Chapter 327: Charles Theory

The Paris Chamber of Deputies is usually noisy and messy, and the debating members look like aunts haggling in the market, full of ugliness and lack of etiquette.

However, when Charles in military uniform appeared at the door, the entire venue fell silent instantly. Everyone paid attention to Charles and watched him walk steadily towards the podium through the passage in front of the seats.

This has never happened before, and even when Gallieni was questioned, the audience was not silent.

The expressions of the MPs varied, including appreciation and gratitude, but most of them expressed jealousy and anger.

Grevy's expression was a little complicated. Sometimes he couldn't help but think, did he really hope that Charles would never come back after going to the battlefield?

Or would it actually happen one day and he would be happy about it? I'm afraid not necessarily!

Charles stood on the podium and said, neither humble nor condescending: "Hello, gentlemen!"

Then he breathed a sigh of relief: "Finally, I don't need to talk amidst the sound of gunfire. This feels good."

The MPs laughed, and Steed took the lead in applauding, shouting: "Well done, Charles, you are the pride of France!"

Several other people also shouted:

"You defeated the Germans, the Ottomans, and you defeated the British!"

"You saved many lives, and this war!"

…

This is building momentum for Ciel.

But what they said was all the truth. Even though the MPs who opposed Charles had displeasure on their faces, they had no way to refute. They could only wait quietly for the applause and shouting to subside.

Charles took the lead and said before the MPs could ask questions:

"I'll explain why I'm here."

"I am not here to speak for myself. Changing the style and color of military uniforms will not do me any good. The factory I own does not have a textile factory, a dyeing factory, and a clothing factory that produces military uniforms."

"I am here with only one purpose, not to let our brave soldiers risk their lives for unnecessary reasons."

"It makes fighting more complicated, winning more difficult, and staying alive harder."

…

Wells, who was sitting in the middle of the seat, secretly applauded from the audience.

Very clever words, Charles stated at the beginning that he was "pledging life for the people". If anyone objected, it would be against the people and disregarding the life and death of the frontline soldiers. This "crime" is not a small one, and it will make the MPs lose their supporters instantly. Even despised by the people.

But MPs are not so easy to deal with.

Armand stood up and interrupted Charles.

"Colonel." Armand asked, "Are you objecting to the bright colors of military uniforms?"

"Yes." Ciel replied calmly.

"So." Armand said, "British military uniforms also have bright colors?"

"No," Charles replied.

Parliamentary questions are usually very simple, and MPs with ulterior motives often do not give the person being questioned time and space to explain.

"Then why was the French army in bright military uniforms victorious?" Armand asked: "But the British were completely defeated?"

The venue instantly burst into cheers:

"Yes, winning or losing has nothing to do with whether the military uniforms are bright or not."

"Perhaps bright military uniforms can bring victory more."

"This is a French tradition. Changing military uniforms means compromising with the enemy!"

…

Charles waited for them to finish shouting and replied coldly: "Gentlemen, if you think so, can I ask you to wear bright military uniforms and go to the battlefield?"

The opposing MPs were instantly weakened, and they found that no matter how they answered, it was inappropriate.

Sure, that means they're going to be on the battlefield.

To deny it is to ask others to wear bright military uniforms and fight bravely on the battlefield, while you hide behind and be a coward.

Congressman Steed and others joined in supporting Charles.

At this time, a congressman stood up and asked Charles sternly: "Colonel, do you realize that these bright colors are not only aesthetic, they can also make the soldiers' appearance look lively and cheer up. This may be the reason." The key to victory!"

"Really?" Charles smiled and asked, "Why didn't I feel it?"

"This is a subconscious thing, colonel." The congressman replied: "Red represents an impulse, it symbolizes blood, and the basic requirement of attack is impulse. It makes it easier for soldiers to rush towards the enemy with their bayonets drawn instead of being afraid or even running away. ”

Ciel seemed to understand after hearing this.

France’s Red Army hats and Red Army pants don’t seem to be as simple as “good-looking” or “bad-looking”. It is also related to France’s “offensive theory.”

To fight a war, soldiers need to be motivated to attack the enemy. What those in power want to see is for the soldiers, under the psychological suggestion of red, to charge into the enemy trenches with bayonets as soon as their heads are hot, and then win.

Charles smiled and answered rationally:

"I'm sorry, sir."

"I can tell you with certainty that in all the successful battles I have commanded, there has not been a single case where the soldiers won because of the excitement of red pants and red army caps."

"Instead, from the beginning, I ordered them to hide behind 'tanks' to save themselves."

…

Someone immediately stood up and objected: "Colonel, are you objecting to the 'offensive theory'?"

"You can say that." Ciel admitted generously.

Although opposition to the "offensive doctrine" was an anomaly during this period, this was how Pétain started.

The reason is very simple. Actual combat is the test of all truths. Otherwise, it will be useless even if you talk about it.

Everyone was shocked, even Steed fell silent.

The characteristic of parliamentarians is to follow the crowd, and the general direction at this time is still "offensive theory". They dare not go against the current easily, even if this person is Charles.

Then, the questioning turned from military uniforms to offensive theory.

"So, do you support Pétain's defensive theory?" Greve stood up and asked, with a hint of pride on his face, as if he felt that he had caught Charles' tail.

"No." Charles shook his head and denied: "I don't support defensive theory either."

This answer confused the parliamentarians in the meeting. Combat is either offense or defense. Is there an intermediate state?

But there is indeed an intermediate state, and it should be the intermediate state.

Charles replied: "Sometimes we need to attack to win, and sometimes we need defense."

Then he raised his head downward, with confidence and determination in his eyes:

"The battlefield is a very complex competition, gentlemen, and its complexity is far beyond your imagination."

"We can't hope to win all the time with simple offensive or defensive theories."

"That's just like we once thought that we could win all wars with only 75 guns. This idea will eventually fail! Whether it's offense or defense!"

The meeting suddenly fell silent.

The congressmen all thought of one thing:

Charles' military theory may be a school of its own. It is different from the traditional offensive theory and not Pétain's defensive theory.

It is Charles' theory.

Charles has always used this theory to win on the battlefield!

In other words, facts have proved that Charles' theory is correct.

What else can they refute?