Read on Twitter
Alright so this thread is alright, but I feel like it can be elaborated on in places (and corrected in other places). I'm not making my own thread to attack Noah Smith or anything along those lines, but to provide more information for those interested in the Franco-Prussian War. https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1287433276462780417
Alright so he is mostly correct on setting the scene for the Franco-Prussian War, but a few things: It should be noted that Napoleon III, for all his flaws (of which there were many) did keep France stable. French domestic politics weren't nearly as chaotic as they had once been.
An important part of keeping the peace was the liberalization of the government and Baron Haussman's rebuilding of Paris. The rebuilding of Paris, broadened the streets of Paris so that barricades were harder to put up, thus reducing the power of Paris as a revolutionary center.
Napoleon III's economic reforms (focusing on modernizing agriculture, building railways, increasing trade, and reforming banks) ended famine and brought a fair amount of prosperity to much of France. This prosperity, combined with social reforms helped prevent revolts.
Napoleon III engaged in the same imperial ventures that most European nations did, albeit on a slightly larger scale. Most of these imperial ventures were attempts to emulate his more famous and talented namesake/uncle (pictured below being disappointed with his nephew).
His invasion of Mexico was an attempt to build French prestige and recreate a French Empire in the Americas. It is probably his most famous imperial venture as well as his most disastrous due to a combination of military defeats and a threat of American intervention.
Noah Smith is correct that Germany was not a unified nation and that Prussia was undoubtedly its strongest state. But Prussia was also fairly strong economically, largely due to its territories in western Germany that it had acquired in 1815 during the Congress of Vienna.
However, it is important to note that by 1870 most of Germany had already been united under Prussian rule through Bismarck's diplomatic maneuvers. In 1866 he had been able to provoke a war with Austria with the intention of removing Austrian influence from other German states.
Prussia, to the shock of the rest of the world, easily won the war due to superior technology (breech-loading rifles and an integrated rail system) and a better general staff/officer corps. After the war Prussia was able to put itself at the head of a North German Confederation.
It should be noted that Bismarck did not demand any territory from Austria, knowing that doing so would create a permanent enemy and put Prussia in a precarious diplomatic situation. Within a few years, Austria would become one of Germany's closest allies.
Practically the only part of Germany missing were the south German states (Bavaria being the most important of the bunch). Bismarck knew he needed an outside threat to bring these states into a greater German nation, and France was an obliging boogeyman.
In 1870, Bismarck provoked a war with France while through the so-called "Ems Dispatch." Basically Bismarck fabricated aspects of a report on a conversation so that it appeared that the French ambassador insulted the Prussian King and vice versa.
The "Ems Dispatch" rallied the public opinion of both France and the German states. The four southern German states willingly entered into a Prussian dominated alliance due to the subsequent French declaration of war and the stage was set for a long and drawn out war.
The main reason observers thought the French would eventually win was because the French army was still seen as the best in Europe. While the Mexican intervention had been a disaster, it could be attributed to diplomacy a lack of willpower to continue the war.
The French army was professional and had performed well in the Crimean War and the Second War of Italian Independence. Unlike the Austria, France was industrialized and its armies utilized modern breech loading rifles that were superior to the older Prussian models.
Tangent but yes, the French did kind of have a machine gun called the mitrailleuse. It was pretty good, and when used properly was quite effective. However it was almost never used properly because no one knew how to use them (they were a state secret). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitrailleuse
Noah is correct that the Prussians had superior artillery, but what's interesting is that France actually had more miles of railroad than the Prussians. They just didn't have an organized plan for subordinating trains to military control like the Prussians did.
Much of Prussia's success in the Franco-Prussian War can be attributed to better organization and a more centralized war effort. Prussia's mobilization in particular was more organized the Prussian had local numerical superiority at the start of the war.
I would like to push back on the idea of the French being demoralized or tired at the outset of war. French soldiers were no less brave or nationalistic than their Prussian counterparts. France was not let down by its soldiers or its people, but rather its leaders and generals.
In the opening battles of the war the French soldiery performed very well, inflicting more casualties on the Prussians than they received. However, the centralization of command (in the General Staff) allowed for greater coordination between armies and speed.
This speed allowed Prussian armies to repeatedly outflank the French army and it's defensive positions and thus force the main French field army (the Army of the Rhine) under Bazaine into the fortress of Metz. The pressure to relieve Metz would lead to the disaster at Sedan.
To relieve Metz the French formed the Army of Chalons under Marshal MacMahon and Napoleon III marched with his army. This relief attempt ended in disaster with the French outmaneuvered and surrounded at Sedan. On September 2nd Napoleon III and over 100,000 men surrendered.
As Noah Smith again rightfully points out, the French were not done fighting. However his timeline is quite off. The Paris Commune only rose up in revolt after the war was over, not during the Siege of Paris (although politicized national guard elements did attempt two coups).
After the disaster the newly proclaimed Government of National Defense called for volunteers to deliver the nation from the Prussian invaders and save Paris and 500,000 answered the call to arms. The French were in fact attempting to replicate the nation in arms once again.
The reason for the failure of these volunteers had nothing to do with a lack of fervor, they fought courageously. Their failure was due to a lack of coordination and the fact that they were facing a trained army, not an inherently more nationalistic one.
In summary France’s defeat was due to facing a more organized and better lead foe, not a more united or nationalistic foe. The French were just as nationalistic as the Germans were, as shown by the actions of the French people when all seemed lost.
Napoleon III, while flawed, did not cause the Franco-Prussian War or France’s defeat in the war. Also, Napoleon III isn’t Donald Trump. Do they have similarities? Yes. But they aren’t the same person and these aren’t similar contexts. America isn’t France and China isn’t Prussia.
Be careful with these sorts of historical comparisons. While trying to find lessons in history is fine, they should be limited. Things are rarely 1 to 1 compatible. Alright, I think this has gone on long enough. The end.
