What If: The Paris Commune

If the Paris Commune had captured the French national government before it fled to Versailles, organized itself more effectively, and was generally more radical and aggressive, could it have ignited a civil war in France?

From what I’ve read, there were concurrent uprisings of other leftist groups in other major French cities. If these groups were more successful and all communes had united behind a common cause, could it also increase the chance of a major political conflict?

If an outright civil war between the national government and disenchanted political groups were to occur, how would the rest of Europe react?

Would the leftist rebels in France be defeated by an international coalition?
Would Great Britain and the newly created German nation attempt to interfere?
Or would the invading forces of other powers ultimately not make a difference in the rise of a potentially radical left wing –maybe even socialist- government in France?

I ask because I have an idea for a TL and I'm wondering if the general direction in which I intend to go is even plausible. I think a timeline regarding a left-wing French government competing against an Imperialist Bloc (that may be divided into competing factions itself; one led by Germany and another by Britain) could be interesting, but I do question my premise.
 

DISSIDENT

Banned
It is a good idea for a TL. The Paris Commune is the basis of Communism as we know it in large part. Before they start fighting the imperialists, the Commune may want to ditch France's extensive colonial empire to avoid being called hypocrites though.
 
It is a good idea for a TL. The Paris Commune is the basis of Communism as we know it in large part. Before they start fighting the imperialists, the Commune may want to ditch France's extensive colonial empire to avoid being called hypocrites though.

Well, that depends on where he's going with it.

If they're just being anti-colonialism, then yes, it would, however one of the big things that the left did'nt like about Colonialism, other than it's what the establishment supported, was the way that the colonies were treated, so you could get a Leftist France that while keeping and possibly expanding its colonial holdings acted better and treated them as equals and integrate them into France itself.

It would certainly be interesting to see how the other Colonial powers react when their own colonials begin to see how good the French colonies have it in comparison to how they're treated.
 
It is a good idea for a TL. The Paris Commune is the basis of Communism as we know it in large part. Before they start fighting the imperialists, the Commune may want to ditch France's extensive colonial empire to avoid being called hypocrites though.

That was actually going to be one of the potentially interesting parts of the time line: France continuing to expand its overseas possessions, but in the name of socialism. I'm sure that Marxist doctrine could be used to justify continued expansion into Africa. "Liberated" regions would either become "autonomous" possessions of Paris (like the Central Asian SSR's) or tightly controlled puppet governments which would allow the French to continue to claim support of "national self-determination". ;) Certain core regions would be under the direct control of France, though, such as Algeria.

I also did a little research and discovered that the French colonial empire in 1871 was much smaller than that of 1914. They had yet to truly establish their holdings in Asia or West/Central Africa. As a result, the French overseas possessions would be more limited in this TL, too. I think that the Commune might potentially retain control of Algeria, but would definitely lose its Indian ports, many West African possessions, and all holdings in Indochina to other powers.

Edit: Do you think this is the right or most interesting direction to go with this idea? A liberal French colonial empire which holds true to the egalitarian values it professes as well as an authoritarian-socialist "union" of French and African subjects which only pays lip-service to them both intrigue me.
 
Last edited:
Russia and Austria aren't going to tolerate the Commune. I definitely see a coalition arising to crush the fledgling government. Then again, I'm biased against the Communards! :p
 
It might be interesting for the old government to evacuate to Africa, as the Communards establish the Federation of Revolutionary Communes in metropolitan France.
 
Russia and Austria aren't going to tolerate the Commune. I definitely see a coalition arising to crush the fledgling government. Then again, I'm biased against the Communards! :p

Your username amuses me! :D

I actually think the question you posed is basically what's going to determine the success of the Commune.

Russia and Austria might be prevented from sending armies for simply geographic reasons, whereas Germany may not because of political pressures from all other European states. The rise of a united German nation -and the defeat of France- already unsettled the balance of power created at the Congress of Vienna and frightened the rulers of Europe. Wouldn't outright German interference in France -possibly attempts to install a puppet government or carve off more territory?- reinforce those feelings?

(Then again, the rise of a socialist government in Paris would do much the same!)

I thought about it and I believe that the rise of Germany could potentially dissuade Austria and Russia -if not all powers- from interfering on a large-scale. Once one power sends an army into France, all others must also do so to make sure that an unfriendly government isn't put into power. I expect arms to be given and "volunteers" to be sent, with France probably becoming a horrific war zone, but the diplomatic situation might just barely allow for the success of the Commune.

Interestingly, there already is an example of a radical government arising in France, despite the actions of interfering powers. Look back to the -ultimately unsuccessful- foreign invasions during the French Revolution. I think there is a parallel between the two situations.

If the diplomatic situation cannot provide for the success of the Commune, then maybe a "distraction" could be made somewhere else, to draw off whatever forces may be used to extinguish the Commune? ;)
 
The Communards can't even rely on a majority of support in Paris, how are they going to defeat the majority of French armies arrayed against them or the Germans, who will certainly intervene against a government which will never pay back the reparations agreed to by Thiers?

It seems entirely ASB to me.
 
It might be interesting for the old government to evacuate to Africa, as the Communards establish the Federation of Revolutionary Communes in metropolitan France.

The national government is going to survive in one respect or another in one of France's colonies.

I am unsure if I want it to survive in Algeria -the loss of which basically derails the "liberal colonial empire" or "socialist Franco-African Union" ideas- but I've also considered it surviving in the French Caribbean, Guyana, or potentially somewhere in West Africa.
 
The Communards can't even rely on a majority of support in Paris, how are they going to defeat the majority of French armies arrayed against them or the Germans, who will certainly intervene against a government which will never pay back the reparations agreed to by Thiers?

It seems entirely ASB to me.

I think the initial divergence of the timeline will be that Thiers and his government are unable to successfully evacuate from Paris (this nearly happened in our TL because of the rapid occurrence of the revolt). They are captured by the National Guard and held prisoner. The national government effectively has no direction, word of the events in Paris leak out, and national chaos ensues.

The success of the radicals in Paris -along with the lack of administrative control caused by the capture of the government and the French high command- leads to the success of the other uprisings throughout the nation (i.e. Limoges, Marseille, Narbonne, Lyon, and Grenoble) because the national army is in disarray, without executive direction, and in all likelihood, extremely demoralized from months of defeats by the Germans and now the coup in Paris. The lack of the Army's interference further exacerbates the national situation, which rapidly degrades as radicals across the country fight their respective local governments.

From there, the Paris Commune unite the various other communes under a broad, leftist idealogical cause, and fight the national government.

The manpower of urban France, the bullion in banks and government vaults, and the weaponry in the armories of Paris should be enough to support the revolt.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out the parallels -which I just noticed- between the situation above and that which occurred in Russia throughout 1917. Lack of administrative power -first by the Tsar and then the Kerensky government- led to the gradual rise and eventual open revolt of the urban soviets, which like the communes here, united various leftist groups in the name of "Revolution".

Maybe instead of a violent and quick overthrow the communes should blossom in the urban centers of France over a few months, ultimately leading to a clash between the newly founded communes and a newly organized national government (composed of the core of the army, the portion of the bureaucracy that escaped Paris, and loyal local governments)?

I think that a leftist revolt in France is feasible, but ultimately foreign interference will decide whether it succeeds or not. The release of the hundreds of thousands of French troops taken prisoner by the Prussians is another key factor in determining the success of the revolt.
 
Last edited:
Couple'a points:

-While there were some murmurs of Communard revolt in Marseille, Lyons, etc., they generally had little support even before being blasted to bits by Garde Nationale troops loyal to the Versaillais. In OTL, support was iffy all along.

-The Paris Commune had the astoundingly bad luck of being formed and run by Parisans. Even if Paris can fend off Versaillais troops, they're likely going to assume that the rest of France will simply follow their lead no matter what. This will not work to their advantage.

-Communards were a terribly varied lot. Who do you think (or want) would end up on top? Blanquists? Marxists? Bakunin Anarchists? The eventual character of the Paris government is goint to dictate both domestic policy and overall military strategy in the inevitable civil war.

-Bismarck was perfectly content to let the Commune fester while negotiations between he and representatives of the Third Republic went on. Were the Communards to spread, though, I doubt Bismarck would leave them be for long.


The Paris Commune is one of those things that sound really cool, but you'd probably have to stretch a few truths here, make a few near-impossible occurrances happen there, and generally have to really work hard to get something awesome yet plausible out of it.
 
Last edited:

Hendryk

Banned
I personally don't think it would be implausible to have a successful Commune, but as has already been suggested the way things play out may look more like Russia in 1917-1920 than the original French Revolution. In other words, both a civil war between pro- and anti-Communard French forces, and a military intervention by concerned foreign powers, starting with Prussia. This could turn out any number of ways. For example, Britain may consider that a Communard France, politically distasteful as it is, would be a useful counterweight to a worryingly powerful united Germany. Stranger things have happened.
 

Eurofed

Banned
For all that I find the idea of building a parallel between a successful Communard France and Soviet Russia fascinating, I have to remark that the first requirement because Soviet regime entrenched in the first place was that Germany was powerless, the Entente powers too war-weary, Russia too big and too remote, for the other capitalist greater powers to stage a successful intervention to crush it. None of these factors apply for France in 1871. Nonetheless, they would have gladly crushed the Soviet regime, which they found a dangerous nest of ideological contagion, if they had been in different circumstances. This is a situaton, like France in 1792, where ideological committments trump geopolitical rivalries, and the great powers would be surely pushed to build an anti-Commune coalition.

Here, France is in the core of the continent, and the other great powers shall find it the simplest thing to give plenty of support to the anti-Commune faction in the French civil war. Logistics is not really a problem, nor it is size or climate of France. IOTL Germany already released French PoWs before the peace treaty to foster the crushing of the commune. If the Commune blooms to full-fledged civil war, they can certainly send more weapons and monetary support, and if need be, step in directly. Germany has won, has troops in France, and is not really so exhausted they can't spare some extra months of military effort to crush the commune. Italy would surely lend former ally Germany a strong hand to suppress a dangerous nest of far-left subversion on its borders, all the more so since they can expect to snatch some dearly-wished territorial compensations away for their trouble (Nice, Savoy, Corsica). Britain may or may not send an expeditionary corps of its own, but it got nasty experiences of what it means to have an aggressive revolutionary France on the other side of the Channel, so it well may. Even if it doesn't, it is surely going to give at least financial and diplomatic support to Italo-German counterinsurgency efforts.

Poorly trained and armed Commune militias, relying on little more than ideological elan, are going to be crushed by counterrevolutionary French or Italo-German professional armies like toothpicks in the French Civil War. The Third Republic already tried to use that tool against the Germans and it failed miserably. The Italians actually have a lot of experience about fighting insurgencies from southern brigandage. The outcome of the civil war cannot be in doubt.

Pretty much what we can expect from a more successful Commune is that after it raging for a few extra months, it goes down in flames from intervention of a foreign coalition, leaving an even more devastated and impoverished France, which shall slide back even more in the great power pecking order, leaving Germany even more the top dog and its place being challenged from an up-and-coming Italy. This would probably reaffirm the Italo-German alliance as a long-term strategic partnership. France is going to suffer some more political convulsions and most likely bring a reactionary-revanchist Bourbon monarchy regime back on top.

For example, Britain may consider that a Communard France, politically distasteful as it is, would be a useful counterweight to a worryingly powerful united Germany. Stranger things have happened.

This is deep-end ASB. Britain had no big geopolitical problem to begin with, concering the outcome of the Franco-Prussian war. From its PoV, it had simply substituted one top dog with another on the continent, but the equilibrium of the great powers endured. France was a serious imperial rival of Britain in the colonies, Germany didn't, so they had no trouble with the triumph of Bismarck. As long as Germany doesn't start to support Russian expansionism, or to build a navy to challenge the naval supremacy of Britain, Germany is a friend of the UK.
 
Top