Display:
Both BHL and Friedman are people who drive me nuts even if when I do agree with them. There's something to their style of expressing themselves that is maddening.

With that said, de Gaulle was about as authoritarian as a person can be and still be a democratic leader. Hostility to de Gaulle in the US is often driven by his independence, but that's a separate issue.

On Italy - did the CIA really care one way or another about what was going on as long as the communists were kept firmly out of power? De Gondi could probably answer that question, but my impression was that they didn't - whatever it took, with the help of whoever was available, but beyond that? What I mean is I'm not sure if it's accurate to describe the CD and assorted helpers as simply CIA puppets. More willing allies who represented a significant fraction of Italian society and who were what they were.

by MarekNYC on Fri Feb 9th, 2007 at 04:45:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
De Gaulle was certainly authoritarian (and no idol of mine), but immediately post-war (he was then out of power till 1958) his main drive was to ensure the independence of France. Not to be a quasi-dictator, as Roosevelt believed he would be.

The motive in Italy was to keep the Commies out, yes. But I think there was a great deal of CIA-CD connivance (with a Mafia connection on the other side, so to speak).

Friedman's way of writing? Just look at that c alliteration up there. He forgot caviar. (Sort of thing BHL would remember...)

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Feb 9th, 2007 at 05:01:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series