This Place is dead and I blame the moderator.

[al Roumi]

Well I was going to make a thread on the anniversary of Fall Weiß discussing the major operations and battles, and some of the historical misconceptions about the campaign. However, there seems to be limited interest in the Eastern Front during WW2 so I didn't bother.

Really? I'd be interested too... I read Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad a few months ago and have Berlin sitting around waiting too...

The situation was different from say, Spain, because the emerging and growing bourgeoisie was quite fond of new ideas.
The situation was different from say, the UK because the bourgeoisie didn't hold any power, while it was starting to become the dominant economical class (industrialization was starting to kick in).

Why France is an interesting question. Meneldil does a good job of outlining the internal factors which led to the revolution (going back years). I'd expand a little on the famine point as spikes in bread prices, generating riots (which were variously exploited or channeled by politicians) were a key feature in generating flashpoints of the conflict/situation. Keeping control of the mob was as much a problem for the "revolutionary" leaders as it was for the ancien regime.

To answer: "Why not elsewhere in europe?", we should acnowledge that first of all, the french revolution was a move from absolute monarchy to consitutional of which there were other contemporary such movements, e.g. the low countries and England, decades before. What is unique about the French revolution is how far it went. But, few if any of the original individuals and groups pushing for reform from Absolute Monarchy desired or envisaged not having a king, let alone any of the particularily radical measures that were to ensue. Their movement was essentially one of the (bourgeois) property-owning middle class, whom the absolute monarchist system excluded from political power and respect/influence. The revolution was actually a long process, in stages, which gained momentum as the (primarily economic) crisis in France deepened.

The first few years were watched with avid interest and much liberal support from accross Europe -including Britain. Only when the constitutional government (i.e. non absolute monarchist) lost its grip and the sans-culottes started to run riot did the outside liberal world recoil in horror at the Jacobin "terror". In fact, during the first years, there was so much support and enthusiasm in Britain for what was happenening in France that it seemed things might also change in Britain. Then, as now, what was seen as Jacobin terror gave great credence to the supporters of "order" and for the protection of private property.

[Meneldil]

The first few years were watched with avid interest and much liberal support from accross Europe -including Britain. Only when the constitutional government (i.e. non absolute monarchist) lost its grip and the sans-culottes started to run riot did the outside liberal world recoil in horror at the Jacobin "terror". In fact, during the first years, there was so much support and enthusiasm in Britain for what was happenening in France that it seemed things might also change in Britain. Then, as now, what was seen as Jacobin terror gave great credence to the supporters of "order" and for the protection of private property.

Well, though there was indeed some sort of support in favor of the newly born Revolution in UK, the country at large was hostile to it. Let's not forget that Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France was published in october/november 1790, long before the Revolution took its radical turn. The book became a best-seller before the "Terror".
I guess my point is that the UK bourgeoisie didn't show as much interest for the Revolution as the American and west-German upper class.

As for the radicalization of the Revolution, it is in my opinion mostly Louis 16th's fault. He didn't have the will to simply crush the opposition (as his forefathers would have done), but didn't really show any enthusiasm for the reforms either. His constant double-play (encouraged by his retard wife who acted as the voice of the most conservative fringe of the nobility) could only lead to trouble. He wasn't a really good politician.

[al Roumi]

Well, though there was indeed some sort of support in favor of the newly born Revolution in UK, the country at large was hostile to it. Let's not forget that Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France was published in october/november 1790, long before the Revolution took its radical turn. The book became a best-seller before the "Terror". I guess my point is that the UK bourgeoisie didn't show as much interest for the Revolution as the American and west-German upper class.

True, but Britain was already a constitutional monarchy and its bourgeoisie were also much more empowered. Remember many in Britain were supportive of enlightenment and even the values underpinning the independance of the USA. There was also a fair bit of jingoism around how France was (finaly) modernising -following Britain's example of course.

The following link includes an interesting discussion of this very topic:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...h_rev_01.shtml

As for the radicalization of the Revolution, it is in my opinion mostly Louis 16th's fault. He didn't have the will to simply crush the opposition (as his forefathers would have done), but didn't really show any enthusiasm for the reforms either. His constant double-play (encouraged by his retard wife who acted as the voice of the most conservative fringe of the nobility) could only lead to trouble. He wasn't a really good politician.

Most historians I've read have indeed panned him as useless and dithering. His counsel (including his wife), as you point out, were also responsible for his comprehensive mismanagement.

[rory_20_uk]

Some have postulated that another factor was a poor harvest which causes obvious pressures, but also that this in turn forced more to eat mouldy wheat which can cause effects ranging from illness to hallucinations. Nutters appearing all over the place is hardly going to aid stability.

I've not read about the Eastern Front in a while, but that is more to time constraints than lack of interest.

[Brenus]

The French Revolution happened because the debts due to mainly the help against the English to US (and few financial scandals as Laws system –1720-) and the seperate Peace Treaty signed by the now US where the French monarchy gained next to peanuts (few islands).

Louis the XVI needed money, so he needed to change the tax system.
In order to do this he had to gather les Etats Generaux, created by the King Philip IV Le Bel (the bad king who burned the Templars).

He was obliged to do thanks to Reactionary Nobility movement that resented the Absolute Power finally imposed by Louis the XIV (but started by Louis XIII and his Prime Minister Richelieu) after the Fronde, and that wanted to recover the feudal Rights, as price to be paid.

The gathering of the Etats Generaux had to be preceded by the writing of the Cahiers de Doleances where the good people of France politely showed what was wrong in the Humble Opinion and asked his gracious Majesty to do something about it, especially in term of tax and no more feudal Rights.

So he had 2 completely different oppositions. He could have work on it.

The food situation was not good, but the detonator, the ignition was more about the speculation on the wheat than the shortage. It was a free market economy so some did what some would call an honest speculation in stockpiling the goods then releasing at high prices in small quantities…
Bread was the main aliment of the French population at these times…
The exasperation of the populace due to this disette (light famine, don’t know in English) and the political turmoil joined in one movement, and this movement helped by the total incapacity from Louis the XVI to grasp what happened. Revoking his popular Prime Minister to please the Extreme Nobility, then recalling him under the streets pressure, promising then withdrawing changes, Louis the XVI dig the gap between him and his bon Peuple de France. The good People of France started to distrust his King.
At first the French wanted a Constitutional Monarchy, as in England.
But misusing his remained powers Louis the XVI showed his intentions to take back the absolute and full power.
So he started a process where he will loose his head, and at the end, the French Monarchy, even if few attempt to restore it were made (was the help of Foreign powers) and eventually failed.

[Brandy Blue]

disette:

Perhaps the English would be food shortage? That would mean there wasn't quite enough food but the situation was not desperate. People would be hungry but not many would actually be starving.