Dopotutto de Gaulle era sulla relazione US-Europe? – The Sunday Guardian Live
di Crossstoney
Dopotutto de Gaulle era sulla relazione US-Europe? – The Sunday Guardian Live
di Crossstoney
7 commenti
Even irregardless of the insane plethora of ads – this article stinks kind of *brown shirt* to me, if you know what I mean.
Be vigilant reading this if you choose to. Some Euroscepticism thinly veiled behind very valid and and relevant ideas of De Gaulle
A broken clock is also right twice a day.
Possibly. But eighty years of Pax Westernia suggests without alliances and economic entanglement we will never know if he was right.
Frankly [heh] he could have accomplished very little on the economic prosperity side had France truly been an independent and self-sufficient power.
You may as well ask if Churchill was right that without European coherence Europe would be forever weak.
History supports Churchill more than De Gaulle. Quick reminder: Churchill anticipated WW1 and WW2. He anticipated the cold war would graduate to a hot war but without as much military exposure. He also anticipated the stupidiocy that was Brexit.
Otherwise Europe would not be in its current intentionally weakened forward and defensive capabilities both economic and military. French grandiosity is no more compelling than Soviet grandiosity. Both are bygone relics.
Apparently Pax Americana has also become a bygone relic. So no, De Gaulle was not right in retrospect (or even then contemporary thought). Unless the definition of right is Europe will always choose a quick sugar high.
I do not believe that to be true anymore.
He was absolutely right about self-determination and self-preservation, true national sovereignty. It stands in stark contrast to the EU’s push toward a federal system that sidelines the independence of its member states.
It could have just been protectionism, to keep all the French jobs/r&d/manufacturing in France.
It’s not like the EU countries aren’t doing exactly the same now with the new defence fund. /s
I mean, ironically, De Gaulle and Trump/Vance would’ve agreed on exactly the same things just for their own countries. De Gaulle didn’t want a united Europe, he wanted one where France had the leverage and was making decisions. He resented American power and influence because he wanted it replaced with French power and influence, not because he believed in some federalized equal European state.
I don’t mean this in a negative way, but France advocates for unity when it benefits their power and fights against it when it doesn’t. They look out for themselves first and foremost; and while there’s nothing wrong with that, this attitude that De Gaulle wanted Europe to be powerful in the way many here do is just not really true
You cannot drag a 70 year old prediction and claim it was spot on. That is like stock market gurus predicting the market will crash. Yes, we know it will crash every decade or two, always has.
What happens right now is very different to what was going on during Gaulle’s time which may have some different truths to it, but France and in case of Suez UK were particularly butthurt about the idea of giving back colonies and not be seen as Great Powers anymore. In case of France also a strong compensation due to the events of ww2.
Without Trump’s dismantling of the American world order and replace it with a very Chinese/Soviet looking one most European countries would have been fine to stay within the American world order because the US benefits were compensated by benefits for partner countries.