Chapter 327: Ciel Theory

The Paris Chamber of Deputies is usually noisy and messy. The arguing members look like middle-aged women bargaining in the vegetable market, with ugly behavior and no manners.

However, when Charles, dressed in military uniform, appeared at the door, the entire venue fell silent instantly. Everyone looked at Charles and watched him walk steadily toward the podium through the aisle in front of the seats.

This was an unprecedented situation, and even when Gallieni was questioned, the whole audience was not silent.

The expressions of the congressmen varied, some were appreciative, some were grateful, but more were jealous and angry.

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

Or if this really happens one day, will he be happy about it? I'm afraid not!

Charles stood on the podium and said in a neither humble nor arrogant manner: "Hello, gentlemen!"

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

The MPs laughed, and Steed led the applause, shouting: "Well done, Charles, you are the pride of France!"

Several others followed suit and shouted:

“You defeated the Germans, the Ottomans, and the British!”

"You saved many lives, and this war!"

…

This is to build momentum for Charles.

But what they said was true. Even though the MPs who opposed Charles looked unhappy, they had no way to refute. They could only wait quietly for the applause and shouting to subside.

Charles spoke first, before the councillors could ask any 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 benefit me in the slightest. I own no textile mill, no dyeing mill, and certainly no clothing factory that produces military uniforms."

"I am here for one purpose only, to prevent our brave soldiers from risking their lives unnecessarily."

"It will make fighting more complicated, winning more difficult, and staying alive more difficult."

…

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

It was a very clever rhetoric. Charles stated at the beginning that he was "speaking for the people". If anyone opposed it, it would be like going against the people and disregarding the lives of the soldiers on the front line. This "crime" is not a small one. It would make the congressman lose supporters in an instant and even be spurned by the people.

But the MPs are not so easy to deal with.

Armand stood up and interrupted Charles.

"Colonel," Armand asked, "is it the bright colors of the uniforms that you object to?"

"Yes." Charles replied calmly.

"So," Armand said, "the British also have brightly colored uniforms?"

"No," Charles replied.

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

"Why did the French army, dressed in bright uniforms, win?" Armand asked, "while the British were defeated?"

There was a sudden uproar at the venue:

"Yes, victory or defeat has nothing to do with whether the uniforms are bright or not."

"Or maybe brightly colored uniforms bring more victory."

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

…

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

The opposing lawmakers suddenly felt weakened, as they realized that no matter how they answered, it would be inappropriate.

Surely, that meant they were going to war.

To deny means to ask others to wear bright military uniforms and fight bravely on the battlefield while you yourself hide in the rear and act like a coward.

Members of the House of Representatives, including Steed, echoed Charles's words of support.

At this time, a congressman stood up and asked Charles sternly: "Colonel, do you realize that these bright colors are not just aesthetic, they can also make the soldiers look lively and excited, which may be the key to victory!"

"Really?" Charles asked with a smile, "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 for attack is impulse. It makes it easier for soldiers to rush towards the enemy with bayonets instead of being afraid or even running away."

Hearing this, Charles seemed to understand.

It seems that the French Red Army caps and trousers are not as simple as "good-looking" or "ugly", it is also related to France's "offensive theory".

Fighting a war requires motivating soldiers to attack the enemy. What those in power want to see is that under the psychological suggestion of red, the soldiers will rush towards the enemy trenches with bayonets at point of view and then win.

Ciel smiled and answered with reason:

"I'm sorry, sir."

"I can tell you with certainty that in all the victorious battles I have commanded, not a single one was won because the soldiers were stimulated by the red trousers and red caps."

"On the contrary, from the beginning, I was ordering them to hide behind the 'tanks' to save themselves."

…

Someone immediately stood up to object: "Colonel, are you against the 'offensive theory'?"

"You could say that." Charles admitted generously.

Although opposing the "offensive doctrine" was considered an anomaly during this period, Pétain did so to stand out.

The reason is very simple. Actual combat is the only truth that can test everything. Otherwise, it will be useless even if you talk about it in a flowery way.

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.

The questioning then turned from military uniforms to offensive theory.

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

"No." Ciel shook his head in denial: "I don't support the defense theory either."

This answer confused the members of the parliament in the meeting. Combat is either offense or defense. Is there anything in between?

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

Ciel replied: "Sometimes we need to attack to win, and sometimes we need to defend."

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

"The battlefield is a complex sport, gentlemen. It is far more complex than you can imagine."

"We can't use simple offensive theories or defensive theories and expect to win all the time."

"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 room suddenly fell silent.

The congressmen all thought of the same thing:

Charles' military theory may be unique in its own way. It is different from the traditional offensive theory and is not Pétain's defensive theory.

It is, the Shire theory.

All along, Charles has been using this theory to win on the battlefield!

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

What else can they refute?

(End of this chapter)