Then what was his aim in having them partake in the riots? To topple a government through rioting doesn't seem like something a Legalist would do. And has your depiction of what happened in 1934 changed his personality from what it was IRL?
The riots originated in massive demonstrations organized by the rightist leagues (and the Communists) to protest the involvement of politicians and officials in the "Stavisky affair" financial scandal. It was not a coup attempt, but rather a mass demonstration, demanding the immediate ousting of various ministers, that degenerates into full-blown riots. That riots ensured was a probability, but not, or at least not for every party involved, a certainty. The level of organization shown by the Croix de Feu is proof that de La Rocque expected violent clashes with the police, but that he made sure certain limits were not crossed also convinces me the Croix de Feu were not there to stage a coup, Fascist or not.
I thought that was what you're doing
"Abortion is a crime, mumblegrumble, socialized medicine is akin to Stalinism! Mumbmemumble....damn libruls!"
Well, if Austria's De La Rocque's devil...
It certainly is, in the alliance family, "that cousin we never talk about".
Though it'll be interesting to see how France and the UK will treat each other once WWII starts.
With extreme caution most probably, in traditional Anglo-French manner.
Yes, I'd like to ask you what exactly happened in France from 1920-1958, but that's a pretty big question.
Particularly if you expect me to be exact about it!
I don't know, things like fact-checking and suchlike are a lot easier with proper books, and the bias becomes easier to spot when the author isn't some anonymous guy on the internet.
On the other hand one might feel it easier to question a Wikipedia page than books written by A. J. P. Taylor or Robert Paxton.
One who was so clear-sighted about Fascism's failures as an ideology and as a system of government that he probably wouldn't be one.
Yup. Also, if the way they run their own political movement is an indication of how politicians prepare to run the country, the Croix de Feu certainly didn't qualify for a Fascist movement.
You seem to connect republicanism with democracy. Was or is there any French monarchist movements (to the extent that they exist today) that held a positive view on things like democracy and the Enlightenment?
You could say what's left of French Monarchism today probably holds positive views on such things, mostly because pretending to overturn democracy and enlightenment would be like King Canute ordering the tide to stop.
At the time, basically the answer is 'no'. The Monarchist Action Française considered things like democracy, enlightenment, or social rights as the very cause of French decline. The "Gueuse" first had to die, and then magic pixie fleur-de-lys dust would make the world a better place.
What was the opinion of Petain amongst the generation born between 1880 and 1900 and when and why did it begin to change? Was it just the collaboration with der Böhmische korpral?
It's no coincidence that Reynaud wanted Pétain in his government, nor that so many people felt they could trust him blindly, for Pétain was basically the next best thing to sliced bread. The victor of Verdun, the man who had won the war, the man who had dared put a stop to stupid communiqué offensives, the general officer who cared for the soldier's plight, the most decorated soldier (something that held weight in a country where one man - and therefore one voter - out of two had been a veteran). To think that he could betray? Work with Germany? Impossible! And you have the age factor - the old patriarch, everybody's grandaddy, the old sage...
But how willing would a French Nationalist be to collaborate with the British, particularly after events like Mers-el-Kébir?
Certainly with great difficulty, particularly considering how futile the operation was. It's a real miracle it didn't backfire badly, sending VIchy straight into Hitler's bed.
When all was said and done, though, they probably considered the core issue was not so much the Royal Navy shelling Mers-el-Kébir, but rather the Wehrmacht occupying France.
And dies in 1946, about sixty years before a sociopathic French paper-pusher says "Hmm..." and starts writing about him
Fortunately for the late Colonel's place in posterity, he first caughtd the attention of
real historians like Jacques Nobécourt!
What intrigued me most in the Croix de Feu was the proto-Gaullist ideas, and the fact that, if I wanted to think up a "might-have-been" 1939 France, at least de La Rocque was blazing new ground.
And as a final question, will France's colonies appear in any updates anytime soon?
I'll answer this with a resounding "yes", and pretty soon it will be, at least for one of them. It's time for this man to step forth :
(And no, he didn't belong to the Cagoule or any shady group in the 1930s!)
Uploaded with
ImageShack.us
Edit: Oh, and did they meet?
I have no idea. Logic would dictate that if they were in Poland at the same time (1921) they did, at least socially. It's funny how these little coincidences pop up, sometimes.
