Franco-Prussian War

Oh so he wasn't an incompetent moron, he was just an incompetent moron. Thanks for clearing that up!

>Louis Napoleon is a textbook example of why monarchy is a stupid idea.
He was elected President before declaring himself emperor.

What? user said that Napoleon didn't want war but populism forced him into it, how does that make him incompetent?

Monarchy can be elective.

But that's one of the main issues that republicans faced in France during the century that followed the revolution : peasants tended to support non-democrats.

Because he was emperor, he wasn't bound to yield to the mob. He whipped them up into a furor and then couldn't swallow his own pride when Germany called him on his bluster, this is incompetence by any name.

I actually meant that it wasn't monarchy as such that made Napoleon do the dumbest thing in his life. It was his populism. Napoleon ruled by pure populism - he satisfied the mob by giving it victories and glories (France stronk), as well as exploiting the mob's hatred of the educated class. The mob loved him, but only as long as he delivered. The very moment he met a defeat, he was gone. For the very same reason Napoleon couldn't back down from the war. The mob would thought him a pussy and ditch him. All Napoleon could do was to start the war and pray for a miracle .

This isn't anyone;s fault but his own, and even with this as the basis of his rule, he did not HAVE to declare war, he could have declared sanctions of some kind instead, yes it would look weak but if he knew he was going to lose the war he should have swallowed his pride and backed down. He didn't, he instead made an insane and retarded move for the sake of his own stubbornness, ie, he was incompetent.

In the first battle and in the first encounter, Prussians actually fought against literal niggers (and partially in hand-to-hand combat), I really wonder what they thought about the French afterwards.

What exactly is this mob you're talking about ? What part of French society was it ?

Napoleon was supported by the part of the bourgeoisie that enjoyed his support for their economic development, and by the peasants who thought that the kings ancd the republicans both brought too much trouble.
Generally he tried to be a compromise between divergent parts of society.

Thanks for the enlightening non-meme answer

Russia’s part in Prussian success was undoubtedly significant. Austria was kept back from any ideas of coming to France’s aid,by Russia amassing 300,000 troops on Austria’s border, enabling Prussia to focus all manpower on her Western frontier.

“Prussia will never forget,” gushed the newly minted German Emperor, William, “that she owes it to you that the war has not taken on extreme dimensions.” In reply, Alexander wrote back: “Let the friendship which unites us assure the happiness and glory of our two countries.”

Russia’s part in the unification of Germany guaranteed her that triumphant power’s support and protection at the beginning of the 1870’s, allowing the Tsar to inform Europe, in the Great Power manner, that the dignity of his empire was too important to take notice of the terms dictated to it, as a defeated power, fifteen years previously at the treaty of Paris.

Now THERE'S a reckless act of idiocy if I ever saw one. How did the Russian Tzar not understand how bad a unified Germany would be for Russia?

Because he was right to assume that Bismarck and Willy the first were smart people and would recognize that Russia's a far more useful ally than Austria and more reliable than Britain. He couldn't really foresee that some 20 years later an absolute moron would become Emperor

There was also a desire to stick to the Austrians who betrayed them during Crimean War.

>He couldn't really foresee that some 20 years later an absolute moron would become Emperor
Well he fucking should have, how short-sighted do you have to be to think solely in terms of your own personal relationships? He had a duty to Russia to keep her neighbors weak and he fucked it up catastrophically to the vast cost of his people, and the extinction of his royal line.

France was a major enemy to Russia and Austria betrayed them merely 15 years prior. They fought together with Prussia during the Napoleonic Wars. There really weren't so many reasons not to support Bismarck. France and Austria growing stronger would have been more direct threats

Then he should have stayed out. What good could possibly come of aiding Bismarck? I mean seriously, even if Austria unified Germany instead of Prussia, that would still be a better outcome. Seems like he was infantile enough to think that all that mattered was his own personal preferences, to hell with the reality of the situation or any notions of real politik, such things are beneath a divinely appointed god-king I suppose.

Are you stupid?
>Austria had shown itself to not be atrustworthy ally
>France was a threat to Russia
>Britain can't really be relied upon in any constellation, also crimean war
>Prussia, who you've worked together with in the past, decides to btfo your enemies
>surely, the best option is to not support them and allow your enemies to grow stronger again

Because fr*nchoids are subhuman

>Austria had shown itself to not be atrustworthy ally
So don't ally with them. This doesn't force you to side with their enemies, tho.
>>France was a threat to Russia
Uh, this isn't Bonaparte, it's his retarded nephew. Russia was in no possible way directly threatened.
>Prussia, who you've worked together with in the past, decides to btfo your enemies
But Russian foreign policy was squarely aimed at keeping Germany disunited, this was a bigger and more obvious threat than the Austrians (who at most wanted some more poles and Yugoslavs) or France (which was no threat to you at all).

Russia had been btfo by France in the crimean war, and was aching for some kind of revenge.

Also the russian court was full of germans

slavs somehow always loved to undermine prussian threat
first polacks spared prussia instead of annexing it
then house of brandenburg happened, thanks to prussiaboo tsar
then partitions of poland happened pretty much making prussia an regional superpower etc

>which was no threat to you at all
Are you being dense on purpose?

>then house of brandenburg happened, thanks to prussiaboo tsar
meant to write miracle of the house of brandenburg

>Fr*nch leadership
need I say more?

Russia dreamt of pan-slavism. They knew that there was a risk of war on the horizon, so they needed someone who might act as a counterweight to France and possibly Britain. Austria had shown during the Crimean War that they would not fill that position. Take a look at the Great Eastern Crisis for example. Hardcore panslavists might have felt betrayed by the Berlin Congress, but without Germany mediating the brewing conflict, Russia probably would've gotten btfo by a coalition yet again

>b-but why are there so many prussiaboos?

>Russia
Again, no. Alexander felt humiliated, "Russia" was probably not that bothered.
What threat did Louis Napoleon pose to Russia?

It's pretty ridiculous, you would have thought such a belligerent and militant state would raise some alarms, but slavs just kept patting it on it's retarded potato head when it fell down and went boom-boom instead of putting it down like they ought to have. Maybe they thought it was cute?

Russia should have realized that it's only rivals in pursuit of pan-Slavism were Prussia and Austria, and so should have formed ties with France and possibly Britain and Italy. Actually aiding Prussia against France was the literal worst move possible for such an ambition, good luck getting those Poles off a German Empire when you couldn't even get them off Prussia alone.

Yeah, I'm sure it was totally easy to do just that and Alexander just didn't think of it. Hindsight is 20/20 as always

Russia wanted Constantinople and the Dardanelles really bad, and France had actively fought against Russia during the Crimean war to prevent that from happening.

Pfft, if you don't have godlike prescience, then you shouldn't be running a country.

I'm not saying it would be easy, but foreign policy is a matter of picking a direction and then staying the course, there is a considerable strand of Francophilia in Russia that could be drawn on to mend bridges in the long term, and simply staying out of the Franco-Prussian war would have gone a long way winning over the French.

People in ITT seem to have the tendency to see things in 20/20 hindsight. Prussia hadn't been belligrent towards Russia, since the 15th century. They were allies for a long time, Russia had been ruled by Germans. The first two unification wars were more or less internal matters and remeber the partitions of Poland went three ways. Britain and France had just sided with the Ottomans to stomp Russia. Even a unified Germany would've have been an extremely powerful ally (and was, until Willy jr.), they were industrialized and militarily strong. Why wouldn't want to ally with Germany/Prussia.

>Prussia
They could give less of a shit about those few Poles, the ones they had were already troublesome enough. Russia had their eyes set on Constantinople and Mediterranean ports

Anybody have F-P book recommendations?

T. Burger

>Prussia hadn't been belligrent towards Russia, since the 15th century.

But Russia was, roughly 100 years during the Seven Years War when they invaded East Prussia and Frederick almost got BTFOed if it wasn't for a Prussaboo Tsar saving his ass.

>just have a world power keep out of world politics
>the consequences will stay out of your country
Isolationism was never an option for any continental power

Hold the fucking phone.
WW2 can be traced back to the shitshow caused by WW1.
WW1 can be traced back to the shitshow caused by the Franco-Prussian war.
And now you're telling me that the Franco-Prussian war can be can be traced back to the shitshow caused by the French revolutionary wars?

>WW1 can be traced back to the shitshow caused by the Franco-Prussian war.
And the Franco-Prussian war can be traced back to the shitshow caused by the Crimean war, wherein the frogs and bongs and roaches collaborated to war with the Russians, who proceeded to ally with the only possible group available to them... the Prussians

Well it was a mistake from the start to try and get control of the straits.
Of course France and Austria and the UK would become your enemies then. But they didn't have to be.

Gee, it's almost as if global politics is important and intertwined.

>Well it was a mistake from the start to try and get control of the straits.
>Of course France and Austria and the UK would become your enemies then. But they didn't have to be.
Yeah, but that ship had sailed. Man, you really were just being obtuse for the sake of it, weren't you?

Technically, all that was started because of Napoleon's defeat and the Congress of Vienna, which was ultimately caused by the French Revolution, which had as one of its chief causes the debt incurred by France fighting in the American War of Independence, which...

It's not about risk, but about chance.

Backing down would almost certainly get him disposed. Going to war would at least give him a chance at winning the war.

The thing with these kind of debates is not to get tempted by using hindsight.

>Backing down would almost certainly get him disposed.
Hindsight is still better than pure speculation which is what you offer right there.
I don't think he could have been deposed so easily after twenty years of rule, as his opponents were divided between royalists and republicans and both supported nappy against the other side.

>4063262

It's not pure speculation, its an argument, which is an educated guess at best. Unfortunately, an educated guess is the best form of argument this kind of hypothetical/alternative historizing has to offer.

Russia's biggest concern during this period was the Great Game against Britain and the Pan-Slavic meme, Germany works to both assist in the Baltic and to fuck Austria over on land, it's the most sensible ally to have

The Republic continued the war because they wanted to stall and try to get the Germans to relent upon the basis that; were the French to capitulate to Germany's demands, they would fall to a socialist revolution.

They took a glimpse at Europe's future

maybe you should stop watching extra credits and open a book

>Also, why did the new republic continue the war, did they actually expect to win after the disastrous first months?
While they still expected to lose, they wanted to improve their position to the point that they could protect the territorial integrity of France. We know how that went.

The Holocaust was caused by the invention of agriculture.

This is some genuine shitposting m8. It definitely was the control of fire by humans that caused the holocaust.