De Gaulle: The Rebel 1890-1944

It's probably too early to write a good scholarly biography of De Gaulle. "The test of time" might require centuries; and the truth about highly questionable individuals -- Alexander Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Dishonest Abe Lincoln, Henry VIII Tutor, and William III of Orange and then men of 1688 -- is flatly denied centuries later by would-be hagiographers, ideological propagandists, and molders of plaster saints. It might be too early because De Gaulle, like Eisenhower, so carefully guarded his private life -- who was always an actor on a stage, playing the self-created role of "General de Gaulle" -- that we're likely not to get the "inside view" of the man anytime soon. Perhaps just as well, he himself quoting, in _Le Fil de l'Épée_ that "no man is a hero to his valet". It might be too early also for the simple reason that the French State doesn't open their files to historians for 50 years. The author of this two volume study is a journalist, not a historian; yet given a time when the university is swamped with the plague of Cultural Marxists and Sixty-Eighters, maybe it takes a journalist to do the job. That said, the two volumes of this work are probably the best biography that we have so far, at least in English. A pity that it could not have been published as the French edition in 3 vols. One would have wish a bit more about the first 50 years of his life, and more about his views on strategy and command of the military. How close was he to Petain in the 20s? To Charles Maurras? Did he really wish the restoration of the Monarchy? The 2nd vol begins to run thin with the events of 68, as one ought expect for a work published when it was. Still, the best most complete study so far, to be put alongside Daniel J. Mahoney's study of De Gaulle's political philosophy, _De Gaulle: Statesmanship, Grandeur, and Modern Democracy_, to say nothing of De Gaulle's war memoirs and _Mémoires d'Espoir_. André Malraux's _Les Chênes qu'on abat_ is worth a look. At the risk of being a hagiographer myself, my own rationale why one can't read enough about this man follows: The Greatest Man of the 20th Century, who saved his country not once but four times from disaster and shame: 1940, 1958, Algeria 1962, and 1968. A man who gave his country its first workable constitution since 1789. They say the cemeteries are full of people who thought they were indispensable; the cemetery at Colombey-les-Deux-Églises holds one. And when the French rejected him in 1946, he left power to prove to them that they indeed couldn't get along without him; by 1969 his constitution was strong enough to survive without him, and has done well for 50 years. So yes, an arrogant man, but with much to be arrogant about. He had a respect for two other arrogant yet right men: Churchill and MacArthur. He was said to have thought of himself as St. Joan of Arc; if so, he wasn't far off the mark. And he ruled without trampling on human rights or democracy (1958

the three volumes in french called le rebelle le politique and le souverain are not avauilable here in two books called the rebel and the ruler. both great works .

Although De Gaulle's entries have the ring of memoirs written after the event, they may well have been spoken. Fateful moments tend to evoke grandeur of speech, especially in French parlance. The General has always been a reference for Middle East scholars and politicians alike ........... Jean Lacouture is a great writer, and I love to read his books.

An excellent work, it paints a harsh portrait of de Gaulle. A brave man with physical courage to go, he was possibly one of the greatest military thinkers in history. But he was vain, socially and politically unskilled, and an extremely poor judge of those on whom he depended to fulfill his ambitions: Churchill and, especially, Roosevelt. Unable to gauge these two, or to assess their intentions from their side of the table, he stumbled from miscalculation to miscalculation. Only the greater mistakes of others like Giraud and the fact that most of France was sidelined by occupation and collaboration gave him the opportunities he used and these none too successfully. Worse for de Gaulle, he could not see, as Roosevelt did so clearly, that post war France would have no greater status than a large U.S. state. Roosevelt toyed with de Gaulle as he would have toyed with any the state governor hopeful seeking his attention. De Gaulle neither understood this nor forgave it. Neither has France.

This is an excellent volume on the life of the great French Leader. This book chronicles the early years including DeGaulle's time as a German Prisoner of War during World War I. The book concludes with DeGaulle's triumphant return to Paris after the liberation in 1944 and is hailed as a national hero. While DeGaulle is really a controversial world figure, he is still a person of great historical importance in the world and France in particular. This book is a great read and is well researched and presented. A must read for anyone who wants to know about the life of Charles DeGaulle.