WI: Napoleon Tries To Liberate Ukraine, Belarus, And The Baltic States Instead Of Attacking Moscow

Well until the 1880's, democracy in France was seen as the rule of the mob and call backs to the Terror were regularly made.

And the whole elite of the country had fucked off overseas as part of that new regime, with their connections and partially their money.

There probably were other ways but his way worked for France, going from beaten up war torn country to hegemon in 10 years

Nope and nope. Universal male suffrage was reinstated in 1848 and never abolished - though rigged by Napoléon III. The 1848 Republic was a true political democracy, while not a social one.

The untold truth of the Revolution is that only a minority of the nobility did emigrate and they did not represent at all the "whole élite of the country". Many and many local nobles profited from the Revolution, as it allowed them to purchase Church estates at a relatively low cost and to use the new institutions to achieve local prominence.
 
Well until the 1880's, democracy in France was seen as the rule of the mob and call backs to the Terror were regularly made.

And the whole elite of the country had fucked off overseas as part of that new regime, with their connections and partially their money.

There probably were other ways but his way worked for France, going from beaten up war torn country to hegemon in 10 years
I direct you to Velenas post for your answer
 
And besides Lincoln only did it to ensure a Union victory. He was still racist by today's standards/

But I digress.

A bit like saying Obama didn't support gay marriage in 2009. Politicians have public and private views. Lincoln clearly desired to get rid of slavery, even if he argued he cared about the union first so that he won more support.
 
This whole WI assumes that the concept of liberation could be applied to these territories, which in turn assumes that these territories had a national conciusness and this was distinct from Russia. Which is almost entirely false. At the time there was no real national feeling in Ukraine and Belarus to make them distinct from Russia. If there was any feeling against Russian rule, it was almost entirely confined to Catholic population and inevitably had little support in Ukraine and Belarus. As for the Baltic state, with the exception of Catholic and thus anti-Russian Lithuania, the Russians were only the overlords over the actual oppressors: the Baltic German ruling class, which kept the native population as serfs. So if Napoleon sought to win the Baltic Germans on his side (which would have little chance of success, since the Russian Empire was giving them a good deal already), he wouldn't actually be liberating anybody.
If Napoleon was to actually liberate the population (and so turn them against their ruler) it would have to be a liberation from serfdom - and not only in the territories your mentioned but in Greater Russia itself. This was the only way to win the war against Russia. But Napoleon who had done his best to destroy anything resembling a revolution was certainly not going to start doing it at this point.

How did Ukrainian and Belarusian national identity even develop? It seems they came out of nowhere, from multiple historic tribal groups, with little to unify them in a way that differentiated them from regular Russians.
 
Nappy was not in the 'liberating' business, even if there was a market for being liberated in the aforementioned regions, which there was not in 1812. He was out to punish Alex and add to his empire. If Nappy wins, the most likely outcome is a reconstituted PLC with one of his marshals as King.

Which would have been Poniatowski, as he said at St.Helena. The Poles would have been fine with that- at least to start. Poniatowski would have turned on Napoleon the same way Bernadotte did if it suited Poland, though he would have been more honorable if Napoleon treated him decently.

That said, Nappy would have been fine with a strong Poland as an ally to check Austria and Russia- and the Poles would have been fine with that as well. After Russia, what wars are left?
 
Napoleon's declared goal was to restore a greater Poland, i.e. the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Such a goal would, by default, mean to subject the Ukrainians and Belarusians to another yoke, so it's not a liberation.

Another related Nappy the Liberator scenario was for him to emancipate the serfs, despite the fact that many of the Ukrainian and Belarusian serfs were owned by Polish landlords. Any emancipation effort would alienate Napoleon's most faithful allies.
 
Not convinced of that, if the Cossacks play alliance system right.
And who are they to ally with? The French? Who are on the other side of Europe or the ottoman Turks? Who will be every bit as interested in seizing their lands as the Russians?
Those are some fine options there either hope you canhold out long enough for the French together their or become at the very least an ottoman finger puppet.
 
Exactly what I wanted to ask. Was Ukrainian and Belarusian national awareness strong and widely-accepted enough them to want a liberation from Moscow?
They basically developed out of Moscow's mistreatment and mismanagement had the two peoples been treated better I highly doubt they would be separate nations today.
Honestly if they didn't get there own ssr Belarus would probably still be part of russia.
 
Napoleon's declared goal was to restore a greater Poland, i.e. the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Such a goal would, by default, mean to subject the Ukrainians and Belarusians to another yoke, so it's not a liberation.

Another related Nappy the Liberator scenario was for him to emancipate the serfs, despite the fact that many of the Ukrainian and Belarusian serfs were owned by Polish landlords. Any emancipation effort would alienate Napoleon's most faithful allies.

You are discounting native liberalism/reformism in Poland. Something that got quite a boost with the Partitions (see the May Constitution and Proclamation of Polaniec). Ideas like religious freedom and meritocracy would only gain a further boost when Poland is helped by and dependent on Revolutionary France. A multi-ethnic, multi-religious state is not doomed to infighting and hatred.

Now, I don't think Napoleon would or could do these things but that's because he's Napoleon. Not because the idea of a resurrected PLC is bad.

And who are they to ally with? The French? Who are on the other side of Europe or the ottoman Turks? Who will be every bit as interested in seizing their lands as the Russians?
Those are some fine options there either hope you canhold out long enough for the French together their or become at the very least an ottoman finger puppet.

The Ottomans aren't at all interested in taking any more land. At this time, they're at their weakest point in history and are focusing entirely on internal reform. Even a stronger Ottoman government wouldn't want to take such indefensible and non-Muslim territory. What would be the point? With that said, they wouldn't support Cossack states either. They couldn't protect them and it would just piss off Russia.
 
You are discounting native liberalism/reformism in Poland. Something that got quite a boost with the Partitions (see the May Constitution and Proclamation of Polaniec). Ideas like religious freedom and meritocracy would only gain a further boost when Poland is helped by and dependent on Revolutionary France. A multi-ethnic, multi-religious state is not doomed to infighting and hatred.

Now, I don't think Napoleon would or could do these things but that's because he's Napoleon. Not because the idea of a resurrected PLC is bad.



The Ottomans aren't at all interested in taking any more land. At this time, they're at their weakest point in history and are focusing entirely on internal reform. Even a stronger Ottoman government wouldn't want to take such indefensible and non-Muslim territory. What would be the point? With that said, they wouldn't support Cossack states either. They couldn't protect them and it would just piss off Russia.
Ottoman history is not my strong suit so I will defer to you here but what you have said really only strengthens my argument.
The only ally the Cossacks could seek is the French while the Russians have a ready made coalition of Britain, Prussia and Austria at the drop of a hat.
 
A bit like saying Obama didn't support gay marriage in 2009. Politicians have public and private views. Lincoln clearly desired to get rid of slavery, even if he argued he cared about the union first so that he won more support.

While it's good people do change beliefs for the better, I'm still cynical of how Lincoln would've handled the country if he wasn't shot.
 
Napoleon didnt want to dismantle the Russian empire or its institutions. You need some reason for him to want to do so. Maybe Napoleon wins the battle of Leipzig, then invades Russia again later in the decade, only this time to carve out territory as a punitive measure.
 
Didn't he want to ship all black Americans to south America?

According to General Butler, he suggested a colony of Black veterans in Panama. Afaik he never advocated exporting the Black population as a whole, presumably because he was good enough at arithmetic to realise its impossibility. He did, however, apparently like the idea of a bolthole for some Blacks who found themselves particularly uncomfortable in a white-ruled South.
 
According to General Butler, he suggested a colony of Black veterans in Panama. Afaik he never advocated exporting the Black population as a whole, presumably because he was good enough at arithmetic to realise its impossibility. He did, however, apparently like the idea of a bolthole for some Blacks who found themselves particularly uncomfortable in a white-ruled South.
Ahh well that's substantially more sane
 
Top