readx; Britain and the United States formally agreed to form an offensive and defensive alliance, and the pressure on the Soviet Union was relatively great. Because in terms www.biquge.info of strength, Britain and the United States together account for almost half of the world's industrial and economic capacity, and if France, which is also a NATO country, is counted, then this alliance system of Britain, the United States and France has almost an overwhelming advantage.

Looking at the allies on the side of the Soviet Union, they are almost a group of poor brothers and bitter brothers, with this group of bitter haha, how can they fight with Britain, the United States, France and other rich and handsome?

Anyway, in terms of strength, the gap is indeed very large, and if the Soviet Union allows this alliance to encircle and suppress itself, it will indeed be more dangerous. It's just that how could Li Xiaofeng be restrained? In the international community, it is an inevitable routine to cooperate vertically and horizontally, and if we do not follow this routine, there is really only a dead end.

Li Xiaofeng didn't want to die, so when Britain and the United States were getting closer, he also began to make arrangements in advance, and it was unrealistic and impossible to break up the alliance between Britain and the United States. So in this regard, Li Xiaofeng's efforts were not in vain. But in the NATO bloc there is not only Britain and the United States, but also France, which does not seem so important.

At the end of World War II, France was relatively close to the Soviet Union, and once fiercely pitted Britain and the United States, but with the economic recession and the resignation of De Gaulle, the situation changed 180 degrees, and began to abandon the Soviet Union and throw itself into the arms of the United States. As a result, many agreements between the Soviet Union and France in the early postwar period came to naught, and most of Li Xiaofeng's efforts were in vain.

However, Li Xiaofeng was not too anxious at the time, because he knew the French too well, at best the French were very romantic and more emotional in doing things, but at worst the French were more profligate. Especially in the post-war period, because World War II was won, the French people's national mood was more excited, as long as everything rose to the height of the nation and the country, then wait to see a good show!

What kind of drama are you watching? Naturally, it is a good show for the Americans, and it has been said before that the fundamental purpose of the United States to aid France is not to help France rise again, but to control France. The essence of the Marshall Plan was to control Europe. The French Fourth Republic received the so-called aid of the United States in its entirety, and France paid a certain price for life-saving money.

Logically speaking, this is acceptable, but the proud people of France do not see it that way, and it can be seen from the later public opinion polls that the French people are the few in Europe who believe that American aid is not the fundamental reason for helping France recover its economy, but that it is precisely because of the so-called aid received by the United States that France has lost its political independence and autonomy.

You see, the French really don't buy the American account, in fact, the French don't buy anyone's account, they are proud and they only think they are the best, in fact, from the very beginning the French did not have a good impression of the Fourth Republic, to understand this, we must first look at how the Fourth Republic was born.

It should be said that the Fourth Republic was very deformed from the beginning of its birth, and in January, France held its first post-war referendum with the overwhelming majority of citizens. He advocated abandoning the 1875 constitution and creating a new one.

But what kind of constitution do the French really need? For example, General de Gaulle, who was the head of the provisional government at the time, strongly opposed the implementation of a multi-party system and a parliamentary system in France, believing that this would lead to the weakness of state power. He advocated the adoption of a new constitution by a vote of all citizens and the establishment of a presidential bourgeois republic, with the president taking all the power alone, in order to improve the administrative capacity of the government.

It's just that de Gaulle's ideals are very full, but the reality is very skinny, de Gaulle can't control the situation at all, and the French*, the Socialist Party and the People's Republican Party, which have risen in the Resistance, won many votes and seats in the Constituent Assembly elections this month, becoming the three major parties in Parliament.

De Gaulle, on the other hand, was the head of government, but he had no power in parliament. The parties in the Constituent Assembly did not agree with de Gaulle's proposal, and they called for the establishment of a parliament with supreme power and a multi-party parliamentary republic. Even de Gaulle's claims failed to find support among the French people. The French people, suffering from the war and the suppression of German fascism, longed for freedom after the war. By asking for more self. As a result, there is strong resistance to the idea of strengthening the power of the government. In this context, de Gaulle's words say that France "inevitably has to return to the old ways of parliamentarism." ”

Let's put it this way, this Fourth Republic is actually not much different from the Third Republic, it is almost a replica of the Third Republic. More crucially, the Fourth Republic's constitutional amendments have not yielded satisfactory results. The new constitution adopted this month was not widely accepted by the French people, and it was actually passed by a narrow margin, with about 9 million French people voting in favor of the new constitution, 8 million against it, and another 8 million abstaining.

In the words of de Gaulle, the attitude of the French towards the new constitution was: "One-third of the French are resigned to fate, a third are against it, and a third do not understand it at all." ”

According to the new constitution, France is a parliamentary republic, and the power of the parliament is quite large, so what does this new parliament look like?

The National Assembly is made up of various political parties representing the interests of different classes or social groups. At that time, there were many parties in France, and there was never a stable majority. During the Fourth Republic, the National Assembly consisted mainly of six parties or political blocs of almost equal strength - namely, the Socialist Party, which represented the interests of the petty bourgeoisie, and the People's Republican Party, which had the broad masses of Catholics as its main social pillar. the main party), France*, which represents the interests of the working class, the Radical Socialist Party (Radical Party), which represents the interests of the middle class, the French People's Alliance led by Charles de Gaulle, and the traditional conservatives.

In addition to this, there are also some small political parties such as the Democrats. The Main Socialist Resistance League, the Bzedeists, the Self-Socialist Resistance League, the Socialist Resistance Union, the Socialist Resistance Union, the Socialist Resistance Union by Republicans and Independents, among others. Unlike countries such as Britain and the United States, the political parties in France have a relatively short history, and due to internal divisions and the narrowness of the interests they represent, they "have not taken root in society as a whole and have no support." This is illustrated by the abstention of a number of elected deputies in the elections to the National Assembly.

Since no single party has an absolute majority in Parliament, it is difficult for parties to reach a consensus on the policies proposed by the Government, and Parliament is often paralyzed by endless debates. The multi-party nature of the National Assembly dictates that the Cabinet is usually composed of a mixture of several different parties (the so-called coalition government). Due to internal differences of opinion and mutual conflict, the cabinet can be overthrown by a simple vote at any time (it seems that France also applies to the immutable truth that one monk carries water to eat, two monks carry water to eat, and three monks have no water to eat).

After his resignation, de Gaulle quipped: "And these votes are often only expressed by those who cannot wait to become ministers".

After de Gaulle's resignation, the three major political parties in the French Constituent Assembly*, the Socialist Party and the People's Republican Party, signed a three-party agreement on the formation of a government, and the period of three-party coalition government began. But this coalition was short-lived, and soon the three-party coalition broke down and he was expelled from the government.

After that, the period of the "third power" was opened. The third force, the centrist forces, includes the Socialists, the Radical Socialist Party and the Popular Republican Party, which oppose both the left* and the right-wing French People's Alliance, and advocate a centrist alliance between the two. But the composition of the centrist is in constant flux, and it is "a very unstable coalition of various interest groups". In February 1950 the Socialist Party withdrew from government and joined the opposition. The People's Republican Party suffered a crushing defeat in the 1951 elections, and the "third force" fell apart. In this way, the struggle between the various parties that are evenly matched has plunged the National Assembly, the centre of power of the country, into endless squabbling. At the same time, the constant division and alliance between the various political parties has led to frequent changes in the cabinet of the government (anyway, the ministers in the cabinet do not work for long, and the average term of office is pitifully short).

The Government, which is subject to strict constraints from Parliament, has found it difficult to draw up a set of long-term national plans and to put them into practice. As a result, issues that require a long time to solve, such as schools, housing, transportation, and social welfare, are backlogged and postponed by the government. For major issues related to national security and foreign policy, the government often adopts an ostrich-like evasion policy for fear of mishandling it and leading to an attack by parliament. The Gay administration has openly advocated a "non-action" approach in an attempt to circumvent difficulties rather than face up to contradictions and solve problems. The parliamentary multi-party system severely limited the government's executive capacity, and Edgar Edgar, who had only been prime minister for 40 days, was the prime minister. Faure complained deeply. "Parliamentarism is simply intolerable for heads of government," he noted,...... The policies he pursues are rarely his own. In other words, the policy he pursues is nothing more than a compromise between what he wants and what he fears to smash everything. ”

The Government's administrative capacity is limited, and a host of social, economic, political and diplomatic problems are not resolved in a timely manner, making it a target for the opposition in general, in particular. The change of cabinet is only a stopgap measure to alleviate discontent, and will not help to solve the fundamental political crisis in the country.

Think about it, can the French be satisfied with such a painful state? Moreover, at that time, France not only had internal problems, but also faced external problems no less than those of Britain, and also had to face the tide of colonial liberation. The demand for national independence by the colonial people has become an irresistible and powerful historical trend. In Indochina, Madagascar in Africa, Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria, there were many voices against French colonial rule. The French colonizers carried out a frenzied and brutal repression of the national independence movement in the colonies. However, the barbaric acts of the colonizers could only arouse greater anger and resistance among the colonial people. Under the stubborn struggle of the colonial people, the French army was defeated and suffered heavy losses.

These failures not only wasted a lot of money, but also deepened the army's dissatisfaction with the government, which generally believed that the government had betrayed them, and when they were "fighting bloodily", the government easily succumbed to international pressure and gave up a lot of the interests of the French people.

In other words, at this time, the French Fourth Republic was already a bit stormy, the internal party struggle was a mess, nothing could be done, and externally it was under pressure from the Soviet Union and the United States, and it was defeated again and again on the colonial issue, coupled with the fact that the economy was still sluggish and social welfare could not be guaranteed, it can be said that the fall of the Fourth Republic was only a matter of time.

Historically, the Fourth Republic was crumbling until 1959 before it was overthrown by de Gaulle, and in this time and space, because the Soviet Union exerted more pressure, and De Gaulle was much stronger than in history, the fall of the Fourth Republic was faster and more sudden, and all that was needed was a fuse.

In fact, it was not just one fuse that detonated the French Fourth Republic, but three, Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. Comrades who are familiar with the history of World War II will soon feel that these three places are familiar, and they are not the three locations of Operation Torchlight.

That's right, in order to reduce the difficulty, Operation Torch deliberately selected three French colonies in North Africa to carry out the operation. Objectively speaking, Operation Torch opened the prelude to the opening of new battlefields and strategic counteroffensives by the Allies, but colleagues also shook the French rule in these three areas to varying degrees.

After the victory of World War II, the national liberation movements in these three parts rose one after another, together with Vietnam, which made the French anxious, and in the post-war economic tension, in order to quell the rebellion in the colonies, the Fourth Republic had to continue to increase military spending, which made the French people, who were already very poor in social welfare, unbearable.

From a practical point of view, the French should choose to cut the flesh, or be smarter to learn from the successful experience of Britain, and abandon the colonies while retaining some contradictions and conflict points, so as to play with both sides of the conflict, so as to achieve the goal of divide and rule.

It's a pity that the pride of the French made them not accept the British approach, they chose to be tough against tough, and they threw their lives into encircling and suppressing the insurgents, and in the end the money was spent and was scolded by the international community, and in the end they got nothing.

Of course, this is a long-term process in history, and it was only in the mid-to-late fifties that Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia opened up. However, it was in history, and in this time and space, an immortal secretly greatly strengthened the footsteps of these three pieces...... (To be continued.) )