Soviet-French Alliance named after de Gaulle

5 458 32
Soviet-French Alliance named after de Gaulle
A special issue of the magazine "France - USSR" dedicated to de Gaulle's visit to Moscow and his trip to Stalingrad


"For France and Russia, being united means being strong; being divided means being in danger. This is a necessary condition from the standpoint of geography, experience, and intelligence."



Sharl De Goll



great person


A great son of his people, raised in the spirit of patriotism and love for his homeland, de Gaulle recalled his youth:

I believed that the meaning of life was to accomplish an outstanding feat in the name of France, and that the day would come when I would have such an opportunity.

Charles received an excellent home and military education. A veteran of World War I, he was wounded several times. He was captured at the Battle of Verdun, attempted to escape several times, was captured, and imprisoned in a military prison. He was released only after Germany's defeat. A military teacher and theorist, he wrote several important military works, advancing the idea of ​​the rapid development of armored forces and their active cooperation with other branches of the armed forces, especially aviationHowever, his progressive ideas were not supported by the conservative generals.

Before the start of World War II he held the rank of colonel and commanded tank Regiment. Just before France's defeat, he was appointed commander of the 4th Armored Division, promoted to brigadier general, and became Deputy Minister of War. But France had already lost the war. De Gaulle, unwilling to capitulate like Pétain's government, left for London and on June 18, 1940, called for the creation of the French Resistance. He accused Pétain's government of treason and called on the French to fight the occupiers and collaborators. For this, de Gaulle was sentenced to death in Vichy France.

The general founded the "Free (later Fighting) France" movement. British Prime Minister Churchill recognized de Gaulle as the leader of all free Frenchmen. Charles began to build his forces in the vast French colonial empire.

At the same time, the French general had to contend with the United States, which wanted to establish another "tame" French government in exile. In this, he relied on Churchill, who was playing his own game, and on Moscow.

As a result, in 1943, de Gaulle was able to form the French Committee of National Liberation, in which he gained the upper hand over the supporters of General Henri Giraud (an American protégé). In 1944, the courageous general withstood pressure from the United States, which planned to remove de Gaulle's Committee from power and elect new "legitimate authorities" for France. De Gaulle formed and headed the Provisional Government in liberated France.

Ultimately, de Gaulle was able to save France from American "patronage" and restore its independence. But in 1946, he was forced to resign under pressure from domestic opposition, supported by the Americans and British. The alliance with Moscow that de Gaulle had forged became a sham. France joined NATO, participated in the aggression in Korea, and was drawn into the bitter anti-colonial wars in French Indochina.

He returned to power in 1958 as head of the French government, and in 1959, he became president. At the time, France was in the midst of a deep economic crisis and losing ground globally. Despite formidable resistance from external and internal enemies (de Gaulle faced approximately 30 assassination attempts), the president managed to reshape the outlived colonial empire into a French community of nations, while maintaining France's cultural, economic, and political influence across a significant portion of the former colonial empire.

In foreign policy, he supported an anti-American course, withdrew from the NATO military organization and the dollar system (abandoning the dollar in international transactions and switching to the gold standard). He sought friendship with the USSR and West Germany. He believed in developing a "united Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals" as a counterweight to the Anglo-American tandem.


Marshal Stalin and General de Gaulle at the signing of the Soviet-French Treaty of Alliance and Mutual Assistance. December 10, 1944. At the table is the USSR People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs Molotov, who, together with his French colleague Georges Bidault (far right), signed this historical agreement.

De Gaulle and Soviet Russia


After the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet government immediately recognized the Free French. In 1942, the decision was made to form the French Normandie squadron on the Russian Front, which was later transformed into the Normandie-Niemen regiment.

In Britain and the United States, after the war, they were planning to include France among the territories subject to occupation after the Second World War. Only Stalin's firm stance saved France from a new occupation, this time by the Anglo-Americans. At Moscow's insistence, France was included in the Anti-Hitler Coalition. Stalin insisted on a special occupation zone for France in Germany, firmly counting it among the victorious powers.

To de Gaulle's credit, he remembered all this and respected Stalin personally and Russia. He believed that Stalin had prevented post-revolutionary anarchy in Russia and created an industrial power capable of defeating Hitler's Third Reich. He rebuilt Russia so that it withstood the brutal Second World War rather than collapse like the Russian Empire in 1917. Stalin, in his view, revived "Russian sovereign principles" and its position on the world stage. He acknowledged the important contribution of communists to the Resistance movement. As head of France, he utilized Soviet achievements, particularly in the nationalization of major strategic enterprises.

De Gaulle disapproved of Khrushchev's de-Stalinization. In 1960, de Gaulle and Khrushchev met during a conference in Paris. He disliked the "corn man," considering him a "cunning little man" on the throne. Moscow had abandoned Stalin's policies at this time, so de Gaulle was no longer able to restore a full-fledged alliance.

In 1966, de Gaulle, at the invitation of Podgorny, head of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, visited the USSR for the second time. The visit lasted 11 days, and the French leader visited Leningrad, Kyiv, Volgograd, Novosibirsk, and the Baikonur Cosmodrome. He delivered a speech on the balcony of the Moscow City Council, calling for "strengthening, enriching, cherishing, and developing the friendship between France and Russia." He also received personal permission to visit Stalin's grave and laid a wreath there. An agreement was signed to expand political, economic, and cultural ties. An agreement was even reached to establish a direct communication line between Moscow and Paris.

French President Charles de Gaulle's visit to the USSR. June 1966.

Muscovites greet de Gaulle. June 1966.

The great Frenchman first visited the Union in December 1944 as head of the French Provisional Government and signed the Treaty of Alliance and Military Assistance with Stalin for 20 years. Thus, with Stalin's help, de Gaulle restored France's status as a great power and guaranteed its support against the Anglo-American tandem (shortly before the Great Power Conference in Crimea in January 1945, to which France was not invited).

As a result, France, along with the other victorious powers, accepted the surrender of Nazi Germany, and France received its occupation zones in West Germany, the western half of Berlin, and Austria. This decision was personally pushed through by Stalin. The Americans and British ignored the French altogether.

Why did Stalin support de Gaulle? He saw in the French general a man who would defend France's national interests, which differed from those of London and Washington. France and Russia, as in Napoleon's time, had no serious conflicts, but they shared common goals and interests. Therefore, supporting de Gaulle in the restoration of a great France was in the interests of the Union. And Stalin was not mistaken: de Gaulle spent his entire life trying to restore an independent and great France, thwarting the masters of the Atlantic Alliance.

Charles de Gaulle himself understood Stalin well and respected his policy of reviving a Great Russia. In his "War Memoirs," the Frenchman noted that the negotiations with the Soviet leader lasted 15 hours, and "he understood the essence of his peculiar policy, both large-scale and secretive."

Stalin, out of respect for his ally, ordered the entire Normandie Regiment to be brought to Moscow, as de Gaulle could not stay to visit the front. This allowed the leader of the Free French to greet the soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front. On the return journey, which passed through Baku, de Gaulle asked to be taken through Stalingrad as "...a gesture of respect to the Russian army, which won a decisive victory in the war there... I presented to the city council the honorary sword I had brought from France as a gift to the city of Stalingrad..."

British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden noted this important event, writing in his diary that "...within the depths of the anti-German coalition, two blocs are already forming: the Anglo-American and the Russo-French. The restoration of the national greatness of France and Russia, elevated to the level of their state policy, is the essence of the restored Russo-French friendship."

In 1950, already in retirement, de Gaulle drafted a document, "Prospects for Our Relations with Russia." In it, the general remained true to his commitment to a strategic Paris-Moscow axis. He believed this alliance would save France from being absorbed into the American empire. A French-Russian alliance could counter US policy, which was expanding into many regions of the world. De Gaulle also profoundly noted that communism in Russia was increasingly acquiring a "Russian flavor."

It's worth noting that de Gaulle understood the essence of the dollar system well. Therefore, upon becoming president, he followed Moscow's lead in converting the ruble to gold, thereby challenging the global "financial international" based in the United States. De Gaulle understood that true independence required control of one's own treasury.De Gaulle's main victory»).

In his later years, de Gaulle presciently noted that forces undermining Russia's greatness had gained ascendancy within the Soviet leadership. Specifically, they refused to build a genuine alliance between Paris and Moscow, as they had during World War II. He proved right; opportunists and mediocre figures came to power, desiring "détente" and "peaceful cooperation" with the United States. As a result, France became a junior partner of the masters of the Atlantic bloc, and the USSR collapsed.


De Gaulle at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Kyiv. June 1966.
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    20 January 2026 05: 46
    Great president, Macron should learn from him.
    1. 0
      21 January 2026 14: 12
      Macron represents a completely different wing of the French elite, hostile to de Gaulle's supporters. He is an enemy of national France. Macron is a protégé of the financial globalists.
  2. +3
    20 January 2026 06: 44
    Yes! A great man. Great! He managed to pull France out of a filthy, shameful puddle, turning Nazi Germany's greatest ally into a victorious power.
    1. +5
      20 January 2026 09: 22
      Quote: Grossvater
      A great man. Great! He managed to pull France out of a dirty, shameful puddle,

      A patriot, yes, the leader of the Resistance, but one man cannot pull out an entire disgraced country.

      It was artificially (and in vain) pulled out by Stalin, in the false hope of finding an ally, but the West has always been and will be closer than France.

      France is not a victorious power; moreover, it was an ally of Hitler, fought with its allies, and should have been punished for this, rather than receive laurels and... bread from the starving USSR in 46-47.

      De Gaulle betrayed the French in Algeria and initiated a mass migration of Algerians to southern France, the creation of their enclaves there...
    2. +3
      20 January 2026 13: 48
      Two Great Men met here – de Gaulle and Stalin. We don't know what they discussed, but they came to a mutual agreement, and that's a fact. It wasn't Comrade Khrushchev who drove France back into NATO, and that's a fact. He managed to lose influence and practically sever relations with France, China, Yugoslavia, and Albania. And that's not a complete list of countries. Truly, no one was worse than him. Perhaps Gorbachev, but he was his follower. Even I.V. couldn't completely eradicate the nits.
      1. 0
        20 January 2026 16: 16
        Quote: pin_code
        It was not Comrade Khrushchev who drove France back into NATO, and this is a fact.

        But Khrushchev deprived France of its colonies in Indochina, India, and Africa, thereby weakening NATO's resources. Even without NATO membership, France invaded Russia in 1812, 1854, and 1918. No perks or concessions can dissuade France from Russophobia. Only Russia's own strength and the military threat from its adversaries make France seem sweet and cuddly. Although many Russians fall under the influence and charm of French culture. Ilya Ehrenburg is Stalin's chief, most successful, and most intelligent propagandist, but what lines: "Why the hell did I have to..."
        Fall in love with a foreign country?.....But suddenly all the arguments fall silent,
        And I - it's only delirious -
        Like two mustachioed grenadiers
        To the far west I wander,
        And everything I once knew
        Waking up like it was yesterday
        And the red sunset sun
        Doesn't want to leave until morning."
        1. +2
          20 January 2026 16: 39
          "No perks or concessions can wean France off Russophobia." It was possible and entirely realistic. There's no need to justify Khrushchev; he doesn't deserve it. In Indochina, he simply went with the flow; otherwise, he would have been removed (he died of a heart attack). He may not have been one of ours, but he wasn't...
  3. +3
    20 January 2026 06: 55
    Napoleon, de Gaulle, Mitterrand—those were real personalities. Not like today's...
    1. +2
      20 January 2026 07: 29
      Quote: Alex013
      Napoleon, de Gaulle, Mitterrand—those were real personalities. Not like today's...

      Are you talking about macaroni? That would be something to talk about! But seriously, the "last!" (I hope not) serious French politician was Strauss-Kahn. Need I remind you what the Anglo-Saxons did to him?
      1. +3
        20 January 2026 07: 37
        The Americans didn't want a Socialist president of France with strong popular support. And so the so-called "scandals" began...
        1. +2
          20 January 2026 08: 04
          So that's the whole point! If the Anglo-Saxons decide who becomes president of France... then what can we say about Venezuela? And then what? I'll say it simply and banally: "Read Goebbels!" He laid it all out in plain English! Of course, it's not 1941 now, and their troops aren't trampling on our soil, but how they wish they could! And they do, they're just so cowardly!
      2. +2
        20 January 2026 18: 07
        He could have restrained Europe from a stupid confrontation with Russia. But "democratic" elections are now taking place all over the world. Venezuela will also be having them now...
    2. +1
      20 January 2026 16: 20
      Quote: Alex013
      Those were some real personalities. Not like today's...

      Given Russia's current weakness, they would simply be more dangerous and intelligent Russophobes than the current Macron. The Paasikivi-Kannon formula: "When Russia is strong, we must use its resources through soft diplomacy, but when it is weak, we must be prepared to pursue a tough policy against Russia using forceful methods." All the German and French businessmen Putin befriended followed this formula, but, unlike Macron and Merz, they knew how to restrain themselves in their Russophobic rhetoric."
  4. +7
    20 January 2026 08: 40
    The French drank coffee and croissants in summer cafes throughout the war, and then it turned out that they recorded as winners, and even included them as permanent members of the UN Security Council...
    1. +4
      20 January 2026 09: 31
      Quote: Luminman
      The French drank coffee and croissants in summer cafes throughout the war.

      They not only drank, but also worked brilliantly for the Hitlerite Reich, fought for it, and were Hitler's official allies.

      French and Latvian SS men defended the Reichstag in May 45.

      There was resistance in all countries, and the Greeks and Yugoslavs deserved the right to the Security Council much more than the French.
    2. +1
      20 January 2026 10: 45
      Quote: Luminman
      The French drank coffee and croissants in summer cafes throughout the war, and then it turned out that they recorded as winners, and even included them as permanent members of the UN Security Council...

      Stalin needed a counterweight to the United States and England in the UN Security Council. This is precisely why France emerged victorious, even though the French SS Charlemagne Division fought the longest for Berlin.
      1. +3
        20 January 2026 17: 45
        Quote: your1970
        Stalin needed a counterweight to the United States and England in the UN Security Council. This is precisely why France emerged victorious.
        No, it's all the work of the British. First, Churchill pulled France out of the conflict, then the Labour Party that replaced him, who were afraid of being left alone in post-war Europe against the United States and were also afraid that America would leave Europe entirely, as it did after the First World War...
        1. +1
          20 January 2026 19: 08
          Quote: Luminman
          who were afraid of being left alone in post-war Europe with the United States and were also afraid that America would leave Europe altogether

          So they were afraid that The US will leave or what The US will remain??? !!!
          1. +1
            21 January 2026 07: 13
            Quote: your1970
            So were they afraid that the US would leave or that the US would stay???!!!
            1. They feared the United States would remain and become the undisputed masters of Europe. A strong France, according to the British plan, would somehow curb American influence...
            2. If the US had withdrawn from Europe and withdrawn, as it did after World War I, a war-weakened Europe would have faced the USSR. In that case, a strong France would once again be needed...
  5. +2
    20 January 2026 09: 23
    Ultimately, de Gaulle was able to save France from American "patronage" and restore its independence. But in 1946, he was forced to resign.

    The United States did everything to remove De Gaulle and introduce American patronage in France.
  6. +3
    20 January 2026 10: 07
    Quote: Alex013
    Napoleon, de Gaulle, Mitterrand—those were real personalities. Not like today's...

    I wouldn't put de Gaulle on par with Napoleon as a great leader. There's one very simple indicator: since we, and the entire world, including the French themselves, know much more and in much greater detail about Napoleon, who lived 150 years before de Gaulle, than we do about de Gaulle, their personalities clearly don't rank in the same league.
    1. +1
      20 January 2026 10: 47
      Quote: north 2
      We all and the whole world, including the French themselves, know much more and in much more detail than about de Gaulle, and the magnitude of their personalities clearly does not stand in the same rank.

      Hmm, the whole world knows much more and in more detail about Harry Potter than about Napoleon. Does that mean he's greater than Napoleon? feel
      1. 0
        21 January 2026 03: 21
        Quote: your1970
        Hmm, the whole world knows much more and in more detail about Harry Potter than about Napoleon.

        Things are different in Russia. In 2023, 18 million rubles worth of books about him were sold in Russia. But the retail price of the set is 6000 rubles. So, only 3000 were sold. Let's say the set contains seven different books. That means a maximum of 21,000 households bought one Harry Potter book in 2023 (the set contains seven volumes, I think). For example, Colonel Marbot's memoirs were published in Russia in a print run of 4000 copies. This book is considered quite expensive and its price is comparable to the 2023 Harry Potter editions. But hundreds of authors have probably written about Napoleon in Russia.
        1. 0
          21 January 2026 06: 36
          Quote: gsev
          That is, a maximum of 21,000 families bought one Harry Potter book in 2023 (the set seems to contain 7 volumes)

          Now we multiply by 27 years + torrents + LitRes + e-readers (I downloaded books for my child on an e-reader and bought the book) = we can easily talk about at least 1 million copies.
          Colonel Marbot's memoirs—they've been read, of course, but not in such volumes. History books about bygone times are for connoisseurs.
          Children are more prone to herd mentality ("He read and I didn't? I want to, I want to!") than adults.
          1. 0
            22 January 2026 16: 59
            Quote: your1970
            Now multiply by 27 years + torrents + LitRes + e-readers

            People of different cultures raise children differently. In my circle, people of various nationalities have a fairly advanced knowledge of politics and history. Even the Afghans and Ossetians in my circle are in many ways better versed in the intricacies of the conflict between Satanovsky, Zakharova, and Lavrov than I am. I have a relative who studied at MGIMO. After an internship in Switzerland, she started talking to me about anti-personnel mines. I responded by declaring her opinion of her work profoundly flawed. The argument became heated, and my niece asked me to justify my position. At our next meeting, I told my niece that a nurse I knew who had fought in a reconnaissance unit had said that such an opinion about anti-personnel mines could lead to her leaving MGIMO. My niece twirled her finger at her temple, but six months later, she was no longer studying at MGIMO. That's why I doubted your point of view that less is known about Napoleon than about the heroes of fashionable fairy tales, because I was always convinced that people whom I did not consider educated, upon closer examination, it turns out that they simply did not flaunt their knowledge.
            1. 0
              22 January 2026 17: 17
              Quote: gsev
              That's why I doubted your point of view that less is known about Napoleon than about the heroes of fashionable fairy tales, because I was always convinced that people whom I did not consider educated, upon closer examination, it turns out that they simply did not flaunt their knowledge.

              I wasn’t talking about knowledge of history, for example (it’s impossible to know everything, especially if you work hard physically).
              For example, back in the 1980s I read total Yu. Semenov's books, published at that time, had connections in the library, and the average reader had read 2-3 books by Semenov at most.
              The 1932 "Artillery" textbook (you can learn to shoot for the entire crew - it's so brilliantly written for peasants!) has been downloaded from RuTorg 124 times over several years, "17 Moments" something like 19,000.
              There are a thousand times more books about October 1917 than about the Polish uprising of 1861.
              It's the same with knowledge - some people know Colonel Marbo, while others only know that there was the war of 1812, but at the same time they know everything in detail about the battles for the vegetable gardens of the village of Konstantinovo.
  7. +2
    20 January 2026 10: 34
    A contradictory figure. On the one hand, a great personality, a great statesman. On the other, he sometimes made strange statements, didn't have an equal grasp of everything, and certainly wasn't particularly strong in economics. Although he had good advisers in this area, and socioeconomic issues ultimately remained primarily in the hands of the government, not the president. During his last couple of years as president, he often made gaffe-laden speeches, slipping up, which drew laughter from the opposition press. And the Fifth Republic he founded isn't all that simple. This mixed, semi-presidential republic, by all accounts, has run its course. It still requires individuals of his stature, or at least of Mitterrand's, or perhaps Chirac's, to function.
  8. +1
    20 January 2026 11: 50
    Well, the author didn't provide anything interesting. Well-known facts. You always want something different... One of the results of Gaullist policy in the 60s toward the Soviet Union was that even after de Gaulle's departure in 1969, his successor, Pompidou, didn't ruin relations, despite being a Rothschild man. He maintained a balance.
    The current Rothschild in France, Macron, has destroyed everything. Although there's not much of him left. So, we wave goodbye to the Francophones, and of course, we can't forget de Gaulle.
  9. +1
    20 January 2026 13: 27
    De Gaulle was certainly a historical figure of the last century, with his own merits, but I would like to add to the criticism already expressed in other comments regarding his actions regarding Algeria. First, he went to Algiers in front of a huge crowd of French people to promise that Algeria was France. But then he betrayed them all. An article needs to be written that thoroughly explains and describes de Gaulle's change of course regarding Algeria.
  10. +1
    21 January 2026 14: 06
    I was in first grade in 1966 and lived in the side streets towards Babi Gorodok. I remember how, just before de Gaulle's arrival, all the old houses on Dimitrov Street on the embankment side were suddenly painted over, and curtains appeared on the windows. laughing Then, after the visit was over, of course, everything was demolished.
    1. 0
      5 May 2026 14: 38
      What, weren't there any habits of using curtains back then? My relatives always had them, at all times.
  11. 0
    22 January 2026 03: 31
    Thanks to the author!
    I don't like the text.
    From Marshal Stalin to Soviet Russia in 1945.
    But the provocation is not to spit, argue, or agree for the benefit of the VO rating.
    And without VO, there will be no interesting publications from Samsonov, Mitrofanov, Linnik, Shpakovsky and hundreds of other authors.
    Sorry that I didn’t mention everyone whom I sometimes reread twice!