Why was Europe, and Britain in particular, so relatively "chill" about the ascension of Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte to power?

[raharris1973]

Why was Europe, and Britain in particular, so relatively "chill" about the ascension of Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte to power?

You would think his coming to power, and stepping through the cursus infamousorum of naming himself Consul and then Emperor would seem like some spooky deja vu to Europeans and British who had the first Napoleon in living memory or heard about him and his wars from Dad or Grandad.

From a 20th and 21st century perspective, our views on him, especially non-French ones, may be more detached and balanced, with some good points of the guy being recognized and him not being seen as some Genghis Khan or Hitler figure. But to many non-French continental nationalities and the British *in the 19th century*, Napoleon "the ogre" *was* their Hitler, the guy who almost wiped us out. A lot of adults in Britain and across the continent at the time Louis-Napoleon came to power in France probably had been told as children that if they were naughty, Napoleon would take them away.

Transferred to a later era - it would be like Hitler's nephew taking power in Germany in the 70s, or a Hohenzollern restoration in the mid-40s. I think there would have been some alarm.

How did Louis-Napoleon allay suspicions? How did he get British and Spanish and Austrian tolerance or even cooperation with so many of his diplomatic initiatives? When he modernized his fleet with steamships, there was a bit of naval scare in the British press and Admiralty, but how did this end up becoming a nothingburger in terms of leading to an Anglo-French war, or a British anti-2nd Empire containment policy?

In the case of the French 2nd Empire's overall cordial relations with the British Empire, such a contrast to the relationship between the two during the "2nd hundred years war" of 1689-1815 and tensions with the 3rd Republic in the 1880s and 1890s and rough episodes in 1940-42 and the De Gaulle Presidency, who should get most of the credit?

Should Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte get the most credit for expert substantive policy and public diplomacy that mastered the art of reassurance?
Should the British leadership get most of the credit for their cool and level-headed receptiveness to French outreach?

 

[PsihoKekec]

From what I remember reading, they weren't exactly chill about, Napoleon becoming president triggered an invasion scare that lasted for years, but British government wasn't really in position to seek escalation with France, as they were already committed to containing Russian empire. It helped that France was not considered a serious threat to the British empire, as the rest of Europe was also committed to containing it's influence, so Britain was free to conduct it's imperial expansion.

 

[raharris1973]

From what I remember reading, they weren't exactly chill about, Napoleon becoming president triggered an invasion scare that lasted for years, but British government wasn't really in position to seek escalation with France, as they were already committed to containing Russian empire. It helped that France was not considered a serious threat to the British empire, as the rest of Europe was also committed to containing it's influence, so Britain was free to conduct it's imperial expansion.

In the end the British anti-French reaction was kind of a nothingburger though, and within about 4 or 5 years (1853), Britain was aligned with 19th-century 'Hitler's nephew' -led France in a crisis, a year later (1854) aligned with them in a war, two years after that (1856), aligned with him in a second war (against China), two years after that standing aside while he invades another country (Vietnam), a year after that, standing aside while he intervenes in Italy and defeats the great power army of Austria. Two or three years after that, Britain and France are jointly invading Mexico. For any wariness in London, there's a lot of rehabilitation and tolerance going on.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Britain already switched to Russia as it's nemesis and excuse for empire-making, a fact that Napoleon used as a way to gain diplomatic support for his actions, by seeking confrontation with Russia he forced the British to align themselves with France, because it was the best chance for them to have an ally with enough troops for a ground war against Russia. At the same time the foolish Franz Joseph sundered the League of the Three Emperors, leaving Austria without allies.

In short the British were very vary of Napoleon's rise, but were so focused on Russia that they were willing to overlook certain developments, as long as France did it's part in curtailing Russian menace.

Two or three years after that, Britain and France are jointly invading Mexico.

And promptly started quarrelling, with the British leaving and the French getting stuck in a war they couldn't afford.

 

[stevep]

I think initially the period of unrest in 1848/49 probably made a lot of people too busy to seek to remove this 'new' Napoleon, then that he quickly moved to an imperial stance but without the same desire for massive invasions of other areas.

Coupled with this while there were concerns at time, such as after the initial launching of the ironclad Glorie but the superiority of the rapidly launched HMS Warrior and of British industry overall at that time made that a fairly temporary scare. Also for most of his reign Napoleon III was the leader of a relatively liberal state compared to the other large continental powers. He briefly dabbled with the current British delusion of laissez faire ideology after all and for all his bombast did take a more active role in things such as suppressing slavery IIRC.

Also as PishoKekec says Russia had emerged as the great threat after 1815, both potentially to the stability of the European power balance and to threats to the Ottoman empire, British India and northern China. This was reduced a bit after the Crimean war as Russia had been shown to be a lot weaker than it had appeared but by that time France under Napoleon was seen as a relatively stable and responsible power. Also there were still tensions with Russia outside Europe.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I think after a certain point, Napoleon III revealed himself to be a far less aggressive emperor than his uncle whilst restoring stability to his young empire. That, coupled with a modest interest in colonies and a more deep interest in domestic affairs (he basically built a good chunk of modern Paris) he wasn’t all that scary.

Indeed, he was a competent ruler and the Second French Empire was somewhat flourishing under his rule, until the whole Franco-Prussian War fiasco.

 

[Cherico]

I think after a certain point, Napoleon III revealed himself to be a far less aggressive emperor than his uncle whilst restoring stability to his young empire. That, coupled with a modest interest in colonies and a more deep interest in domestic affairs (he basically built a good chunk of modern Paris) he wasn’t all that scary.

Indeed, he was a competent ruler and the Second French Empire was somewhat flourishing under his rule, until the whole Franco-Prussian War fiasco.

In his defense he was going up against one of the greatest political minds in human history.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Backed by one of the finest military establishments ever.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

In his defense he was going up against one of the greatest political minds in human history.

Backed by one of the finest military establishments ever.

Oh absolutely, it wasn't like it was "his fault" so to speak. Prussia under Bismarck was just that much of a monster.

 

[Buba]

Bismark was smart, but no Mega!Mind. E.g. Franz Joseph as opponent is not exactly a challenge. The Prussian army also is overhyped, with the army of the 2nd Empire being pretty meh. It only took a reasonably well commanded - or at least NOT mismanaged - army to beat it.

(he basically built a good chunk of modern Paris)

The wide avenues were to prevent barricade building by a revolting populace. Smart!

 

[The Iron Monocle]

It helped that Napoleon III came to power after the revolutions of 1830 and 1848. So since the last time a Napoleon was in charge of France, there had been two Bourbon kings (one deathly ill and elderly and his successor a spendthrift incompetent), a third Bourbon who had modest success only to have the economy fall apart in the late 1840s, then a shitshow of a republic. Great Britain was getting very concerned about Russian ambitions in the Caucasus and pokings about in Persia and Afghanistan, and any threat to India was priority one for the Foreign Office. Since Napoleon III seemed to be a competent administrator and was not actively opposing British interests at the time made him palatable and a force for stability.