Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

What is a truly great man?

The ambitions of Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and Mao were built of the sacrifice of millions of people. And with pitifully little to show in the aftermath. The ambition of Charles de Gaulle, however, was just to rescue his homeland France from its shattering moral and military collapse in 1940 to its present restored eminence by the time of his voluntary retirement in 1969.

The steady decline of France from Napoleonic glory to the decadent surrender of Petain and Vichy stimulated De Gaulle, a minor officer and voice out large at the time, to take refuge in London and, with just a few supporters, to emerge in 1944 as the undisputed personification of France. How did he do it? This is then the subject of the new movie on him with the title The Battle of de Gaulle of which the first part is released in June.

Julian Jackson's book "A Certain Idea of France: The Life of Charles de Gaulle" beforehand written, gives a terrific portrait of De Gaulle's bloody-minded, intransigent and at times self-defeating promotion of France as a great nation is fascinating and very well written. He towered like the vast granite dolmen that he physically resembled over his contemporaries and, by the end, succeeded in establishing the 5th Republic (which endures), freeing Algeria and rebutting communism.

The recent French movie that was directed by Antonin Baudry and divided into two chapters, respectively subtitled "The Iron Age" and "I Write Your Name", is an adaptation of parts of Jackson's book. It revisits De Gaulle's life between May 1940 (Battle of Montcornet) and 1944 (Liberation of Paris), the first chapter focusing on the period 1940-1942 and the second on the years 1943-1944. In short, it's a sweeping two-part historical saga and geopolitical thriller that plunges the audience into the decisive hours of World War II through the eyes of General Charles de Gaulle and the men and women who refused to surrender when the French nation collapsed.

June 1940. France collapses and signs the armistice. In the midst of the chaos, one man refuses to give up. Alone against all odds, this unknown general flees to London to save what remains of freedom. Without an army, without support, without hope. But with an irrational conviction: France, his France, has not laid down its arms. Taking the ultimate gamble, he seeks to convince the world that the battle for France is neither over nor lost. Reality, however, is unshakeable and seems determined to prove him wrong. Yet, little by little, resistance fighters, rebellious students, and determined soldiers rise up in England, France, and Africa to join the cause.

In only six weeks time in the early summer of 1940, France was over-run by German troops and quickly surrendered. The French government of Marshal Pétain sued for peace and signed an armistice. One little-known junior French general though, the most junior general in the French Army at the time, refuses to accept defeat and makes his way to England. On 18 June he spoke to his compatriots over the BBC, urging them to rally to him in London. 'Whatever happens, the flame of French resistance must not be extinguished and will not be extinguished.' At that moment, Charles de Gaulle entered into history.

For the rest of the war, De Gaulle frequently bit the hand that fed him. He insisted on being treated as the true embodiment of France, and quarrelled violently with Churchill and Roosevelt. He was prickly, stubborn, aloof and self-contained. But through sheer force of personality and bloody-mindedness he managed to have France recognised as one of the victorious Allies, occupying its own zone in defeated Germany. For ten years after 1958 he was President of France's Fifth Republic, which he created and which endures to this day

[media=https://youtu.be/TXRfaZ6QZ78]

[media=https://youtu.be/DYa5pQPflcY]

[media=https://youtu.be/HQghr9JcyW4]
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Munumbis · 46-50, M
The greatest men are men of science. Like the legend of Merlin they alter the very nature of the world it's self. They change the very nature of man making him immune to terrible plagues and feeding him where he would have starved. Such men hold the power of the sun it's self in their hands. The codebook of life opens at their command. Few even know their names. The masses do not realize that often they live only because of them.
val70 · 56-60
@Munumbis Can you actually believe in both? The ultimate power of a science that shouldn't be questioned and then a legend that is both fleety in its meaning and entirely not exact as science should be?
Munumbis · 46-50, M
@val70 Scientists weild more power than anyone. Not from high office but often from a garage.
val70 · 56-60
@Munumbis Agreed. But what power do we need? Isn't there something called morality that is science's master? One just can't say that everything is Esotericism what actually doesn’t mean The Occult but rather a ‘secret knowledge for a small group of people’
Munumbis · 46-50, M
@val70 Morality is probably a sense more or less. It had to have evolved. Probably a way to live in social groups. People evolved a sense of what's actually fair and what's not. We have eyes so we don't bump into things. They let us see the world around us. The universe has all kinds of laws. Up down left right. Eyes let us see which is which. Morality is mechanical like that. Fair unfair good evil and so on. It lets us see these laws of the universe or enough to get by.
val70 · 56-60
@Munumbis Oh gosh, one senses or feels morality then? Nah, don't think that will go well
Munumbis · 46-50, M
@val70 We have a conscience. If we do wrong we feel guilt. We also think about morality but we definitely do have a moral sense deeper down.
val70 · 56-60
@Munumbis What did that conscience form then? What strain of DNA?
Munumbis · 46-50, M
@val70 I'm not sure myself but there are theories if evolutionary psychology. The fact we can sense what is fair and what is not shows we have a moral sense. How else would anyone feel things like guilt or pity?
val70 · 56-60
@Munumbis Evolutionary psychology has what origin then? Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection in the 19th century. Oh yes, in his own autobiography he stated: "in my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God"
Munumbis · 46-50, M
@val70 So?
val70 · 56-60
@Munumbis The existance of a God points to the fact that anything written down since the 19th century doesn't mean anything different than the writings from ages ago pondering on the same subject matter. If human beings would have created God for their own use, well, they won't have bothered with writing anything till Darwin wrote his theory down. Somehow thinking didn't start with Darwin. That I do know for certain
Munumbis · 46-50, M
@val70 I'm an atheist I don't have a religious code that I live by.