WI: The February 6 Protesters take the Concorde Bridge

On February 6, 1934, a group of people representing numerous right-wing French parties took to the streets of Paris. They gathered on the banks of the Seine, seperaed from the National Assembly by the Concorde Bridge. The protest, naturally, turned into a riot, and the police could barely contain the charging protesters.

So what happens if he police don't hold, if a couple of cowards flee, and are followed by the rest? The National Assembly will fall, and the iroters won't have a very democratic inclination. What happens next?
 
Wouldn't the government call out the Army if the police can't hold? Surely there's an infantry division in the vicinity of Paris. IIRC there was also a dedicated "SpecOps" police squad- Hendryk would know the name.
 
Wouldn't the government call out the Army if the police can't hold? Surely there's an infantry division in the vicinity of Paris. IIRC there was also a dedicated "SpecOps" police squad- Hendryk would know the name.

Well, they aren't actually going to form a new government unless they have an extraordinary bit of luck, but still the only force they faced in OTL was the police; if the police break the Plais Bourbon and the legislators inside are going to fall, and possibly burn-which would have interesting political implications...
 
Of course it would. Lebrun and the government ministers would have to be evacuated (times like these are when you need a helo) from the Elysee to a military base. Lebrun declares martial law and sends an infantry division or two into Paris. It won't be family-viewable, but the problem will be fixed.
 
Of course it would. Lebrun and the government ministers would have to be evacuated (times like these are when you need a helo) from the Elysee to a military base. Lebrun declares martial law and sends an infantry division or two into Paris. It won't be family-viewable, but the problem will be fixed.

That's probably what would happen, yes. But I think what he was asking about was what would have been the implications if the evacuation had been too slow, and the rioters had caught the government. Now, that's not likely to happen - but it could, given a little ill luck and disorganization. If that happened, then things would get interesting. Probably the end result would still be the army coming in and restoring order with a decent amount of bloodshed, but if the rioters kill their hostages... it could be extremely messy, and have far-reaching implications for French politics in the years to come. After all, a lot of important Frenchmen were present at the National Assembly, and so would have been among the dead...

I'm no expert on French politics of that era, so the precise details of what would result from such an event are beyond my ability to predict.
 
Since these are fascists and the far-right, it probably gives a good boost to the left for the foreseeable future. "Would-be traitors!" Depends on who is killed as well. If they can get Laval but Reynaud is spared (mobs generally don't do ID), that would help down the road.
 
That's probably what would happen, yes. But I think what he was asking about was what would have been the implications if the evacuation had been too slow, and the rioters had caught the government. Now, that's not likely to happen - but it could, given a little ill luck and disorganization. If that happened, then things would get interesting. Probably the end result would still be the army coming in and restoring order with a decent amount of bloodshed, but if the rioters kill their hostages... it could be extremely messy, and have far-reaching implications for French politics in the years to come. After all, a lot of important Frenchmen were present at the National Assembly, and so would have been among the dead...

I'm no expert on French politics of that era, so the precise details of what would result from such an event are beyond my ability to predict.

It is what I'm asking, yes; the worst scenarios are always the most fun.:)

I don't think its too much of a stretch, as the Assembly was..rather busy (the night ended with a fistfight) and the rioters were very close. A large part of the government being wiped out by rioters should have some interesting effects on the government.
 
It depends on who is killed. There is a TL based on this called Croix-de-Feu where this succeeds and Petain takes power in 1934.
 
In the Third Republic (France's political regime from 1870 to 1940), the power was not at the Elysée Palace, but at the Palais-Bourbon, seat of the Chamber of Deputies. Had the rioters succeeded in invading the Palais Bourbon, they would have found most of the ministers there. Of course, it's conceivable that some key figures would have been evacuated (even without helicopters). It certainly would have been the case for the President of the Council (that's how the prime minister was called then), Edouard Daladier.

In OTL, Daladier resisted the calls for him to resign on February 6 and issued clear orders for the Palais Bourbon to be protected and the rioters contained. He only resigned on February 9, when the crisis was over.

Had he been evacuated and the Palais Bourbon taken, he could paradoxally have been freer in his decisions to save the situation. He would probably have gone to the Elysee Palace and ask the President of the Republic to issue orders to the Army to intervene.

Now the President of the Republic, Albert Lebrun, was pretty weak (I cannot resist quoting Charles de Gaulle. About Lebrun, he wrote: "as chief of state, he only lacked two things: that there was a state, that he was a chief"). He might have done what Daladier asked, then again he could have dragged his feet.

There is also the question of the unity of the rioters. The extreme-right at the time was not a united front. What happened on February 6 was not a planned coup d'état. I doubt very much that colonel De La Rocque, the leader of the Croix de Feu, would have gone so far as taking deputies and ministers hostage. He would have been willing to negociate the peaceful evacuation of the Palais Bourbon and then things could have gone back to what happened in OTL, with Daladier resigning and a national unity government being constituted.

Finally, what would have been the attitude of the Army during the crisis? There was a strong anti-republican feeling among the superior officers but still it was the army of the Republic. I don't see the Army siding with the rioters.
 
Now the President of the Republic, Albert Lebrun, was pretty weak (I cannot resist quoting Charles de Gaulle. About Lebrun, he wrote: "as chief of state, he only lacked two things: that there was a state, that he was a chief"). He might have done what Daladier asked, then again he could have dragged his feet.

There is also the question of the unity of the rioters. The extreme-right at the time was not a united front. What happened on February 6 was not a planned coup d'état. I doubt very much that colonel De La Rocque, the leader of the Croix de Feu, would have gone so far as taking deputies and ministers hostage. He would have been willing to negociate the peaceful evacuation of the Palais Bourbon and then things could have gone back to what happened in OTL, with Daladier resigning and a national unity government being constituted.

Finally, what would have been the attitude of the Army during the crisis? There was a strong anti-republican feeling among the superior officers but still it was the army of the Republic. I don't see the Army siding with the rioters.


Could Lebrun have asked someone like Pétain to form such a government - maybe with "emergency powers" that made him a dictator?
 
Could Lebrun have asked someone like Pétain to form such a government - maybe with "emergency powers" that made him a dictator?

Not Pétain himself. He first joined a Cabinet (as Minister of War) after the riots. I'd go with André Tardieu, the most brillant leader of the Right at the time. On the other hand, "emergency powers" could lead quickly to a counter-riot organised by the SFIO and the Communists.
 
Not Pétain himself. He first joined a Cabinet (as Minister of War) after the riots. I'd go with André Tardieu, the most brillant leader of the Right at the time. On the other hand, "emergency powers" could lead quickly to a counter-riot organised by the SFIO and the Communists.

Absolutely! In OTL, the national unity government was headed by Gaston Doumergue, a former President of the Republic, a reassuring and uniting figure. Pétain was Minister for War. Tardieu and Laval were also in the cabinet.

For all his faults, Albert Lebrun was the product of a parliamentary system. He would first explore all the possibilities among republican leaders before calling an outsider like Pétain. And Pétain himself was much too cautious to make a move at the time. He would have waited for the situation to get worse and worse.
 
Not Pétain himself. He first joined a Cabinet (as Minister of War) after the riots. I'd go with André Tardieu, the most brillant leader of the Right at the time. On the other hand, "emergency powers" could lead quickly to a counter-riot organised by the SFIO and the Communists.

This could be an interesting result. Hm... so perhaps a good TL could be built that goes:

PoD: Daladier gives up and resigns. With him gone, the assembly devolves into even worse arguing than was the case OTLy. This leads to a disorganized response to the riots. The rioters take the bridge, storm across and attack the National Assembly, killing many members of the government. It isn't an organized thing, just random violence. Maybe add some pyromania into the mix for maximum confusion.

Leading to: With the police clearly unable to deal with the situation, Daladier approaches Lebrun, and asks for the army to be sent in. Lebrun dithers, perhaps protesting that Daladier resigned last night. With no action being taken, the right runs wild. However, after they killed members of the French government and smashed/burned a large part of Paris, the Communists/assorted leftist factions take to the streets in a counter-riot. This goes about as well as can be expected, and the entire city is plunged into anarchy.

The next day, after a day and two nights of rioting, looting and arson, the army is finally called in to restore order. Having exhausted themselves fighting one another, the extremist rioters are easily put down. With many senior politicians dead or in hospital, with Paris heavily damaged and with the government's credibility severely depleted, France seems poised for further troubles. What nature precisely those troubles will take remains to be seen... although history has shown us that in times of chaos, when people are panicking, they will often support otherwise unattractive leaders, if that leader can only offer stability and order...

Well? Thoughts? :)

(Note that this is not intended to be read as my take on the most likely outcome of the rioters taking the bridge or of Daladier resigning. It is intended to be possible, but is presented mainly to potentially serve as the basis of an interesting TL.)
 
I doubt La Rocque would take advantage of it. Would the National Assembly have been stormed, it would have been against his orders, and, despite his public image, the guy was irresolute (among the far-right and fasict movements, the Croix-de-Feu were mocked as the "Froides-Queues", which roughly translates as "the limp dicks"). Actually, La Rocque would probably support a strong, Republican Cabinet, but he would have been remplaced by a more radical leader in his own movement. I'd say Pierre Taittinger, leader of the Patriot Youth, would rise to a proeminent role within the far-right protesters.

On the left, Doriot, still a communist at the time, was a vocal supporter of an antifascist alliance with the Socialists against the far-right "Ligues". He might become the leader of the Communist Party against the more orthodox Thorez, but the PCF would be at odds with the Komintern. of course, that February 6 could hasten the "Popular Front" doctrine and Stalin would probably urge for an alliance with the Socialists earlier than OTL.
 
Top