General Revenge

There has been a great deal that has been written about General Georges Boulanger’s role in the war. It is so much, in fact, that I have not devoted a great many words to this subject. A great deal of the subject matter, written about the President For Life of France, has definitely painted the man as a villain, sometimes buffoonish, and quite often pins the blame for the entire war on him. While there is little doubt that Boulanger shares in the responsibility, to say that he was entirely responsible for the conflict is unfair. The reason this has happened seems quite clear. France grew to hate the man and most of the literature devoted to his role, in both war and government, was actually written in England where he was even less popular.

After the fall of the second empire, France was looking for another Napoleon Bonaparte and his descendants and family did not seem to have a replacement handy. Louis Napoleon seemed to have proved this, to many, after his defeat at the hands of the Germans in 1870. With this in mind it seems that Georges Boulanger was an obvious choice to be a new Emperor, even if it was not so obvious at the time, and despite the later image that was painted of him.

Boulanger was an aggressive, dashing, young military officer who had a career that paralleled Napoleon, almost to the letter. He came up in the artillery, served in several small wars in Italy, and then entered politics while advancing his rank in the military at the same time. He was also quite good at winning support on both the left and right of the French political spectrum of the day. In fact, his introduction to politics was made by a man who would later be one of his greatest critics. He was another Georges, considered a leftist radical, with the last name of Clemenceau.

Clemenceau had thought Boulanger a Republican and brought him in to the chaotic political scene in Paris. Boulanger drew a great deal of support from the workers and suburbs of Paris, most of whom were on the left, spanning from Radical Republican to outright communist. It was not long after that, when Boulanger became something of an outspoken conservative, favoring the Monarchists to a degree. Clemenceau backed away from Boulanger but, at this point, it was too late because while Boulanger got new support from the right, he held on to his supporters on the left. A situation developed where no one could afford to the offend the man who had feet on both sides of the fence.

One has to wonder how Boulanger managed to pull off this political juggling act and, then wonder why he would even want to. The name of the movement that grew around him, along with his nickname, tells most of the how. His followers became known as the Revanche and he was General Revanche. In English, put simply, Boulanger was General Revenge and all of that was directed at Germany. While this might explain how he pulled it off, the why of it became obvious when he took control of the Third Republic. The German issue was the only one that gave him support from the right and left, which was required for him to follow in the footsteps of Napoleon and become the new Emperor.

Oddly enough, Boulanger never quite achieved what he sought. While he definitely became a dictator he never became one that had a solid grasp of absolute power. While historians now often refer to this period, and Boulanger’s government, as the Revanche Period it was not the case at the time. Even Boulanger himself still officially called the French Government, the Third Republic, and so did most everyone else at the time. He even insisted on it and I think that has a lot to do with the difference between agitating for power and actually holding the reigns. While Boulanger was rising to power he could say almost anything he wanted about the Germans. At that time it did not matter. Once Boulanger controlled France, suddenly, the statements that he often shouted, to get him to that position, could start a war that he was not prepared for.

Unfortunately for Boulanger, this was one of the last wise choices he made as the leader of France. That is not to say that his administration was an unqualified disaster but, it seems, while Boulanger spent a lot of time figuring out how Napoleon rose to power, he either ignored or did not understand how the man kept it. This was something that even Louis Napoleon had figured out in his term as Emperor. The original Napoleon was a devoted student of Julius Caesar and simply followed his playbook, step by step. In fact, Caesar was simply copying ancient Egyptian Pharaoh’s who had discovered the formula ages before Europe. Dictators require two things, conquest and new buildings.

On the conquest side, Boulanger did manage to make some gains, however, they seemed pale in comparison to Caesar in Gaul or even Napoleon at Austerlitz. If, at any point, Boulanger had figured this out it might go a great ways towards explaining the importance that he had placed on his African railroad venture, the very one that led to the start of the war. He needed a win somewhere because, as for throwing up great buildings or creating giant public works programs, he was a complete failure. While Boulanger held the reigns, no substantial public works programs came down the pike. It is true that there were some improvements to the French infrastructure but, there was nothing as grand as Napoleon’s Arch de Triumph or his legal code. There was nothing to even compare to Louis Napoleon’s public works initiatives and, when your accomplishments cannot even be compared to a sewer pipe, you might have some problems.

Here is what English historians point too as their evidence that Boulanger intentionally started the war. It was by virtue of the fact that he had the most to gain. While fear of Germany was enough to get General Revenge crowned, it was not enough to allow him to keep the throne, unless, he actually started that war. While there is no doubt that Boulanger planned for such a war, that is not saying much when you consider that so did almost everyone else in France. The events that lead up to the conflict, I would hope, absolutely demonstrate that the man was as in the dark as everyone else. I would also hope that this demonstrates how Boulanger’s actions at the end of the war were far more important than those at the beginning.

By the spring of 1901, the British had a new secret weapon they were using on France. This was not some big gun, cloud of war, or even a wireless lightening detector. This weapon was a rather unassuming and quiet little Frenchman who happened to be a Jew, a former military officer, and had been at the center of an international controversy nearly a decade before. His name was Alfred Dreyfus. He had been accused of spying for the thinnest of reasons and many claimed it was due to his ethnicity. Even after it was clear to French Military Intelligence that he was not the spy, this information was buried and his trial continued. Even the detractors of Dreyfus quietly felt that the young man had been railroaded and did not deserve Devil’s Island. Still, the issues that arose from his very public trial were enough to split France in half.

Those who supported Dreyfus, such as Clemenceau, laid the blame for the fate of the young boy squarely on the doorstep of Boulanger. While it is well documented that he did medal in the case, the truth is that Boulanger was largely disinterested. He had enough troubles of his own, at the time, and even remarked that Dreyfus was a “minor affair.” Even so, this was not how it appeared to the average man on the streets of Paris. Handbills that were highly inflammatory, very anti Boulanger, and allegedly written by Alfred Dreyfus, began to appear on every lamp post in the city of lights. Even to this day, it is unclear if Dreyfus really even wrote any of these lengthy condemnations of Boulanger and the war. It did not matter.

By this time, everyone knew that Dreyfus had been liberated from Devil’s Island, by the Royal Navy. The British had made much fanfare of his arrival in London where the boy was now living in an expatriate community of Frenchman who opposed the Boulanger regime. He was something of a celebrity and exactly how much he actually did to try and remove Boulanger is open to speculation and, quite often, hotly debated. This point is largely irrelevant. All that Dreyfus needed to do was be there and it made an impact, even if this impact was not what the British propagandists were hoping for.

Georges Clemenceau is a perfect example of why a revolution did not occur in the name of Dreyfus. Every government will produce a number of exiles. In many cases, dictatorial regimes produce exiles who have fled for their lives or fear of arrest and even execution. Clemenceau had been such an exile but, not from Boulanger. Clemenceau had to flee from his homeland during the reign of Louis Napoleon and he moved to the United States were he ran two newspapers and tutored wealthy children, in French. After coming home, in 1871, he remained there and that includes after Boulanger came to power.

That is not to say that the regime did not take it’s toll. By 1901, Clemenceau was no longer holding political office. Boulanger did not run him out of the government, Clemenceau did so quite voluntarily and went back into the Newspaper business where he routinely attacked the French President with daily opinion articles that he personally wrote. Boulanger might have liked to arrest his rival but, like with most of the opposition he had, he found his hands tied in the matter. To arrest the dissenters would only weaken his regime since many of them, like Clemenceau, were popular with some of Boulanger’s core supporters as well.

It’s relevance to the Dreyfus situation is obvious. While there were many who left France in protest of Boulanger’s leadership, most of these did so voluntarily. It took a lot of power out of their rhetoric and, as a result, many in France ignored the exiles and thought them foolish. That is not to say that it did not have an effect. There were other problems bubbling just beneath the surface. They were just starting to be openly discussed when the Dreyfus Bills started appearing on street corners. It was a combination of issues that would begin a factional shift in France and Alfred Dreyfus was just one of many, even if he might have been the straw that broke the camels back.