X Close

Did the French Revolution cause Nazism? If Louis XVI had hung onto his throne, Europe wouldn't have been overrun by tyranny

The French Revolution unleashed tyranny in Europe. Credit: Universal History Archive/Getty Images

The French Revolution unleashed tyranny in Europe. Credit: Universal History Archive/Getty Images


September 15, 2020   4 mins

For the want of a fast coach, the Kingdom of France was lost. For the want of a Kingdom, the French Revolution succeeded. And so Europe was put on the long and bloody path from guillotine to gulag.

You didn’t really think the French Revolution was a force for good, did you? As if. All the great political woes of the modern era ‚ÄĒ Communism, Fascism, and its German bier and swastika variant, Nazism ‚ÄĒ have their tangled, bitter beginnings in the storming of the Bastille. The French Revolution was the¬†taproot of Tyranny in our time. No French Revolution, no Marx, no Hitler. Voila!

The French Revolution began in 1789 as an Enlightenment experiment.¬†In 1793, however, the Jacobins, led by Robespierre, tried to¬†turn¬†France¬†into a Rousseauian theme park ‚ÄĒ where the people were¬†sans private possessions and¬†sans¬†self-interest,¬†but were suborned to the state (“the general will”) ‚ÄĒ by destroying the rich. The Jacobins also wanted to export the ‘benedictions’ of Revolution via the barrel of a cannon.¬†

Sound familiar? Yes, it is the same millenarian collectivist philosophy of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Osama Bin Laden. The accompanying praxis was, and is, murder. Mass murder. As Robespierre so delightfully put it: ‚ÄúWe must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish with them‚ĶTerror is nothing but prompt, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue.‚ÄĚ Before 1793, Europe¬† was no stranger to violence, but not until the French Revolution was murder used systematically¬†to erase a designated¬†internal enemy from its existence. The Jacobin’s mass firing squads¬†anticipated absolutely the Nazis‚Äô Einsatzgruppen.

The Jacobins desired¬†‚ÄúYear One,‚ÄĚ a cheerless utopia in which individual freedom was rescinded in the name of the commune, and where the people¬†were dosed¬†daily with propaganda¬†to rid them of their vices ‚ÄĒ such as the desire to own a home of their own (“Property is theft!”), to possess freedom of thought or to enjoy a private life. The Jacobins and their descendant mini-mes, in their thirst and thrust for absolute power, have disavowed all ordinary amusements. Hence the purist, monkish public image cultivated by Robespierre, Hitler, Mao, et al.

It could have been so different.¬†In June 1791 Louis XVI was about to flee Paris in a fast carriage; at the last moment, MarieAntoinette (and her voluminous baggage) insisted on accompanying him, rather than travelling separately. Uxorious to the nth degree, the king agreed. Consequently, they took the big and literal slow coach instead of the speedy light one ‚ÄĒ and were intercepted by revolutionaries a mere 25 miles from the safety of the Belgian border. The royal couple were then returned to Paris to be shortened by Madame Guillotine.

But in a parallel universe, there exist Les Annals Alternatives de la France and they tell of Europe’s avoidance of the nightmare of tyranny: the right, fast route taken. The relevant extract follows.

On the night of 20/21 June 1791 in the Tuileries Palace, Louis XVI¬† patted his powdered wig and said to the queen: “Don’t be daft, ma petite chou, one valise only! Vite!” Their light coach sped from Paris, to meet loyal soldiers, who escorted the royal family over the border into Belgium. The king, who was a realiste, understood there was¬†only one power that could¬†truly aid him. Thus he swallowed his pride and sailed across La Manche to perfidious Albion, where he was welcomed with wide arms and pawky eyes.

From Britain, Louis XVI sowed discord in France, and eventually reinvaded successfully in 1794. But there was a cost: to pay for his fomenting of counter-revolution he hocked Louisiana and other French properties to Britain. With France disengaged from North America, Britain ¬†had the whip hand over the uppity colonials and won the War of 1812, controlling all of North America into the late 21st Century (latterly on a Canadian “member of Empire” model, rather than direct rule).¬†Britain henceforth not only ruled the waves (having sequestered the French fleet): it ruled half of terra firma.¬†

Louis¬†XVI reinstalled himself as a reforming monarch and the Revolution stalled, spluttered and died. Louis, a convinced Catholic, retained strong support from the powerful and fiercely anti-revolutionary Church, while his encouragement of legislative self-government separated the mass of revolutionaries from the Jacobin hardliners. Thus, he commanded majority support.¬†However, bound to the Church as the new France was, it made stony ground for science, and France’s Industrial Revolution was henceforth a stuttering affair similar to that of its southern neighbour, Spain. (Britain, meanwhile, boomed.)

The “proto-communists” of the Revolution did not disappear entirely: their creed was taken up by an obscure German PhD student called Karl Marx. However,¬†he failed to find a following outside students in the newer universities and “polytechnics”. Moderate socialism, however, became a mass force, under the banner “Reform not Revolution!” Indeed, this became the mantra of the entire of Europe. “Ink not Blood!”¬†was another popular slogan.¬†

The definitive termination of the revolutionary mindset in France itself came with¬†Louis XVI’s exiling of¬†“The 500″ (the principal leaders of the Revolution) to the island of¬† New Caledonia where, deprived of¬†vin rouge and tobacco, the scarlet and the black, they withered and died.¬†Louis’s political adroitness ‚ÄĒ the exile was torture which appeared to be clemency ‚ÄĒ was compared to that of Machiavelli’s Prince.

Inevitably, monarchist France, isolated and enfeebled militarily, produced no sturm und drang reaction in its Germanic neighbours, who failed to proceed beyond a loose federation of Ruritanians. (Essentially, there was nothing for them to unite against; as the saying goes, no grit, no oyster.)¬†“Romanticism” achieved a certain following in Germanic coffee houses and bierkellers. But no more than that.

In a cause c√©l√®bre one such Romantic, Adolf Hitler, fell off his ladder in 1967 while¬†daubing anti-Jewish slogans on the walls of the Reichstag. His 30-person strong National Socialist Party claimed he was pushed by agents of the Rothschild banking dynasty. The pathologist’s report determined that Herr Hitler had suffered an aneurism, which was accepted by the house painter’s lover, Bruno, 72.

Curiously, despite its diminished standing in Europe, there were two spheres in which France led the continent post-Restoration, these being philosophy and music. With the planet dominated by three centuries of¬†the British political model of safely safely pragmatism, French¬†philosophes continually¬†engaged with what 20th Century Parisian academic Jean-Paul Sartre termed¬†“The Ennui of Anglicisation” in his book¬†Critique de la raison Britannique. (In his suicide note Sartre declared “The British Way is So Boring I Revolt by Self-Murder”; a number of other philosophes imitated him, including the Marxist adherent Louis Althusser, who strangled himself with his wife’s stocking.)

To the disappointment ‚ÄĒ and contempt ‚ÄĒ of the philosophes,¬†the people showed no inclination to either rise in rebellion or to self-annihilate. Latent hankerings for the excitement of revolution in This Most Boring of All Possible Worlds (see Jacques Derrida, Writing and Indifference, 1962) were ultimately diverted into “pop rock”, the ultimate Anglo-Saxon cultural victory. And so French entertainer Johnny Hallyday became the biggest-selling singer on the planet in the second half of the 20th century, after re-releasing all his songs in English.


John Lewis-Stempel is a farmer and writer on nature and history. His most recent books are The Sheep’s Tale and Nightwalking.

JLewisStempel

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

6 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J A Thompson
J A Thompson
3 years ago

As a 20 year old when the speech was made, I was appalled at the response it engendered. I struggled to see anything in the speech which was anything other than a political analysis of the possible outcome of a government policy.
In the eighties, taking an education degree at a time when multiculturalism was being thrust into the curriculum, I was called racist, by a few (fortunately people were not as polarised or as vicious then) for querying the agenda of the group who came into college to lecture us on its implimentation. I wish I had been better informed to marshal the argument of incoming culture v the laws of this country that needed to be discussed, let alone the other issues.
Not that long ago, I watched with interest as articles suggesting the failure of multiculturalism began to appear in a few places. When Enoch Powell was referenced, this time as being prescient, I reread the speech and looked around at what was happening.
Recent events and their treatment by the media are leading us to a situation where the abuse of this country and its inhabitants by a small, vociferous and overindulged section of the minority groups, supported by a large number of ill informed and/or ill intentioned members of the majority group, together with the heads of some institutions and authorities, may well lead to the already violent clashes becoming even worse.
Enoch Powell may be vindicated but I doubt his shade will be taking any pleasure in the fact; he is one politician who truly had the interests of everybody in the country at heart.

Colin Elliott
Colin Elliott
3 years ago

I will make three points.
First, I am aware that other professionals are also becoming disincentivised by the increasing impositions of ‘standards’, and ‘procedures’, and the reduction in respect accorded to learning, experience and ethics.
Second, we are cursed with the system known as the NHS, the most important feature of which is that it is the direct responsibility of the government of the day. Add to that the fact that there are many people (opposition and media) who always exploit any incident for their own reasons. A bad incident is used for this, rather than given an appropriate level of attention by disinterested authorities.
Furthermore, politicians cannot stop themselves tinkering with it for one reason or another, and when they do so, they need numbers of civil servants to carry out their plans, and who probably end up sponsoring or defining the ‘guidelines’ etc. with minimal practical knowledge which end up causing the frustration referred to above. .
Third, another feature of the NHS is that it is colossal, ranking alongside the US department of Defense and the PLA. It may adopt ‘corporate identity’ policies, but such a size provides limitless opportunities for creating jobs which seem a good idea at the time, but consume resources, and worse, create yet more red-tape, and distract from effective health care.
Far better to have much smaller units, such as a hospital (and I don’t mean a group of hospitals, necessarily,) within which it becomes much easier to create teams with esprit de corps. It’s also easier to administer and remunerate.
The obvious thing to do would be to look at the rest of the world, and copy what the best of them do. How about the countries to which these doctors are emigrating? They’re not going in order to find a better NHS-type system.
As for money; doctors are amongst the more affluent embers of society, as indeed they should be, which is why I believe lack of satisfaction with the job is the problem.

Scott Allan
Scott Allan
3 years ago

Socialised medicine is a failed Neo-Marxist ideal. The reason they run to places that use a hybrid system is that they are not wholly beholding to the “Woke” rubbish in the social medicine system.

Gary Baxter
Gary Baxter
3 years ago

In the long list of murderers from Marx to Osama Bin Laden one name is missing ” Mao Zedong! Is it intentional or accidental? I suspect the former as intellectuals in the West still don’t know (or care to know) how many Chinese lives Mao destroyed. Pol Pot is in the list. I wonder if he could have killed one million of his countrymen without Mao’s active support.

Joey Eccles
Joey Eccles
3 years ago

Fascinating article! But on your point “Europe was no stranger to violence, but not until the French Revolution was murder used systematically to erase a designated internal enemy from its existence.” would you not say that the Catholic / Protestant schism in England and further afield led to precisely such systems, not to mention going back further to the complete eradication of the Cathars in Occidental France?

johntshea2
johntshea2
3 years ago

“It was in the British interest to preserve its naval strength through means ‘not short even of alliance with Japan,’

Indeed, for Powell there was little to choose between the two, and “no reason to believe that the British constitution will be threatened more by the socialist dictatorship than by the democracy of the United States”¬Ě.

So, he was stark raving mad! Far from being the prophet the author suggests, Powell’s rants sound even more delusional now than when he made them.