A surviving French Second Republic?

How would be possible to have the French Second Republic lasting longer (at least 10 or 15 years)? Even better, would it be so impossible to the Second Republic become stable enough to survive at least until the 20th century? I guess that we would need no Louis-Napoleon, but it would not be enough. Any thoughts?
 

Susano

Banned
How would be possible to have the French Second Republic lasting longer (at least 10 or 15 years)? Even better, would it be so impossible to the Second Republic become stable enough to survive at least until the 20th century? I guess that we would need no Louis-Napoleon, but it would not be enough. Any thoughts?

The problem is, as far as I understand the 2nd Republic was Nappy3s creation from the beginning. Hence, it more or less was desigend merely as a stepstone towards the Second Empire anyways. Youd have to chance practically its entire creation story and hence get a different 2nd Republic...
 
The problem is, as far as I understand the 2nd Republic was Nappy3s creation from the beginning. Hence, it more or less was desigend merely as a stepstone towards the Second Empire anyways. Youd have to chance practically its entire creation story and hence get a different 2nd Republic...
Hmm, I'm not so sure. I think that even without Napoleon III (let's say he dies in the late 1847) the 1848 Revolution would still happen, you just do not have him to take advantage of the situation. Do you think that a restoration is likely in this case or other "strong man" would become a dictator?
 

Susano

Banned
Well, thats possible, but as said, that would be a completly different Secodn Republic then.

And even without Napoleon III there are still enough other Bonapartes around. After Louis' line, it is Jerome's line. Hell, the former "King of Westphalia" (hmpf) even still lives at that point! Though, being the most incompetent and maybe also most unpopular of Napoleon's brother I dont think hed have much a chance... but the Bonapartists might rally around his son, also called Napoleon, whod be called Napoleon IV by them. Not that he was much popular anyways - he was excluded from the line of succession during the 2nd Empire, but then he had not sons yet in 1848, so excluding him woul dmean jumping to another branch... nah, theyd rally around him.

Of course, different to N3, N4 would not have been involved in the creation of teh 2nd Republic, so he wouldnt have the insider position to usurp it. Just saying that the death of N3 wouldnt fully remove the Bonapartists. Maybe a Second Empire is eventualyl established, though Alter-N4 looks more like a potential puppet for any given group of powerful Bonapartists to me, than a genuine leader...
 
It's not the presence of Bonapartes that mattered at the moment. From its beginning, the Second republic was somewhat alien to the French rural hinterland, which mattered very much. Then came the bloody July days which severed the regime from its eventual popular base. At that same moment the Republic has lost all of its viability: too 'red' for the bourgeois, too bourgeois for the workmen, and a Parisian fancy for the farmers. Were it not Louis-Napoleon, someone else (Cavaignac and his "Party of Order", for example) should probably transformed the Republic into a dictatorship - maybe less 'social' and more in line with the July Monarchy policies.
 
The Second Republic was the not the sole creation of Louis Napoleon. He came into the country after the July Monarchy had already been overthrown and the Second Republic declared. In fact, his presidential campaign was waged from prison, and benefited a lot from the fear of the monarchists and moderate middle class of the "June Days Uprising", when Parisian socialists attempted to takeover Paris.

So, if you kill off Napoleon III, you will still have this very real fear among the monarchists and middle class of the kind of socialism-inspired violence that was seen in the June Days Uprising. This fear will then lead to the election of Louis-Eugene Cavaignac (the general who crushed the June Days Uprising, and the probable winner if Nappy III didn't get involved). I don't think that any of the other Bonapartes would be able to organize the kind of political support that Louis Napoleon. It must be remembered that Louis Napoleon was a very good politician, and that he was able to bring together an anti-socialist coalition.

With Cavaignac you're probably going to see the Republic continue. Without Napoleon III's drive for dictatorship, I don't know how the destruction of first the socialist clubs and then the republicans ones would proceed. Cavaignac was a moderate republican, and I think would try to run a democratic government. The problem is that the socialists want to overthrow the established social order, and their desire is going to drive the middle class back into the arms of authoritarianism.

So Cavaignac is president, but social disorder could continue. On the other hand, I don't think Cavaignac would move against manhood sufferage like Napoleon III did, so there is the possibility that the socialists, now much more involved in government, remain mostly peaceful. Cavaignac could maintain a coalition of anti-socialists- monarchists and the middle class. I don't know if this coalition will last, but, without Louis Napoleon I think that you may have a situation like the Third Republic, where no one really likes the Republic, but there is no alternative anyone can agree on.
 
Very interesting! I liked the Cavaignac idea. Who knows what kind of influence this dictatorial French Republic would have among the liberal movements through Europe.
But, if Cavaignac becomes president, or dictator, how would be his probable foreign policy? France would still go the Crimean War? And what about Italy?
Oh, and it can be just a crazy idea, but it would be interesting if this Republican France still have to go to war against Prussia in some moment in the future and still is defeated as IOTL, with Germany being united under a Prussian Emperor. However, it causes the end of the Republic and, as a counterweight against the German Empire, the Second French Empire is proclaimed in Paris.;)
 
Very interesting! I liked the Cavaignac idea. Who knows what kind of influence this dictatorial French Republic would have among the liberal movements through Europe.

It wouldn't. Cavaignac wasn't going to become a dictator, he had the opportunity in the wake of the June Days Uprising and didn't take it, so I think he would try to continue his moderate republicanism. Which may or may not work.

But, if Cavaignac becomes president, or dictator, how would be his probable foreign policy? France would still go the Crimean War? And what about Italy?

I don't think that France would have a remotely similar foreign policy to OTL Napoleon III's. Napoleon's foreign policy was expressly aimed at increasingly France foreign heft (especially in the early years- France pretty much drove the Crimean War), something that he could do because he didn't have to worry about domestic policy because of his imposition of authoritarian rule.

The ripples of getting rid of Napoleon III are MASSIVE. Napoleon III drove the Crimean War, by provoking the Russians into an invasion of the Ottoman Empire. The Crimean War destroyed the post-Vienna peace among the Great Powers, and because of the Great Powers rifts it created, allowed German and Italian unification, which in turn unbalanced Europe right into WWI. Not that I'm not a historical determinist or anything.

Oh, and it can be just a crazy idea, but it would be interesting if this Republican France still have to go to war against Prussia in some moment in the future and still is defeated as IOTL, with Germany being united under a Prussian Emperor. However, it causes the end of the Republic and, as a counterweight against the German Empire, the Second French Empire is proclaimed in Paris.;)

I don't think that the Crimean War will happen OTL, so I don't think that the Prussians are going to be able to operate the way they did OTL.

Without the Crimean War rifts, the Russians are going to make sure that central Europe remains balanced. That means that Prussia would not even contemplate something like the Six Weeks' War. I think that in the TL you'll see the continued Austrian leadership of Germany, which means that effective political union will not happen, at least not by force, and not anywhere near the form seen OTL.

As for Italy, I don't think that France will support Italian unification. OTL it was a really stupid move for France to make. Italy was perfectly fine as the divided as it was.
 
I don't think that France would have a remotely similar foreign policy to OTL Napoleon III's. Napoleon's foreign policy was expressly aimed at increasingly France foreign heft (especially in the early years- France pretty much drove the Crimean War), something that he could do because he didn't have to worry about domestic policy because of his imposition of authoritarian rule.

The ripples of getting rid of Napoleon III are MASSIVE. Napoleon III drove the Crimean War, by provoking the Russians into an invasion of the Ottoman Empire. The Crimean War destroyed the post-Vienna peace among the Great Powers, and because of the Great Powers rifts it created, allowed German and Italian unification, which in turn unbalanced Europe right into WWI. Not that I'm not a historical determinist or anything.

I don't think that the Crimean War will happen OTL, so I don't think that the Prussians are going to be able to operate the way they did OTL.

Without the Crimean War rifts, the Russians are going to make sure that central Europe remains balanced. That means that Prussia would not even contemplate something like the Six Weeks' War. I think that in the TL you'll see the continued Austrian leadership of Germany, which means that effective political union will not happen, at least not by force, and not anywhere near the form seen OTL.

True. There would be some many changes that probably this discussion deserves a thread of its own (I've found many discussions involving the Crimean War, but no one about the war never happening).
 
True. There would be some many changes that probably this discussion deserves a thread of its own (I've found many discussions involving the Crimean War, but no one about the war never happening).

I based AFOE on it never happening, but that's ancient history now, and was probably wrong anyway, or so people loved to tell me in emails !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I based AFOE on it never happening, but that's ancient history now, and was probably wrong anyway, or so people loved to tell me in emails !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

A Feast of Eagles?

I liked that TL, but yes I think that it was a little short on any kind of evolution of the kind which would probably occur. A POD does not mean that history freezes, simply that it changes course a bit.

Anyway. The Second Republic would be very interesting to see evolve. If the obviously fervent support for socialism (June Days Uprising) could be channeled into electoral politics, that could be quite interesting. Of course given the seeming total inability of the French Left to get united I don't give that scenario much credence though.

This Republic has potential to on for some time as well. Without Louis Napoleon I don't think any Bonapartist has the political brains to do what he did. The monarchists as a group had been thrown out in the last two political revolutions (the Bourbons in '30 and Orleans in '48), and now the middle class has turned to a moderate republican (Cavaignac) as their savior from working class violence.

There is no great foreign upheaval on the horizon as of '48. The Crimean War was a Napoleon III produced disaster, and without it the balance of power in Europe would remain in its post-Vienna state. Under these conditions I think the next bouts of political upheaval would come from divided Italy and Germany. In '48 the Austrians and Prussians both proved more than willing to crush liberal uprisings. In OTL Bismarck managed to turn what had been a liberal-dominated school of political thought (German nationalism) into a conservative game by taking advantage of the post-Crimea falling out among the Great Powers.

I would argue that if the Russian-Austrian axis- the one that maintained the European balance of power in the face of the liberal explosion in '48- was allowed to continue without Napoleonic interference, then it would continue for the foreseeable future. This means no German unification, not even any real moves towards German unification. Prussia won't unite Germany in the face of Austrian and Russian opposition. Piedmont-Sardinia won't be able to take on Austria without both French support and the Austrian distraction with Prussia.

German nationalism will become more liberal, probably more anti-monarchist. Perhaps the more radical ones turn to terrorism- imagine that- German nationalists murdering German princes in the name of the German People.

Anyway- the more liberal French Republic might turn to the armed forces to provide a way for the country to stay more united. With the universal manhood sufferage probably staying as the law of the land, perhaps the Republic will also go for a national draft as a means of maintaining a relatively de-politicized Army, as well as providing a means of diverting youthful violence into external pursuit of expanding French glory in the deserts of Algeria.
 
Top