That’s exactly right; de Gaulle was spot on, and very surprised that Churchill couldn’t understand this. Churchill understood the requirement for Britain to recognise its glory, but failed to allow the same for France. Why? Probably because during the war years Churchills fixation was winning the war, whereas for de Gaulle it was winning the peace
Yes, it's a superb book, putting you into de Gaulle's shoes. I also had no idea of what situation he was in at the time - and quite clearly Churchill and others on the allied side had no idea either. Maybe it might make sense to say that he very effectively applied *military* ideas to the political sphere: using what resources he had available (his intransigence and an 'idea of France') to best effect on the battlefield on which he found himself?
D Gaulle had to carry himself with all the prestige of the dowager of ancient lineage who had fallen on hard times, with nothing but her name left to her. But her name was everything, and she wielded it like a sword. Her name was her past, and her future, even though it wasn't her present. Her poverty was not going to deny her her rightful place amongst the aristocracy from which she hailed, and from which her children would one day return. Jackson's illumination for me was in recognising that in de Gaulle's military poverty he refused to become subservient to anyone else, least of all those countries with which France would one day again compete. It is strange that, at the time, Churchill never understood this, and it was a concept that he was perfectly equipped mentally to accede.
A really interesting comment. I think that's a good comparison. It reminds me of how de Gaulle once damned Churchill as 'not very intelligent'. This is perhaps what he was referring to: the inability to identify with humiliation and dishonour which, as you say, Churchill should have been able to grasp. Perhaps he felt he had other things to concern himself with.
One of the motions Put to labour conference delegates on scrapping reps due to minority special interests being represented by their own rep
It was a good debate based on how other groups wanted more than their fair share of influence
Labour conference in 2018’conference proposed launching more bame Reps women reps Etc there’s no such thing It just was a way The Corbynites Get They Could get more of a voice On which Wing to have their reps to have their identity politics votes to get To go in over their progressive Identity Politics over Everyone else
That’s exactly right; de Gaulle was spot on, and very surprised that Churchill couldn’t understand this. Churchill understood the requirement for Britain to recognise its glory, but failed to allow the same for France. Why? Probably because during the war years Churchills fixation was winning the war, whereas for de Gaulle it was winning the peace
A Certain Idea of France resonated deeply with me and allowed me to see de Gaulle's attitude to the Allies for what it was for the first time.
Yes, it's a superb book, putting you into de Gaulle's shoes. I also had no idea of what situation he was in at the time - and quite clearly Churchill and others on the allied side had no idea either. Maybe it might make sense to say that he very effectively applied *military* ideas to the political sphere: using what resources he had available (his intransigence and an 'idea of France') to best effect on the battlefield on which he found himself?
D Gaulle had to carry himself with all the prestige of the dowager of ancient lineage who had fallen on hard times, with nothing but her name left to her. But her name was everything, and she wielded it like a sword. Her name was her past, and her future, even though it wasn't her present. Her poverty was not going to deny her her rightful place amongst the aristocracy from which she hailed, and from which her children would one day return. Jackson's illumination for me was in recognising that in de Gaulle's military poverty he refused to become subservient to anyone else, least of all those countries with which France would one day again compete. It is strange that, at the time, Churchill never understood this, and it was a concept that he was perfectly equipped mentally to accede.
A really interesting comment. I think that's a good comparison. It reminds me of how de Gaulle once damned Churchill as 'not very intelligent'. This is perhaps what he was referring to: the inability to identify with humiliation and dishonour which, as you say, Churchill should have been able to grasp. Perhaps he felt he had other things to concern himself with.
What’s this
Nuerodiverse thing
I’ve heard dislexia is called a mental health issue now
don’t let mental health define you a disabilities officer who was ignored as a enbaressing relative who they didn’t want at meetings
One of the motions Put to labour conference delegates on scrapping reps due to minority special interests being represented by their own rep
It was a good debate based on how other groups wanted more than their fair share of influence
Labour conference in 2018’conference proposed launching more bame Reps women reps Etc there’s no such thing It just was a way The Corbynites Get They Could get more of a voice On which Wing to have their reps to have their identity politics votes to get To go in over their progressive Identity Politics over Everyone else
Dear Ben
Labour conference are
Debating scrapping things like womens
rep , a young rep , lgbt rep BaME rep
something you
Mentioned labour should do at the battle of
ideas a year ago
It’s a shame that those who are opposing this at conference
These catergories are meaningless and that by boxing in catergories
it ties those catergories to those who happen to fit in Those groups are expected to have associated with them
those pretend defined categories views
Regards
John Reid