back to the time of the Gauls.
This is not the place to recite the details of de Gaulle’s life and career. That task is undertaken with enormous skill and completeness in Julian Jackson’s brilliant, A Certain Idea of France. There is a rather odd understatement in the title, implying that De Gaulle’s idea of France is one of or in competition with other ideas of France. Nothing could be further from the case; De Gaulle dominated the country from the mid-1940s until his death, and thereafter, so powerful were the policies and emotional vision he installed and represented.
The absolute unvarying De Gaulle's core brief, indeed obsession, was France, the honour of France, an existential France.
One of the Free French recruits wrote to a friend: “I would not be a soldier of the Free French if I did not believe that de Gaulle was the only faithful interpreter of the wishes and the hopes of our people … It is from this close communion with the soul of France that de Gaulle draws his most authentic strength. “
De Gaulle’s special and unique vision manifests in his righteous indignation at Marshall Peton’s singing of the 1940 armistice. He wrote:
“What determined me to pursue the struggle against the enemy and condemn Vichy was the refusal to admit that France was defeated, occupied and enslaved while she still had the means of fight. It was essential that she return, if not bigger than before, at least with her grandeur.”
It emerged again in the post-victory focus on punishment for Vichy participants. For De Gaulle, the problem was that in the course of trials, the prosecution focused on the policies and crimes of the Vichy regime. The central issue was the signing of the Armistice because it besmirched the honour of France, the surrender of France. This difference separated De Gaulle from the Resistance perspective, which focused on the actions of individual collaborators.
Charles de Gaulle was born in 1890 to a devout Roman Catholic family, a faith from which he never wavered. He served with distinction in the First War and was taken, prisoner. As a prisoner of war, he wrote the following.
“This war is not the last. Whatever the horrors, sacrifice, grief, tears that it has brought in its wake, men have not been changed by it. For some years, there will be a sense of shame and fear; then, the smell of blood will fade; and everyone will sing its glories; the century-old hatreds will revive e in more extreme form and one day people will hurl themselves at each other again, determined to destroy each other, but wearing before God and mankind that they had been attached by the other “
The fatalistic sense of the nature of men was not confined to the depressive impact of the camp. De Gaulle repeated it in 1916 during the course of the war, in 1919 following its end and after that. In 1928, he wrote to a friend:
“We disagree on whether there will be war again; the armoury of the Rhine is not for much longer; Anschluss is close, and then Germany will want back what she has lost of Poland.”
De Gaulle is best known for his defiance of Vichy, his flight to England, the formation of the Free French, the command of a Free Frech battalion in Casablanca and his triumphant return to France in 1940.
A constant was a determination that France’s interest must be protected and advanced no matter how irritating these assertions were to Britain and the Americans. His suspicion of US imperialism and his conviction that the US held little regard for France’s capacity to impact events, was not by any means mistaken. In the course of the War, conflict raged over Rosevelt’s belief that Germany could be undermined by the Allies striking a deal with Vichy France. US efforts to establish back door contacts to achieve the result sent De Gaulle into a frenzy. In fact, the US viewed the Free French as ineffectual, more of the patina than a meaningful reality.
A constant of De Gaull’s character was pettiness, jealousy, vindictiveness. These attributes are reflected in Churchill’s famous aphorism: “The hardest cross I have to bear is the Cross of Lorraine.”
De Gaulle’s pettiness was evident on the occasion of a visit by Churchill on Armistice Day. De Gaulle reflected that Churchill’s intention in wishing to meet Resistance leaders was in the hope of: “finding opponents of de Gaulle among them.” For Churchill, the Resistance represented heroism; for De Gaulle an independent entity that he dissolved shortly afterward.
De Gaulle's post-war tenure as President ruled extended until a final resignation in 1969. He had no interest in the post-war efforts to establish multi-national institutions in order to combat the plague of excessive nationalism, perceived as an impetus to conflict. At the San Francisco conference convened to establish the United Nations, he ensured the French delegation had little impact. The only initiative the delegation perused was the inclusion of a group of smaller former colonies, viewed by de Gaulle as votes he could assemble at France’s direction.
Post-war, Eisenhower’s administration was relatively passive vis-a-vis France, preoccupied with the existential Algerian crisis. With the Kennedy Administration a pro-active, assertive, international interventions approach emerged. Its attitude to De Gaulle is reflected in the observations of George Ball, a Kennedy advisor: De Gaulle is: “a superb actor” leaving “only legends and transient playbills, a 20th century Don Quixote, seeking to preserve old forms and restore old patterns.”
The post-war period was marked by the emergence of two conflicting visions of the relationships between nations. The American vision developed under President Kennedy was an Atlantic one, in which the US and the European Community -- although the term was not then current == would come together in an Atlantic Partnership. A manifestation of the approach was the US proposal to create a NATO Multilateral Nuclear Force (MLF). Underlying the proposal was an intention to move away from the Special Relationship with Britain, in favour of a European Grand Design.
The approach conflicts with De Gaulle’s intention to establish France as a stand-alone nuclear power. De Galle’s realpolitik was ever present. Post-war, he sought Soviet support -- dubious help that it represented --- in relation to French ambitions for restitution of Rhine territories, and was willing to barter Soviet jurisdiction over the Eastern European countries for it.
"Universal History, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at the bottom of the History of the Great Men who have worked here. They were the leaders of men, these great ones; the modellers, patterns, and in broad sense creators, of whatsoever the general mass of men contrived to do or to attain; all things that we see standing accomplished in the world are properly the outer material result, the practical realization and embodiment, of Thoughts that dwelt in the Great Men, sent into the world: the soul of the whole world's history, it may justly be considered, were the history of these."
Carlyle’s Great Man view as the dominant influencer of events has competitors. These include economics, geography, eugenics, population, climate, to name a few. Nonetheless, Carlygle’s assertion has had legs; its adherent includes William James, Kierkegaard Spengler. Examples of Great Men include Gandhi, Mao Tse Tung, Abraham Lincoln, especially Napoleon. To most Anglo Saxons, Churchill is regarded as the exemplar. However, as Julian Jackson demonstrates, pride of place belongs to one man, General Charles de Gaulle.
The underlying presumption is that the Great Leader is born, not made, possessing inherent traits and characteristics that will enable them to lead when circumstances grant them the opportunity to demonstrate leadership which they can demonstrate. The theory encompasses a mystical conviction that the leader is destinated by God or the environment into which the hero is born to take command. It is as if there is a symbiotic relationship between events and leadership. In most cases, the great man’s dominance “rescues” a people or nation from crisis or other negative circumstances.
De Gaulle's life and the times he participated, in fit these moulds. He emerged into a; position of prominence immediately following the collapse of France’s resistance to the 1940 German assault. The signing of an Armistice represented for de Gaulle a betrayal of France that tore at his very soul. De Gaulle can only be understood in the context of France as an existential vision, a living being represented by honour, God and a history traced back to the time of the Gauls.
This is not the place to recite the details of de Gaulle’s life and career. That task is undertaken with enormous skill and completeness in Julian Jackson’s brilliant, A Certain Idea of France. There is a rather odd understatement in the title, implying that De Gaulle’s idea of France is one of or in competition with other ideas of France. Nothing could be further from the case; De Gaulle dominated the country from the mid-1940s until his death, and thereafter, so powerful were the policies and emotional vision he installed and represented.
The absolute unvarying De Gaulle's core brief, indeed obsession, was France, the honour of France, an existential France.
One of the Free French recruits wrote to a friend: “I would not be a soldier of the Free French if I did not believe that de Gaulle was the only faithful interpreter of the wishes and the hopes of our people … It is from this close communion with the soul of France that de Gaulle draws his most authentic strength. “
De Gaulle’s special and unique vision manifests in his righteous indignation at Marshall Peton’s singing of the 1940 armistice. He wrote:
“What determined me to pursue the struggle against the enemy and condemn Vichy was the refusal to admit that France was defeated, occupied and enslaved while she still had the means of fight. It was essential that she return, if not bigger than before, at least with her grandeur.”
It emerged again in the post-victory focus on punishment for Vichy participants. For De Gaulle, the problem was that in the course of trials, the prosecution focused on the policies and crimes of the Vichy regime. The central issue was the signing of the Armistice because it besmirched the honour of France, the surrender of France. This difference separated De Gaulle from the Resistance perspective, which focused on the actions of individual collaborators.
Charles de Gaulle was born in 1890 to a devout Roman Catholic family, a faith from which he never wavered. He served with distinction in the First War and was taken, prisoner. As a prisoner of war, he wrote the following.
“This war is not the last. Whatever the horrors, sacrifice, grief, tears that it has brought in its wake, men have not been changed by it. For some years, there will be a sense of shame and fear; then, the smell of blood will fade; and everyone will sing its glories; the century-old hatreds will revive e in more extreme form and one day people will hurl themselves at each other again, determined to destroy each other, but wearing before God and mankind that they had been attached by the other “
The fatalistic sense of the nature of men was not confined to the depressive impact of the camp. De Gaulle repeated it in 1916 during the course of the war, in 1919 following its end and after that. In 1928, he wrote to a friend:
“We disagree on whether there will be war again; the armoury of the Rhine is not for much longer; Anschluss is close, and then Germany will want back what she has lost of Poland.”
De Gaulle is best known for his defiance of Vichy, his flight to England, the formation of the Free French, the command of a Free Frech battalion in Casablanca and his triumphant return to France in 1940.
A constant was a determination that France’s interest must be protected and advanced no matter how irritating these assertions were to Britain and the Americans. His suspicion of US imperialism and his conviction that the US held little regard for France’s capacity to impact events, was not by any means mistaken. In the course of the War, conflict raged over Rosevelt’s belief that Germany could be undermined by the Allies striking a deal with Vichy France. US efforts to establish back door contacts to achieve the result sent De Gaulle into a frenzy. In fact, the US viewed the Free French as ineffectual, more of the patina than a meaningful reality.
A constant of De Gaull’s character was pettiness, jealousy, vindictiveness. These attributes are reflected in Churchill’s famous aphorism: “The hardest cross I have to bear is the Cross of Lorraine.”
De Gaulle’s pettiness was evident on the occasion of a visit by Churchill on Armistice Day. De Gaulle reflected that Churchill’s intention in wishing to meet Resistance leaders was in the hope of: “finding opponents of de Gaulle among them.” For Churchill, the Resistance represented heroism; for De Gaulle an independent entity that he dissolved shortly afterward.
De Gaulle's post-war tenure as President ruled extended until a final resignation in 1969. He had no interest in the post-war efforts to establish multi-national institutions in order to combat the plague of excessive nationalism, perceived as an impetus to conflict. At the San Francisco conference convened to establish the United Nations, he ensured the French delegation had little impact. The only initiative the delegation perused was the inclusion of a group of smaller former colonies, viewed by de Gaulle as votes he could assemble at France’s direction.
Post-war, Eisenhower’s administration was relatively passive vis-a-vis France, preoccupied with the existential Algerian crisis. With the Kennedy Administration a pro-active, assertive, international interventions approach emerged. Its attitude to De Gaulle is reflected in the observations of George Ball, a Kennedy advisor: De Gaulle is: “a superb actor” leaving “only legends and transient playbills, a 20th century Don Quixote, seeking to preserve old forms and restore old patterns.”
The post-war period was marked by the emergence of two conflicting visions of the relationships between nations. The American vision developed under President Kennedy was an Atlantic one, in which the US and the European Community -- although the term was not then current == would come together in an Atlantic Partnership. A manifestation of the approach was the US proposal to create a NATO Multilateral Nuclear Force (MLF). Underlying the proposal was an intention to move away from the Special Relationship with Britain, in favour of a European Grand Design.
The approach conflicts with De Gaulle’s intention to establish France as a stand-alone nuclear power. De Galle’s realpolitik was ever present. Post-war, he sought Soviet support -- dubious help that it represented --- in relation to French ambitions for restitution of Rhine territories, and was willing to barter Soviet jurisdiction over the Eastern European countries for it.
April 10, 2022
An excellent read. It took me a while but it was worth the time spent.
December 8, 2019
We are almost in the third decade of the 21st Century and as yet no great political titans, for good or ill, have arisen – though perhaps we are still in the early stages of the career of Chairman Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China to form a useful opinion. So it is always good to sit down with an in-depth biography of Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, or Mao, for instance, to remind ourselves just how large a single figure can loom in not only the public consciousness of their country but also of the world. Without a doubt, Charles de Gaulle of France can be counted among the political titans of the 20th Century. He came to power twice, at times of severe crisis for France: firstly, in 1940, when the French government under Petain signed the Armistice with Nazi Germany; and, secondly, in 1958, in the midst of the Algerian War of Independence when France lay under the very real threat of a military coup.
Charles de Gaulle was born in 1890 into a French middle-class family and was raised in an austere, traditionalist and very Catholic environment. He entered the military college of Saint-Cyr in 1909, fought during the First World War and was taken prisoner, and remained in the army after the war. In 1940, during the Battle for France, he commanded a tank division against the advancing German forces, and then, through his personal friendship with the Prime Minister, Paul Reynaud, managed to get himself promoted to the Under Secretary of State for Defence. However, by now the Battle for France was in its final stages. Paul Reynaud soon resigned and the aging General Pétain was asked to form a government, which he did, and thereafter he signed the Armistice with Nazi Germany which carved France into two: the North to be occupied and controlled by Nazi Germany; the south to be governed by and Pétain his government from the town of Vichy.
No matter the future crimes of the Vichy France – of which, to the Resistance, there were many – de Gaulle always saw its greatest crime as the signing of the Armistice, and that everything terrible that happened afterward, including the round up and deportation of Jews, followed on from that initial crime. De Gaulle always believed that the fight against Nazi Germany could have been continued from outside of France – from North Africa, for instance – by the French Empire.
De Gaulle escaped to England and in London (in what the Vichy Government came to see as an act of rebellion against the legitimate government of France), by sheer force of will and self-belief set himself up as the true leader of France – as the self-appointed head of the French government in exile. Naturally, without an army and with very few French people who had even heard of him, this self-appointment should have come to nothing. But the always francophile Winston Churchill, and against the advice of his ministers who continued to seek to deal with the Vichy Government, trusted his instinct and decided to back de Gaulle – a decision he would often come to regret, and a decision he for which he would never receive any thanks from de Gaulle to whom gratitude was a completely alien emotion.
The rest, as they say, is history.
In this large biography (about 760 pages of text, 120 pages of notes), Julian Jackson has produced a very impressive study of how Charles de Gaulle came to be the man who, in 1940, saw himself not only as the embodiment of France but also as the saviour of France – the only man who could return France to its rightful place in the world, who could return to France its grandeur. We are shown a man who, all through the Second World War, totally dependent on the generosity and goodwill of the United Kingdom and the United States of America, would think nothing of biting the hands that were feeding him if he thought the worldwide interests of France were being undermined by whatever Winston Churchill or Franklin Delano Roosevelt had in mind. No real or perceived slight against him was ever forgiven; for a slight against him was, indeed, a slight against France itself.
After the war, in and out of power, he would continue in the same vein, always seeking out what he thought to be France’s rightful place in the world – his determination that France be an independent nuclear power an example of this. He supported the creation of the European Economic Union but had no time for international idealists or European supranationalists. Unlike Winston Churchill who saw the world through a 19th Century lens, de Gaulle looked even further back, to the world of Louis XIV and the ancien régime. He viewed the nation state, and the conflict between nation states, as the fundamental reality governing human existence. To de Gaulle, geopolitics (or realpolitik) was everything. Therefore he had nothing much to say about ideologies such as fascism and communism. They had no real meaning to him. To put it succinctly, de Gaulle was indifferent to the nature of a regime except in relation to what the regime meant for France – an attitude which drew a certain amount of criticism to him even in those days when human rights was hardly at the top of anyone’s agenda.
As for the personal de Gaulle, we are shown his often callous and unsentimental treatment of others, the austerity of his house and surroundings in Colombey, and the touching relationship he had with his daughter Anne who suffered from Down’s syndrome. However, it is in the personal that de Gaulle just does not spring to life out of the text. This biography never quite seems to get to the heart of the man. I would like to say that this is due to the enigmatic – the author loves the word ‘gnomic’ – nature of de Gaulle himself, but the prose of this biography, though always lucid and precise, does not exactly sparkle. Maybe there was just not enough space for more personal anecdotes but surely space should have be reserved for a little wit.
The biography also suffers from the trajectory of de Gaulle’s long life, in that he came to prominence in French political life twice and therefore much had to be explained of what happened in the especially turgid world of French politics during the intervening years of the 1950s. In biographies of Winston Churchill we know we are always heading, and always colourfully, to the glory years of the Second World War – and yet in this biography de Gaulle keeps on being de Gaulle, year after year, decade after decade, until the very end of his life – as difficult, as stubborn, and as impossible to define as Gaullism itself.
Despite these shortcomings, this biography is a satisfying, if lengthy read. Though it certainly drags in places – French domestic politics, oh la la! – it has definitely been worth the effort. Though I feel it is a 4 star read, I cannot help myself awarding it 5 stars because of its clarity and because of how much I have learned. It is debatable how successful de Gaulle was in returning what he meant by grandeur to France, there can be no doubt that France still strives to carve an independent path for itself in the world (despite Macon’s mutterings about a European Defence Force) and de Gaulle still casts a very long shadow even to this very day over everything it does. For that reason alone, I recommend this book.
Charles de Gaulle was born in 1890 into a French middle-class family and was raised in an austere, traditionalist and very Catholic environment. He entered the military college of Saint-Cyr in 1909, fought during the First World War and was taken prisoner, and remained in the army after the war. In 1940, during the Battle for France, he commanded a tank division against the advancing German forces, and then, through his personal friendship with the Prime Minister, Paul Reynaud, managed to get himself promoted to the Under Secretary of State for Defence. However, by now the Battle for France was in its final stages. Paul Reynaud soon resigned and the aging General Pétain was asked to form a government, which he did, and thereafter he signed the Armistice with Nazi Germany which carved France into two: the North to be occupied and controlled by Nazi Germany; the south to be governed by and Pétain his government from the town of Vichy.
No matter the future crimes of the Vichy France – of which, to the Resistance, there were many – de Gaulle always saw its greatest crime as the signing of the Armistice, and that everything terrible that happened afterward, including the round up and deportation of Jews, followed on from that initial crime. De Gaulle always believed that the fight against Nazi Germany could have been continued from outside of France – from North Africa, for instance – by the French Empire.
De Gaulle escaped to England and in London (in what the Vichy Government came to see as an act of rebellion against the legitimate government of France), by sheer force of will and self-belief set himself up as the true leader of France – as the self-appointed head of the French government in exile. Naturally, without an army and with very few French people who had even heard of him, this self-appointment should have come to nothing. But the always francophile Winston Churchill, and against the advice of his ministers who continued to seek to deal with the Vichy Government, trusted his instinct and decided to back de Gaulle – a decision he would often come to regret, and a decision he for which he would never receive any thanks from de Gaulle to whom gratitude was a completely alien emotion.
The rest, as they say, is history.
In this large biography (about 760 pages of text, 120 pages of notes), Julian Jackson has produced a very impressive study of how Charles de Gaulle came to be the man who, in 1940, saw himself not only as the embodiment of France but also as the saviour of France – the only man who could return France to its rightful place in the world, who could return to France its grandeur. We are shown a man who, all through the Second World War, totally dependent on the generosity and goodwill of the United Kingdom and the United States of America, would think nothing of biting the hands that were feeding him if he thought the worldwide interests of France were being undermined by whatever Winston Churchill or Franklin Delano Roosevelt had in mind. No real or perceived slight against him was ever forgiven; for a slight against him was, indeed, a slight against France itself.
After the war, in and out of power, he would continue in the same vein, always seeking out what he thought to be France’s rightful place in the world – his determination that France be an independent nuclear power an example of this. He supported the creation of the European Economic Union but had no time for international idealists or European supranationalists. Unlike Winston Churchill who saw the world through a 19th Century lens, de Gaulle looked even further back, to the world of Louis XIV and the ancien régime. He viewed the nation state, and the conflict between nation states, as the fundamental reality governing human existence. To de Gaulle, geopolitics (or realpolitik) was everything. Therefore he had nothing much to say about ideologies such as fascism and communism. They had no real meaning to him. To put it succinctly, de Gaulle was indifferent to the nature of a regime except in relation to what the regime meant for France – an attitude which drew a certain amount of criticism to him even in those days when human rights was hardly at the top of anyone’s agenda.
As for the personal de Gaulle, we are shown his often callous and unsentimental treatment of others, the austerity of his house and surroundings in Colombey, and the touching relationship he had with his daughter Anne who suffered from Down’s syndrome. However, it is in the personal that de Gaulle just does not spring to life out of the text. This biography never quite seems to get to the heart of the man. I would like to say that this is due to the enigmatic – the author loves the word ‘gnomic’ – nature of de Gaulle himself, but the prose of this biography, though always lucid and precise, does not exactly sparkle. Maybe there was just not enough space for more personal anecdotes but surely space should have be reserved for a little wit.
The biography also suffers from the trajectory of de Gaulle’s long life, in that he came to prominence in French political life twice and therefore much had to be explained of what happened in the especially turgid world of French politics during the intervening years of the 1950s. In biographies of Winston Churchill we know we are always heading, and always colourfully, to the glory years of the Second World War – and yet in this biography de Gaulle keeps on being de Gaulle, year after year, decade after decade, until the very end of his life – as difficult, as stubborn, and as impossible to define as Gaullism itself.
Despite these shortcomings, this biography is a satisfying, if lengthy read. Though it certainly drags in places – French domestic politics, oh la la! – it has definitely been worth the effort. Though I feel it is a 4 star read, I cannot help myself awarding it 5 stars because of its clarity and because of how much I have learned. It is debatable how successful de Gaulle was in returning what he meant by grandeur to France, there can be no doubt that France still strives to carve an independent path for itself in the world (despite Macon’s mutterings about a European Defence Force) and de Gaulle still casts a very long shadow even to this very day over everything it does. For that reason alone, I recommend this book.
November 20, 2019
Magnificent book about a man who was great and complex. Compared with other biographies, this benefits from the large amount of material now available about de Gaulle, and by getting under his skin without losing objectivity. Many telling anecdotes . . . of course everyone will miss some of his favourites.
Question that arose from reading how appalling he was to some good people who admired him: would he have been as great a man, and accomplished as much, if he had been less of an arsehole in interpersonal relations?
Truly he "skated to where the puck was going to be" in the words of the great Wayne Gretzky, for instance in Algeria he seemed to go to the only obvious solution without declaring it. Of course you have to be good at figuring out where the puck was going to be, as he sometimes was. It helped that he seemed to have a sense of natural balance to which things would return, e.g. understanding that Yugoslavia was an artificial construct held together only by Tito, and realising that Communism in Eastern Europe was a passing phase.
Will read it again, soon.
Question that arose from reading how appalling he was to some good people who admired him: would he have been as great a man, and accomplished as much, if he had been less of an arsehole in interpersonal relations?
Truly he "skated to where the puck was going to be" in the words of the great Wayne Gretzky, for instance in Algeria he seemed to go to the only obvious solution without declaring it. Of course you have to be good at figuring out where the puck was going to be, as he sometimes was. It helped that he seemed to have a sense of natural balance to which things would return, e.g. understanding that Yugoslavia was an artificial construct held together only by Tito, and realising that Communism in Eastern Europe was a passing phase.
Will read it again, soon.
February 14, 2022
Gossipy and snarky and occasionally amusing. Well documented from letters and writings of those close to De Gaulle, this book does a particularly poor job of illuminating De Gaulle’s role in the French resistance movement during World War II. It’s a better appraisal of his role in France cutting ties with Algeria and of the protests and strikes in May 1968. I would try to see if a better biography in English exists if that’s what you’re up for (not sure if one exists, but I would certainly look before taking the plunge into this large tome). This one is anglocentric and strongly anti-Gaullist. Undoubtedly, the guy could be a massive pompous prick but there are two sides to every story and this narrative does a poor job at telling De Gaulle’s side. We get glimpses of the articulate, scholarly, cultured de Gaulle but a better look at this side of the man would have been useful. Additionally, the book does a poor job providing historical background, particularly in the World War II years.
April 15, 2022
Long read but certainly worth the effort.
Fascinating how one admires and at the same time is irritated by de Gaulle’ actions, convictions,…
This shows how difficult it is to describe from a single angle important events and personalities
De Gaulle showed at the same time contempt and respect for his surroundings. Part of his greatness is due in being so in line with rimes: symbiosis: influencing and being influence by events
Fascinating how one admires and at the same time is irritated by de Gaulle’ actions, convictions,…
This shows how difficult it is to describe from a single angle important events and personalities
De Gaulle showed at the same time contempt and respect for his surroundings. Part of his greatness is due in being so in line with rimes: symbiosis: influencing and being influence by events
Displaying 1 - 30 of 124 reviews