WI Boulanger coup succeeds

Hi all,

For some reason I was thinking of populist head of states today.
This led me to consider current events in French politics, including a young, energetic, well loved candidate agitating a semi-populist, anti-system agenda.

Anyway, one thing leads to another I think of the Boulanger coup which almost succeeded in the French IIIrd Republic.

Popular in the army, loved by all quarters, he could have done it but didn't. What if he did?
 
It is to note that, in the night that Boulanger was supposed to impose a coup, despite crowds of people were gathering near the french parliament shouting his name, Boulanger preferred to spend the night in a hotel with his spouse. Not good behavior...
Either way, i believe Boulanger could be more aggressive when it'd come to foreign policy. If the Fashoda Incident still happens here, expect it to be handled worse.
 
Boulanger was a very special case : it's hard to be really sure how much authority and power he actually had over the whole boulangiste movement : we're talking of a patchworkesque alliance of really diverse groups, uniting nationalists and former communards lumped with monarchists and liberals.

The movement was neither organized (and even less institutionalized) or acknowledged by institutions : while boulangisme was quite a thing among middle-classes, low-middle-classes, and the army (especially conscrits), it lacked acknowledgement of elites. Financials, industrials, officials, officers and high officers, all were really cautious with the whole "général revanche" thing for two reasons : first, the aformentioned very shaggy nature of the movement, then the personalisation of Boulanger (which harmed severak ambitions) and eventually his popularity among middle-classes (remember that most of its political support eventually came from radicals and moderate republicans which weren't that popular among french elites even then)

Assuming Boulanger becomes a bit nuts (nutter?) and lunch a coup...It would have failed quickly : maybe the government would have hesitated to send conscripts against him (and you may see some small-scales mutinies such as in 1907 IOTL), but eventually he had enough loyal forces to crush any attempt in the beggining.

It would certainly, however, provoke a political crisis : think 1934-scale. That alone may have important development on the history of French politics, and eventually European. Maybe even more caution from the army in politics than IOTL (and more milita-driven nationalism in France?)
 
Militia-driven : if a coup is prevented by the army, the confidence that high command or middle officers could become the armed beacon of nationalism (which was quite important in late XIXth and XXth french nationalism tough, and still have a legacy today) would be significantly damaged (if not disappearing).
By militia I mean every armed group, including former soldiers and/or conscripts : maybe some earlier appearance of Croix-de-Feu equivalent group?

Another consequence, this time on the left spectrum of french politics, would be a clearer division between left radicals from one hand, and socialist from another. Historically, that boulangism turned to be a lead balloon helped to re-integrate radicals into non-socialist left-wing and the subsequent mutual influence (that gave birth to millerandisme, jauressisme and guesdisme) with (technically) marxist french left.

ITTL, it's possible that the Parti Ouvrier Français remains more importantly on a revolutionnary base (even if it may not be a marxist one) without hesitations such as the program of Saint-Mandé (electoralism, reformism, etc.) due to radical left being more clearly and definitely associated with some new form of personal bonapartism (boulangism would be likely be considered as such).
That POF would be influential or not with this line is another question : I don't really think it would work out on the short term, but you may end with a french social-democracy closer to what existed in Germany in the same time, ideologically and politically wise.
 
Assuming Boulanger becomes a bit nuts (nutter?) and lunch a coup...It would have failed quickly : maybe the government would have hesitated to send conscripts against him (and you may see some small-scales mutinies such as in 1907 IOTL), but eventually he had enough loyal forces to crush any attempt in the beggining.
I wonder if he's not more dangerous than yu make him to be. As far as I remember, he was very popular with the common soldiers as he had paid a lot of attention to their living conditions and pushed reforms to make it better to be a soldier. His revanchism was also a good point for many people, compared to other politician they felt were weak (AFAIR)

It is to note that, in the night that Boulanger was supposed to impose a coup, despite crowds of people were gathering near the french parliament shouting his name, Boulanger preferred to spend the night in a hotel with his spouse. Not good behavior...
Either way, i believe Boulanger could be more aggressive when it'd come to foreign policy. If the Fashoda Incident still happens here, expect it to be handled worse.
As I remember it, he chose not to launch the coup. The Parliament was at his mercy, the crowd was there, but he made a conscious decision not to do it
 
As far as I remember, he was very popular with the common soldiers as he had paid a lot of attention to their living conditions and pushed reforms to make it better to be a soldier.
Popular among conscripts for the reason you says, but not only there is a large gap between being popular and blindly loyal to someone : republicanism in France was a really popular feature and anything threatening it wouldn't be naturally accepted.

A bit like, if Trump would have lost elections and attempted a coup, even his most loyal followers would have an hard time swallowing the pill. Again, I don't exclude possible mutinies among conscripts that I mentioned above, but I very doubt it would launch a massive armed support.

Boulangisme was, again, extremely heterogen : bonapartist, radicals, non-marxist socialits, some legitimists (you'd notice that they were not representing most of the electorate, which was fairly under moderate republicanism). Anti-establishment is, by nature, so. A coup on these conditions would have certainly political repercussions, but would be a re-edition of 1851 coup without the possibilities to blossom.

Why? Mostly because the conjunction of social crisis (1848), political crisis (1850) wasn't there; the general distrust of bonapartism or whatever was called so would probably impair a military based coup (at the difference of 1851 where political institutions supported Louis-Napoléon; they certainly didn't then).

So, yes, he was popular but it shouldn't be seen as handwavium.

His revanchism was also a good point for many people, compared to other politician they felt were weak (AFAIR)
AH.com have an history of considering every Frenchman in the late XIXth as bound to kill any German in order to gain back Alsace-Lorraine, Rhineland, and their little dog too.
Long story short, it's a very flawed narrative, based on a nationalist one : it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Not that it couldn't have its importance, but to make it the main political stance in Belle-Epoque France is flat wrong. Politically, anti-elitism played a more important role into the rise of boulangisme.
In fact, most of actively revanchist officers and elites, people that really wanted to antagonize Germany as much as humanly possible, were quite distrutful of Boulanger, because it was seen as an anti-traditionalist populist.

As I remember it, he chose not to launch the coup. The Parliament was at his mercy, the crowd was there, but he made a conscious decision not to do it
I'm sorry, but you're really underestimating the strength of republican institutions in the late XIXth : a political crisis doesn't mean it was a vital one. Parliment was so threatened that when Boulanger was ordered to be jailed, he had to flee in Belgium and 22 September elections show that boulangism collapsed (72 seats) before republicans (366).
 
Not that it couldn't have its importance, but to make it the main political stance in Belle-Epoque France is flat wrong. Politically, anti-elitism played a more important role into the rise of boulangisme.
In fact, most of actively revanchist officers and elites, people that really wanted to antagonize Germany as much as humanly possible, were quite distrutful of Boulanger, because it was seen as an anti-traditionalist populist.


I'm sorry, but you're really underestimating the strength of republican institutions in the late XIXth : a political crisis doesn't mean it was a vital one. Parliment was so threatened that when Boulanger was ordered to be jailed, he had to flee in Belgium and 22 September elections show that boulangism collapsed (72 seats) before republicans (366).
I may need to 're read on this but I seemed to remember confidence in the institutions weren't particularly high due to the Panama scandal and an economic crisis?

AH.com have an history of considering every Frenchman in the late XIXth as bound to kill any German in order to gain back Alsace-Lorraine, Rhineland, and their little dog too.
Long story short, it's a very flawed narrative, based on a nationalist one : it should be taken with a grain of salt.
Oh I know not everyone was like that. Say what you want about the Huns but at least they weren't British (joking, partially, of course)
 
I may need to 're read on this but I seemed to remember confidence in the institutions weren't particularly high due to the Panama scandal and an economic crisis?
I think you may be mistaken : Panama Scandal mostly happened in 1892, after that Boulanger killed himself.

Now, there's an agreement about confidence in the institutions being shaky in the late 1880's and early 1890's. But a subtile distinction have to be made on this regard : as it happened in 1907 with a massive distrust about government and policies with constant appeal to republicanism, which included an important dose of legalism.

Electoral anti-establishment was a thing, supporting a coup (especially, once again, with the likely accusation of bonapartism pending to anyone attempting this) was different : another exemple would be the half-assed tentative made by Paul Déroulède (originally boulangist) to push general Roget to make a coup in 1899.

In 1889, institutions were certainly less firmly established : but the result of elections before Boulanger's sucide does point that his movement was not only actively crumbling under its own contradictions, but that institutionals republicans were the dominant force in French politics.

That boulangisme was influential is not a matter of discussion, and a boulangist tentative of coup would have important consequence on French politics as I tried to speculate about above. But it wasn't anywhere close of being dominant or about to take power : too divided, already crumbling, too much opposition from both elites (especially in the army) and popular classes.
 
I think LSCatlina has basically said everything about the issue of having a successful Boulangist Coup: it was a barely organized movement and whose only unity lied with the figure of Boulanger himself because the man was seen as a rally point for all forces opposing the Third Republic at the time. Plus, aside from anti-German policies and Revanchism, the movement itself was pretty vague on its policies.

There is also the issue of Boulanger's personnality. The man wasn't necessarilly that stable mentally, as can be demonstrated by the fact he committed suicide on his mistress' tomb after she died. I also can't help but remember Georges Clemenceau's words after Boulanger's death: "This general died like he had always lived: as a sub-lieutenant". Granted, Clemenceau wasn't the kindest towards his political ennemies but as far as I know he wasn't that bad a judge of character...
It is to note that, in the night that Boulanger was supposed to impose a coup, despite crowds of people were gathering near the french parliament shouting his name, Boulanger preferred to spend the night in a hotel with his spouse. Not good behavior...
As I remember it, he chose not to launch the coup. The Parliament was at his mercy, the crowd was there, but he made a conscious decision not to do it
Boulanger never really planned a coup from what I've read. He was elected as député of Paris in 1889 and celebrated his election with his supporters in a restaurant. There were indeed calls that were made for him to march on the Elysée and grab power but he refused.

The reasons for his refusals are unknown. Maybe he didn't felt ready to enact a coup if he ever had planned one. Maybe he thought it would be best to wait and win the next elections. There are even suspicions that Boulanger's mistress, Marguerite de Bonnemain, would have convinced him not to march on the Elysée but instead to wait for the next elections. What is sure is that she was there that night at the Restaurant, but in a different room.

Note that I did say "mistress": Boulanger wasn't married to Marguerite de Bonnemain. He wanted to but couldn't as he was already married himself (a match of convenience when he was younger) and could never obtain his divorce.
 
Top