Was France punished too harshly after Napoleon?

Just 2 point:

1: Accusing Germany for what the Ottomans did is absurd. They being responsible for it even more so. What should have they done realistically? Say to the ottomans that we dont want you as an ally anymore in the situation when they desperatly needed any ally they could get? Should we make the USA and the british responsible for what the russians did during WWII?

2: The congresse of Vienna was a success. It produced the desired results. And it didnt lead to a second big war - because it was a peace France could accept. The treaty of Versailles was one of the most important causes for WWII. It was unacceptable for the germans - let alone the radical right not even Streseman couldnt accept it.
 
I did not say that the July ultimatum was reasonable, just that forcing smaller nations to comply with your demands was normal back then and not morally lower.

I think you're overstating the level of acceptance. Asquith wrote at the time that Austria had bungled matters by taking a situation in which they had the better argument on most of the points and turning it into one in which it appeared a major power was bullying a minor one.

There was a commonly accepted way to properly do this sort of thing, as evidenced with the Treaty of Berlin in 1878 or Agadir, which basically came down to a three point process.

1. Dispute arises between major power and minor power(s) which cannot be immediately resolved.

2. Great Powers meet at a conference to decide what must be done. Much diplomatic ink will be shed and notions of spheres of influence debated until it's decided what is appropriate for either power to concede. The major power will often be represented directly, or by a close ally, the minor power by an advocate for the case.

3. A decision acceptable enough to all major powers involved in the relevant alliances is reached and passed on down to the minor power to be accepted.

Europe would have accepted a small conference in which it was decided Serbia should comply with the vast majority of the points- everything short of abject humiliation. What many of the public in the Entente nations would not accept was a unilateral imposition of such by a major power on a minor one.
 
IMO, France made out pretty well, and could have made out even better if Nap had not tried to return. that was hardly a punitive peace.

France unilaterally invaded or initiated many times. I know one of the big arguments is whether Napoleon was an aggressive bully, or was he constantly defending himself. at various times, both. He outright invaded Portugal and Spain and Russia, to name a few. His troops were famed for 'living off the land' which is a polite way to say they used and abused the invaded citizens until there was nothing left. It's why scorched earth policies in Portugal and Russia were so effective.

Vienna was an attempt to balance the major countries grabbing whatever they could/reorganizing the continent in their own favor with not creating animosities which would threaten the peace. Yeah, France had to cough up the territorial gains from the last decade, but otherwise they were treated quite well. The minor countries basically hung out in bars while the big boys decided their fate regardless of what side (s) they had supported.

Regarding Versailles, if France had it's way, it would have been even worse for the Germanies
 
Germany was not the aggressor, although I will concede that it was an aggressor, but that label is effectively meaningless since everybody was that to some degree.

Serbia, or at the very least, elements of the Serbian government, had been sponsoring terrorist acts in Austria-Hungary for several years as of 1914, while at the same time doing ethnic cleansing of its own in the territories taken from the Ottomans after the First Balkan War. Serbia could've completely derailed the train to WW1 by simply not being a dick.

Austria-Hungary had a right to defend itself, a right it had been repeatedly denied as Russia would back Serbia due to Pan-Slavism. It is not surprisingly it overreacted, unfortunate but understandable.

Russia was the state that decided to take a stupid Balkan scrap and escalated it into a potential continental war. This it did with the encouragement of France.

France, Germany, and the UK vastly overestimated the military and economic growth of Russia during this period. That is why Germany figured a war now would be better than a war later where they would get smashed between a revanchist France and a juggernaut Russia.

'In March 1913, massive sums were approved by the Tsar for artillery and other armaments in a vastly ambitious scheme that would by 1917 have increased Russian winter peacetime strength by 800,000 men, most of whom would (in contrast to the deployment plan of 1910) be concentrated in European Russia. As a consequence, the peacetime strength of the Russian army in 1914 was double that of the German, at around one and a half million men and 300,000 more than the combined strengths of the German and Austro-Hungarian armies; by 1916-1917 the Russian figure was expected to exceed 2 million.' (The Sleepwalkers, page 331)

This is also why France encouraged the war. If Russia grew too powerful, it wouldn't need the alliance with France anymore and would be able to forge its own path.

'That French policy-makers were willing to accept the resulting constraints is demonstrated by their willingness to extend the terms of the Franco-Russian alliance specifically in order to cover the Balkan inception scenario, a concession that in effect placed the initiative in Russia hands. The French were willing to accept this risk, because their primary concern was not that Russia would act precipitately, but rather that she would not act at all, would grow so preponderant as to lose interest in the security value of the alliance, or would focus her energies on defeating Austria rather than the 'principal adversary', Germany.

'The Balkan inception scenario was attractive precisely because it seemed the most likely way of securing full Russian support for joint operations," (The Sleepwalkers, page 351)

As for Great Britain, I am quite certain that the dead of the Bengal famines far outnumber those of the Herero. This is also the Great Britain whose acting under-secretary of the Foreign Office Sir Francis Bertie told the acting German ambassador in 1897 that "should the Germans lay so much as a finger on the Transvaal, Bertie declared, the British government would not stop at any step, 'even the ultimate' (an unmistakable reference to war), to 'repel any German intervention'. 'Should it come to a war with Germany,' he went on, 'the entire English nation would be behind it, and a blockade of Hamburg and Bremen and the annihilation of German commerce on the high seas would be child's play for the English fleet.'" (The Sleepwalkers, page 149)

And people wonder why Imperial Germany built a navy.

And I'm not getting into the very illegal nature of the British blockade in WW1.

I think you're overstating the level of acceptance. Asquith wrote at the time that Austria had bungled matters by taking a situation in which they had the better argument on most of the points and turning it into one in which it appeared a major power was bullying a minor one.

There was a commonly accepted way to properly do this sort of thing, as evidenced with the Treaty of Berlin in 1878 or Agadir, which basically came down to a three point process.

1. Dispute arises between major power and minor power(s) which cannot be immediately resolved.

2. Great Powers meet at a conference to decide what must be done. Much diplomatic ink will be shed and notions of spheres of influence debated until it's decided what is appropriate for either power to concede. The major power will often be represented directly, or by a close ally, the minor power by an advocate for the case.

3. A decision acceptable enough to all major powers involved in the relevant alliances is reached and passed on down to the minor power to be accepted.

Europe would have accepted a small conference in which it was decided Serbia should comply with the vast majority of the points- everything short of abject humiliation. What many of the public in the Entente nations would not accept was a unilateral imposition of such by a major power on a minor one.

Look at this from Vienna's point of view. Who would be the major parties in a conference? Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, Great Britain, and maybe Italy.

Russia-will do its utmost to protect Serbia from suffering anything at all

France-will back whatever Russia decides, see above

Italy-will do whatever it can to stick it to Austria-Hungary

Germany-they'll back us

Great Britain-will someone please explain why their opinion should even matter here? And even so, they've been buddying up to France and Russia
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Actually your question about the Entente in WW1 is skewed, since the Entente had not much chance for ethnic cleansing because they only conquered few regions of the CP during the War! This is the reason I talked about the genocide of the Indians in America, or the pogroms in Russia to show that the Entente nations did such massacres when they had chances and found it opportunbeto do so too.

Germany did no ethnic cleansing in WW1 and you are purposely convoluting and specially set weightings of actions by different nations to construct a skewed picture you like. Alone the flippant way you talk about the Greek actions in WW1 shows that you are not interested in a balanced discussion, but simply want to propagate your propaganda views.
Okay, enough.

You have been condescending, insulting, and generally a twit throughout this thread (about four previous posts would have bought a warning individually). Now you have moved into war crime apologist territory.

That is a justification too far. Why don't you take some time, a week should be sufficient, and repaint the toll booth on your Bridge.

See ya in 7.
 
France was forced to cede its natural boundaries, pay reparations, and was occupied for several years by the victorious powers. After Napoleon was overthrown, should the allies have left France with the Rhineland and Belgium?

(...)

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.

Those ''natural borders'' were a French imperialistic/expansionist ideal, which admittedly from their perspective made strategic sense too.
An ideal which wasn't shared by all the other states and peoples, which happened to be in between France and the '''natural borders'' desired by some in France. For them it was more like a French excuse for military aggression.

Regarding the OP, at least after the 100 days of Napoleon (his return from Elba) France IMHO wasn't punished too harsh. Yes, it was a bit tougher than in 1814, but that's justifiable, since France showed that it hadn't learned its' lesson, after if had been involved in the conflicts in Europe the previous decades.
 
Last edited:
Have you noticed that any country's "natural" boundaries are always larger than its actual ones?

The Rhineland had been part of the Holy Roman Empire for centuries until 1795. Its population was overwhelmingly German. There is no way that a France that had been defeated in 1814 and again in 1815 would be allowed to keep it. France was lucky to keep Alsace, Lorraine, and French Flanders. (In 1814, though not 1815, she was also allowed to keep part of Savoy.)
 
The Rhineland had been part of the Holy Roman Empire for centuries until 1795. Its population was overwhelmingly German. There is no way that a France that had been defeated in 1814 and again in 1815 would be allowed to keep it. France was lucky to keep Alsace, Lorraine, and French Flanders. (In 1814, though not 1815, she was also allowed to keep part of Savoy.)

Interesting. So reparations and the loss of non-ethnic territory are reasonable for defeated powers in great wars. Hrm.
 
Interesting. So reparations and the loss of non-ethnic territory are reasonable for defeated powers in great wars. Hrm.

I know it's a revolutionary concept. ;)

Anyway much of these territories had previously been conquered by force and/or gained after a peace settlement; losing those in another peace settlement, after an ultimately lost conflict is a real possibility.
 
I'd say the French came out fine from Vienna. They kept their pre-war territory, and crucially weren't ostracized from the European community. Nothing really to complain about, considering how close they came to ripping apart European politics as people knew it.

If I were to wade into the Versailles minefield a bit, Russian conduct in Poland involved a fair amount of ethnic cleansing, according to this: http://books.google.com/books?id=HH...-yXiJ3fnnVC10x4txUWPGGHOA#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
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.

Not true. The reparations that Germany eventually paid were strongly revised down from the initial amounts foreseen in the treaty of Versailles.
 
I think you have to look at the ramifications of the treaty. The fact that France was humbled, but brought back into the global system and avoided a major war for the next few decades seems to me that the Congress of Vienna was a great treaty.
 
Nit point but important. Vienna was a Conference of all the powers, including restored France. The goal was the establishment of a equilibrium of power based as far as possible on the ancien regime, and despite many upheavals and modifications the Vienna settlement essentially brought a century of relative peace to the continent. Success. Versailles and its sister treaties were Diktats where the victorious powers gathered to diminsh and carve up the defeted powers and presented the results to the losers as ultimatums, accept your fate or die. The goal was the abolition of the previous equilibrium of power and its replacement by a condominium of the victors and the victors alone. It could only endure as long as the victors were united and vigiliant and the losers were abased. Failure. The victors could not remain united and not all of the losers were content to remain supine. Versailles was a truce, not a settlement.
 
You can thank Talleyrand for that.

Talleyrand really saved the fortunes of defeated France. He made clear that no one gained from a weakened France and that if France was weak it would just lead to another power vacuum in Europe one the type that breeds instability.

Stability, especially between the great powers and from nationalist revolutions was what the congress really agreed. It must be remembered that it was as much the Revolution as Bonaparte which were seen as the culprit in the Napoleonic wars. (afterall only the later wars of the coalitions that were against Napoleon as Emperor) The Hapsburg hosts of the Congress were keen to protect their own multi-national state from revolution by supressing revolution continent wide and to reinstate their fellow monarchs to protect their monarchial power.
 
Well, this escalated to Versailles very quickly.
Germany was not the aggressor, although I will concede that it was an aggressor, but that label is effectively meaningless since everybody was that to some degree.

Belgium, at least, definitely can't be called an aggressor. Or the UK. France, Russia and Serbia are more of a gray area, but it's still questionable.
Serbia, or at the very least, elements of the Serbian government, had been sponsoring terrorist acts in Austria-Hungary for several years as of 1914, while at the same time doing ethnic cleansing of its own in the territories taken from the Ottomans after the First Balkan War. Serbia could've completely derailed the train to WW1 by simply not being a dick.
Austria's general hostility towards Serbia has little to do with moral objection to any dick moves. A part of Austria's elites saw Serbia as an existential threat that needs to be eliminated years before the Balkan Wars.

On the other hand, the hostility of people like Gavrilo Princip, and other Serbs on both sides of the Austrian-Serbian border, towards Austria has a lot to do with Austria's actions and policies, like annexing Bosnia (under a very flimsy excuse which basically amounted to a rehashing of "white man's burden" colonial propaganda), and dissolving the Serbs' long-standing cultural autonomy in Hungary in 1912 (with no excuse at all). So it would be just as appropriate, if not more, to say that Austria could have derailed the train to WW1 by simply not being a dick.
 
There's no such thing as natural boundaries for a country. Even more so the claim that the Rhineland and Belgium are natural borders is just a joke. France hadn't controlled those territories for centuries before the napoleonic wars and that's even if you count the Carolingian empire as France.

I think you're taking the wrong definition of natural. The Rhine, Alps, Pyrenees and the Atlantic are the 'natural' (I.e. Of nature) borders, not the 'natural'(i.e. Obvious) borders. It was very much a preoccupation of the French governments of the time (revolutionary, consular and imperial) to maintain the natural borders
 
I think you're taking the wrong definition of natural. The Rhine, Alps, Pyrenees and the Atlantic are the 'natural' (I.e. Of nature) borders, not the 'natural'(i.e. Obvious) borders. It was very much a preoccupation of the French governments of the time (revolutionary, consular and imperial) to maintain the natural borders

I beg to differ for those in France preoccupied with the concept, the natural (of nature) were the natural (obvious) borders.

Naturally neighbouring countries didn't appreciate these expansionist ambitions.
 
Top