Was France punished too harshly after Napoleon?
- Thread starter Faeelin
- Start date
It would have defeated the purpose of Congress of Vienna, that was about restoring pre-revolutionnary order. France was to be put back to his Ancien Régime borders in order to stress that and the victory of reactionary powers (Prussia, Russia, Austria) in Europe.
Furthermore in 1815, and critically after the 100 days, France wasn't really able to impose its terms, having irremediably lost but proven again that it could wage war relativly easily on its neighbours (even without real hope of definitive victory). At this point, it was about containing this potential.
Furthermore in 1815, and critically after the 100 days, France wasn't really able to impose its terms, having irremediably lost but proven again that it could wage war relativly easily on its neighbours (even without real hope of definitive victory). At this point, it was about containing this potential.
To clarify (becaue of my bad formulation in the previous post), I don't think they should have been punished more or harder. Maybe even less in terms of occupation. But the from the loss of territories, Reperations and arms regulations (not existant) the Treatie of Versailes was basic Butt-Rape.
The France attacked even morce countries in Europe then Germany in WWI, annexed more territories and Installed puppets all over the place. In my opinion they did more damage than Germany in WWI.
That's why I think, if people see the treatie of Versailles as just, then the peace terms France got were unjust because they were less harsh than the Versailles terms.
But without comparisson, the terms were ok.
Last edited:
Beer
Banned
The Rhineland and Belgium the NATURAL borders of France? What stuff do you smoke?
France got not more than a slap on the hand in Vienna, unlike what over the top farce France forced on Germany roughly a century later.
Partially because, unlike Germany and its allies during WW1, Napoleonic France didn't resorted to ethnic cleansing, use of prisoners as human shields or task forces, and because Napoleonic Wars didn't ended with part of Germany looking alike surface of the moon, or depleted industrial regions as much it was possible.
Let's compare what's comparable : Vienna was clearly clement for France, not because of a particular liking of it or thanks to Talleyrand's skills (that certainly played), but because the goal of the Congress was to return to a pre-revolutionarry situation as much it was possible while containing France thanks to buffer kingdoms (Piemont, Netherlands) and close presence of great powers (Prussia) at their borders.
Another point making a Versailles comparison irrelevant, is that fact it was an ideological peace : Louis XVIII was seen as an ally that needed his lands backs to deal with the extinction of revolution. It wasn't a war/peace against France specifically, but a war against revolutionnary principles.
One could say, furthermore, that Vienna powers wanted to avoid radicalizing french population against Bourbons or the Congress too much, critically when there was a clear tendency to pro-monarchism after 1814, to prevent making it an endless nest of troubles.
It was the common expression for the era. "Natural borders" meant Rhine, Alps and Pyrénées as french borders. Don't excit yourself too much on historical and in-context expression.
Other difference france got attacked after the revolition, WW1 Germany was the clear aggressor
Beer
Banned
Ah, the centennial draws near and the "Entente can do no wrong" agitators crawl out from under the stones again. How about reading "The Sleepwalkers" for a start or some other books to see that your statement is either propaganda or for the rubbish can.
No. The Germans only had to pay 50 billion, which was 1 billion less than they proposed themselves. In total it was 132 billion but those other 82 billion were B and C bonds that only existed to deceive the French public into thinking the Germans were harshly punished. They could've paid it if they wanted to, but they didn't want to.
Beer
Banned
From which cellar did you save the rotting propaganda stuff? Might be worth something for a museum.
Napoleonic France was no saint either - or the Entente, just for the record! You are simply trying to justify an overly harsh dictat forced on Germany with old propaganda, while France for igniting the 19th century equivalent of a world war got a lenient peace.
Beer
Banned
You are truly believing this (self-censored)? Newsflash: Germany paid back the whole reparations (which any economist without an interest in letting the entente look like saints could tell you were too much for an early 20th century economy) just a few years back. So no Germany only paid few reparations, we paid all.
Alex Richards
Donor
To be fair, while nobody particularly bothered to prevent the war starting once it looked like it was going to, Germany certainly did encourage Austria to demand nothing else than unconditional acceptance of all terms of the demand, and it had been the strategic thinking for a while (certainly since at least 1912) that they needed a war with Russia sooner rather than later before they could industrialise and eliminate the mobilisation gap.
This isn't to say that Russia or France in particular didn't have their own reasons to want a war against Austria/Germany, but I view that as more 'allowing the situation to become all-out war when it didn't need to be' whereas I view Germany's actions as being 'encouraging the situation to move from major diplomatic incident to war'.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
No. France had a relatively decent deal in 1814. Then they decided to go back to war less than a year later, which proved that in order for Europe to be stable, France could not be allowed to get too powerful. I'd say the Congress of Vienna was fair.
Beer
Banned
While I can accept your view on the situation, I have to stress that Serbia was what we would call a Rogue State today and did anything it it´s power to make a diplomatic solution impossible. Considering the political realities in the early 20th century, forcing Serbia to compliance was a normal action at the time, not what the Entente later blew out of proportion to camouflage their own less than sterling behaviour.
To it bluntly, had Britain be in the position of Austria and Germany, London would have done the same. So I disagree with your weighting of the actors.
In hindsight i have to question whether that actually worked though. Which raises the question if the option of a harsher peace might have been preferred by the rest of Europe in hindsight.
Last edited:
Ethnic cleansing (unless you think it never happened, or that it was all a misunderstanding due to war, as Turkey does)
Mistreatment of prisoner of wars
Harsh policy of occupation, including slaughter of civilians and huge requisition and dismentelement of the industrial regions
War crimes : Belgium,
While Entente was certainly not a saint, Germany and its allies did commited war crimes and actions that called for an harsh treatment. (That Versailles was a fit harsh treatment is another debate)
I'm not justifying anything. I just point out how idiotic is to compare Versailles and Vienna, when they're not comparable regarding not only what these congress tried to achieve (ideologically or politically), but how the war happened in first place.
Cut out with personal attacks, if you're not able to, don't participe to an overall polite discussion.
The Armenian genocide was carried about by Germany? What? Unless you are saying Germany should be punished for what the Ottoman Empire did-which in that case i still say-what?