It is of course routinely argued that Napoleon was relying on the British anti-war movement in 1815. How realistic that was is debatable. Even if the government fell, it would have been more likely for the mismanagement of the war, rather than the war itself.Even if Waterloo was a Jena-esque defeat for Wellington, perhaps resulting in his death or capture, there would have been a very real risk it would only have caused anger and further fuelled the war sentiment.If so, Napoleon would not have been alone in history to have underestimated the belligerence and sheer bloody-mindedness of the British people. As a certain Bohemian corporal and more recently the EU commission has found out to their cost.
Well yes, you could also argue that the mass desertion was a sort of anti war movement - would be an interesting topic for another podcast to see if France had an open anti war movement like Britain in the days of crisis, say 1812 or 1813 or 1814.
Palm published a pamphlet and Nabulieone had the impression that the French Army was offended, when Palm refused to reveal the author, he was executed.
But did an anti war movement, voicing it eloquently and even standing for Parliament (in case I did comprehend this correctly) exist in Imperial France?
I honestly don't know - that's not to say that it may not have existed, just that I'm not well read on French political movements and internal resistance during Napoleon's empire.
No doubt you'll remember Clare Siviter-Groschwald who has found some interesting indications of more subtle expressions of resistance among Napoleonic theatre-goers. The fact that it had to be expressed so subtly probably tells us something though.
I found it very revealing that such an anti war movement could exist in Britain at this time of war, those voicing it were not shot - I can hardly believe that under such malign despot like Nabulieone this would have been allowed, see Palm for example.
Were people actually executed for voicing opposition? I am aware of some rigging of the plebiscites (falsification of votes etc, though not enough to turn the vote, but rather to make it seem more emphatic). I've not read of people being shot for opposition, only arrested.
It is of course routinely argued that Napoleon was relying on the British anti-war movement in 1815. How realistic that was is debatable. Even if the government fell, it would have been more likely for the mismanagement of the war, rather than the war itself. Even if Waterloo was a Jena-esque defeat for Wellington, perhaps resulting in his death or capture, there would have been a very real risk it would only have caused anger and further fuelled the war sentiment. If so, Napoleon would not have been alone in history to have underestimated the belligerence and sheer bloody-mindedness of the British people. As a certain Bohemian corporal and more recently the EU commission has found out to their cost.
Well yes, you could also argue that the mass desertion was a sort of anti war movement - would be an interesting topic for another podcast to see if France had an open anti war movement like Britain in the days of crisis, say 1812 or 1813 or 1814.
Palm published a pamphlet and Nabulieone had the impression that the French Army was offended, when Palm refused to reveal the author, he was executed.
But did an anti war movement, voicing it eloquently and even standing for Parliament (in case I did comprehend this correctly) exist in Imperial France?
I found it very revealing that such an anti war movement could exist in Britain at this time of war, those voicing it were not shot - I can hardly believe that under such malign despot like Nabulieone this would have been allowed, see Palm for example.