Have Revolutionary France be remembered like the USSR

[TerranGames]

This is an idea that's been floating in my head for a while. I know that they're not the same, but there were some similarities between the two, and I've seen people draw parallels between them (the terrors, degenerating into dictatorship, etc), and I was thinking of what might be necessary to have Revolutionary France do for liberal democracies what the failure of the USSR did for socialism, you know:

"Socialism is a utopian ideology cooked up by middle-class intelligentsia, that only results in dictatorships and mass death. Look at what happened in the USSR, with Lenin and Stalin!"

And have it become:

"Liberalism is a utopian ideology cooked up by middle-class intelligentsia, that only results in dictatorships and mass death. Look at what happened in France, with Robespierre and Napoleon!"

I know liberalism is more expansive than just the French Revolution, and that it could be compatible with reformist monarchies like the UK, but is it possible to have a post-French Revolution TL (or at least one with a French Revolution-analogue, if you wanna have an earlier POD) where a long lasting French "Republic" (maybe with Napoleon remaining republican, as president-for-life or something) controlling most of Europe, mired in stagnation and authoritarianism, ends up discrediting the ideas of universal suffrage, total equality, republics, etc?

Maybe having the nations like the UK remaining with property-based suffrage, and never getting past the 1832 or '67 reform acts, and placating the working class voters with one-nation conservatism, or something? And the US getting permanently stuck with segregation? Just not the truly universal liberal democracies we have today.

IDK if this scenario is plausible at all. Any thoughts?

(Also, I know there was a brief wave of reaction after Napoleon was defeated, but I'm talking about this reaction lasting permanently, to some extent anyhow. Mildly reformist monarchies are ok, just not the crowned republics of today.)

 

[Mildtryth]

In order for that, you'd need to have the United States also failing somehow, since if it goes on as OTL, it'll serve as a obvious counter-example on how to do liberalism "right". And the circumstances of the failures would shape the arguments. But most likely, the "dictatorships" part wouldn't be a big part of the argument, except for pointing out how a government supposedly meant to eliminate "tyranny" only went on to become even more tyrannical than the one that preceded it. probably, people would probably see "mob rule" or "anarchy", possibly followed by tyranny, as the logical end point of liberalism.

 

[Beatriz]

What Madness is this has the US balkanize into petty dictatorships so that combined with an expansionist French Republic could work

 

[Karl der Große]

I don't think you can, the two don't really compare at all. The French Terror had a body count in the hundreds, maybe low thousands, concentrated in a few large cities. It didn't have the infrastructure or technology to support communism-level mass murder. USSR purges and gulags and forced population transfers and starvations killed millions all over the country.

 

[ennobee]

In order for that, you'd need to have the United States also failing somehow, since if it goes on as OTL, it'll serve as a obvious counter-example on how to do liberalism "right". And the circumstances of the failures would shape the arguments. But most likely, the "dictatorships" part wouldn't be a big part of the argument, except for pointing out how a government supposedly meant to eliminate "tyranny" only went on to become even more tyrannical than the one that preceded it. probably, people would probably see "mob rule" or "anarchy", possibly followed by tyranny, as the logical end point of liberalism.

The 'dictatorship part' will be the one people focus on most. Quickly it will become "People need a king, if they off the current one, they will just make a new one instead, see France" so instead of damning liberal ideas, it will cement the idea of a constitutional monarchism.

(And rereading this, I noticed that this is pretty much what happened OTL)

 

[pompejus]

I don't think you can, the two don't really compare at all. The French Terror had a body count in the hundreds, maybe low thousands, concentrated in a few large cities. It didn't have the infrastructure or technology to support communism-level mass murder. USSR purges and gulags and forced population transfers and starvations killed millions all over the country.

Also the French revolution was 2 centuries ago. People don't have long memories. After the French revolution there actualy was a revival of reactionary ideas, but after a couple of decades people forgot the horrors of the French revolution. Kind of like a couple of decades after the fall of the Soviet Union there are now several people who forgot the horrors of communism and are actualy saying it is a good thing again.

 

[mrmandias]

A relatively decent and stable monarchy on restoration

 

[Art Vandelay]

Have USA either lose the Revolution, keep Articles of Confederation, or fall apart after War of 1812 or Civil War. This removes the biggest example of republicanism working more-or-less as intended, leaving only the brief and chaotic Revolutionary France. This would show "see, republic doesn't work, it either becomes monarchy again or collapses". Any liberalism would therefore be British aristocratic liberalism, rather than American democratic liberalism. This doesn't totally eliminate liberalism, but it does more-or-less remove radical liberalism from mainstream thought on the grounds of proven failure.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

An important thing to keep in mind about OTL’s historical memory of the USSR is how tied it is to the Russian Imperialism of the 20th Century (ie a lot if non-Russian people were not fans). While the French Revolution was tied to French Imperialism, said empire did not last as long and was not as brutal to live under; now if “Bonapartist Europe” had survived to say circa 1860, that might have been different.

 

[Hawkeye]

1770's: The American Revolution ends with the colonies winning autonomy but the British monarch is still their sovereign.
1790's-1800's: The French Revolution deposes the ancient regime and creates a republic. The directory has more success in creating stability and Napoleon never rises to power. Prussia and Austria are defeated. The directory signs a peace of Amiens kind of treaty with Britain.
1810's: Britain enters a war against the League of Armed Neutrality lead by Russia. The Directory intervenes against Russia, but the war goes terribly for them and someone like François-Noël Babeuf takes over in a coup and transforms France and its remaining satellite according to his proto-communist philosophy. Russia establishes dominance over Prussia and Austria. The world has been de-facto divided into British, French, and Russian spheres of influence.
1830's: Social unrest erupts throughout Europe but are brutally crushed by France and Russia.
1840's: Russians take advantage of a collapsing Ottoman Empire and threaten the balance of power in Europe. A British and France alliance defeat Russia and becomes the world's two remaining superpowers. Most of Europe falls under French influence and Britain responds by creating alliances surrounding the French empire to contain its revolutionary ideas. A cold war takes place between British free market system and France's alt-communist system.
1880's: France's economy has long suffered due to corruption and mismanagement and its empire collapses as it cannot keep up with the social changes created by the Industrial Revolution. New states form in Germany, Italy, and the Balkans and are influenced by the thriving Industrializing Britain and its colonies.

 

[Beatriz]

1770's: The American Revolution ends with the colonies winning autonomy but the British monarch is still their sovereign.
1790's-1800's: The French Revolution deposes the ancient regime and creates a republic. The directory has more success in creating stability and Napoleon never rises to power. Prussia and Austria are defeated. The directory signs a peace of Amiens kind of treaty with Britain.
1810's: Britain enters a war against the League of Armed Neutrality lead by Russia. The Directory intervenes against Russia, but the war goes terribly for them and someone like François-Noël Babeuf takes over in a coup and transforms France and its remaining satellite according to his proto-communist philosophy. Russia establishes dominance over Prussia and Austria. The world has been de-facto divided into British, French, and Russian spheres of influence.
1830's: Social unrest erupts throughout Europe but are brutally crushed by France and Russia.
1840's: Russians take advantage of a collapsing Ottoman Empire and threaten the balance of power in Europe. A British and France alliance defeat Russia and becomes the world's two remaining superpowers. Most of Europe falls under French influence and Britain responds by creating alliances surrounding the French empire to contain its revolutionary ideas. A cold war takes place between British free market system and France's alt-communist system.
1880's: France's economy has long suffered due to corruption and mismanagement and its empire collapses as it cannot keep up with the social changes created by the Industrial Revolution. New states form in Germany, Italy, and the Balkans and are influenced by the thriving Industrializing Britain and its colonies.

Can there be a map series?

 

[TerranGames]

snip

snip

I suppose that discrediting all of Liberalism is impossible given the more moderate, monarchism-friendly versions, so maybe narrowing it down to discrediting Radical Liberalism might work better? So that Liberalism still exists, but in it's more limited, upper-class friendly form, while the more modern ideas of separation of church and state, universal suffrage, etc, are discredited.

I was thinking about having the more liberal monarchies adopt a more Locke/Mill style outlook on voting, and so maybe they adopt a system like the Prussian Three-class franchise where the votes are heavily skewed heavily favoring the upper classes or something. Then of course, we need to shatter the US, or at least get it stuck in a perpetual cycle of coups and corruption, so it's not considered a viable alternative to the French model.

snip

I was thinking of having Napoleon somehow remain a republican, and instead of becoming emperor, he remains "president-for-life" or something, and stops before attacking Russia, and so you have a large chunk of Europe under the control of a long lasting authoritarian "republic". Also, maybe the would develop their own secret police as well, since I've read many of the monarchies developed their own after the French Revolution was crushed, so maybe the French develop one of their own too, to "protect against counterrevolution?"

What would the consequences of a long-lasting authoritarian French Republic even be?

 

[PobreCesar]

I don't think you can, the two don't really compare at all. The French Terror had a body count in the hundreds, maybe low thousands, concentrated in a few large cities. It didn't have the infrastructure or technology to support communism-level mass murder. USSR purges and gulags and forced population transfers and starvations killed millions all over the country.

That's Paris. The Revolution also led to much larger deaths in rural areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chouannerie)

 

[Whiteshore]

I was thinking about having the more liberal monarchies adopt a more Locke/Mill style outlook on voting, and so maybe they adopt a system like the Prussian Three-class franchise where the votes are heavily skewed heavily favoring the upper classes or something. Then of course, we need to shatter the US, or at least get it stuck in a perpetual cycle of coups and corruption, so it's not considered a viable alternative to the French model.

Maybe have the US become dominated by Southern planter elites for longer than OTL here, especially with slavery and all that?

 

[Karl der Große]

That's Paris. The Revolution also led to much larger deaths in rural areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chouannerie)

Well fair enough, so running some numbers, based on the pages you provided the Vendee had casualties up to 200,000. Chouannerie doesn't have numbers, but looking at army sizes I think 100,000 is a fair (maybe even generous) number to give. I see the three other uprisings were not major, maybe costing a few thousand lives each. So 300,000 deaths of a population at the time around 28 million.
The Russian Civil War gives 7 to 12 million casualties of a population around 125 (population in 1897) or 147 (population in 1926) million. So let's cheese it and say 10 million casualties out of 150 million population. For the Vendee and Terror and Chouannerie in France to be comparable you'd need about 1.8 million (say 1 to 2 million) deaths. That's almost an entire order of magnitude (10x) off. THEN combined with the millions (Holodomor alone has 4 to 5 million) of mass deaths during population transfers and state-initiated famines (which people did NOT suffer in France), it is really impossible for Revolutionary France to have the same reputation with the technology available at the time.
If you want to really go big and include all the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars from 1792 to 1815, that's 1.3 million deaths in 23 years in France compared to 7 to 12 million deaths in only 5 years in Russia/the USSR. Considering time and per capita basis it's still an order of magnitude difference, and doesn't even include excess deaths from mass starvations and population transfers after the Russian Civil War.

 

[PobreCesar]

Well fair enough, so running some numbers, based on the pages you provided the Vendee had casualties up to 200,000. Chouannerie doesn't have numbers, but looking at army sizes I think 100,000 is a far (maybe even generous) number to give. I see the three other uprisings were not major, maybe costing a few thousand lives each. So 300,000 deaths of a population at the time around 28 million.
The Russian Civil War gives 7 to 12 million casualties of a population around 125 (population in 1897) or 147 (population in 1926) million. So let's cheese it and say 10 million casualties out of 150 million population. For the Vendee and Terror and Chouannerie in France to be comparable you'd need about 1.8 million (say 1 to 2 million) deaths. That's almost an entire order of magnitude (10x) off. THEN combined with the millions (Holodomor alone has 4 to 5 million) of mass deaths during population transfers and state-initiated famines (which people did NOT suffer in France), it is really impossible for Revolutionary France to have the same reputation with the technology available at the time.
If you want to really go big and include all the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars from 1792 to 1815, that's 1.3 million deaths in 23 years in France compared to 7 to 12 million deaths in only 5 years in Russia/the USSR. Considering time and per capita basis it's still an order of magnitude difference, and doesn't even include excess deaths from mass starvations and population transfers after the Russian Civil War.

Alright, I agree the Russian Revolution was certainly far bloodier (I do appreciate you doing the per capita math). I just like to spread the bad news of the rest of the French Revolution because most narratives are very Paris-centric.

 

[Karl der Große]

Alright, I agree the Russian Revolution was certainly far bloodier (I do appreciate you doing the per capita math). I just like to spread the bad news of the rest of the French Revolution because most narratives are very Paris-centric.

Yeah, and that's on me for initially having blinders on and zeroing in on the Terror when, you're right, there was so much more to it.

 

[Hearkener]

This is an idea that's been floating in my head for a while. I know that they're not the same, but there were some similarities between the two, and I've seen people draw parallels between them (the terrors, degenerating into dictatorship, etc), and I was thinking of what might be necessary to have Revolutionary France do for liberal democracies what the failure of the USSR did for socialism, you know:

It's prudent to mention that Socialism is far from a dead ideology in the modern world. There are still Socialist states (Cuba), and states that derive their political legitimacy from Socialist thought (China, NK) and insurectionary movements all over the world trying to establish Socialism in their areas of operation (Zapatistas) as well as reasonably large Socialist movements in all modern western democracies. The idea that Socialism was destroyed by the end of the Cold War is an "End of History" idea which doesn't really hold much water.

Republicanism was absolutely seen with the same kind of horror by the European establishment as Socialism is today by certain people. For many decades, Republican movements were visciously persecuted across Europe (this is the origin of the surveilance state btw). And it would take a generation for Republicanism to return openly in the Revolutions of 1848. Even thereafter, the modern world of liberal democracy wasn't really created until the end of WW1, when all the old monarchies of Europe at last went into their dusty tombs.

Basically, Socialism ain't dead, so the idea isn't well articulated.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

The Soviet Union was kind of a failed system. Even without nationalist groups trying to break for independence or pressure to waste money on military on keeping up with USA, it was doomed to collapse on itself. I think there was an old joke that roughly translates to "you work hard, you get $36 a month. You don't work hard you get $36" now obviously Soviet Union used rubbles so whoever translated that joke must have done some currency conversion but my point stands that the system is built on quicksand. Revolutionary France was self-sustaining, if they could win external wars and purge monarchists, they could have stood for generations. Similairites between the two are superficial like both having purges and executions. Royalists were the major internal threat, unless you count Napoleon Bonaparte. But honestly when it came to foreign policy, he wasn't that different than The Directory or their predecessor so from the perspective of someone not in France, he was basically a continuation and for the most part how a country is perceived by the rest of Europe will have a bigger determinant in how it is remembered than how a country behaves internally. Unless other countries start bothering to translate their own history without waiting for a British or American to do it for them this will always be the case. I mean for awhile a translated version of Romance of the Three Kingdoms was the only way British Shinologists precvief the end of the Hand dynasty because for a long time it was the only source avalible and after there were other sources, it was the only source that permeated pop culture.

 

[prester.john208]

That's Paris. The Revolution also led to much larger deaths in rural areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chouannerie)

Perhaps it gets overlooked since a few hundred thousand deaths falls between a tragedy and a statistic.