Could the November Uprising of 1830 have succeeded?

[Emperor Constantine]

Actually, at least according to Karl Marx, Metternich (yes, Metternich!) in 1830 was initially willing to restore Poland if it had an Austrian prince, but this ultimately didn't go anywhere due to Palmerston being opposed and Louis Philippe being unwilling to act without Britain.

Sorry, but when your example being cited is Karl Marx the socialist (who had no access whatsoever to high levels of government and wrote about the events some 34 years after the fact, and was only twelve when said events happened), I have to question the source. It reads like an often repeated rumor that Marx decided to take as fact.

As for Prussia, well, it was neutral during the November Uprising. There might've been plans for Prussia to crush the 1830 uprising, but these weren't carried out since AFAIK France threatened war with Prussia if it attempted to crush the uprising.

Also not true. Or rather, flipped topics. Prussia had threatened to invade Belgium with the Dutch, in order to suppress the uprising there. France threatened war over that, not Poland. The French had zero ability to power project into eastern Europe, and such a theoretical war (coming within months of the installment of a new "revolutionary" regime in Paris) would only see the French face off against an 8th coalition. Threatening a fellow great power to spread revolutionary activity would be the fastest way to freak the rest of Europe out.

You're probably right. Still, the statement of @Lalli about not a single great power willing to accept the polish success is overreacted. At that time Nicholas I believed himself to be the gendarme of Europe, and he spoke that he's about to go to Western Europe to crush both the Belgian Revolution and most of all the July Revolution in France. The second case would obviously cause the French to support the polish success for the sake of having it as a distraction for Russia. Simultaneously there's Britain. As much as Britain opposed breaking the status quo, a much bigger threat for the status quo were Nicholas' plans to absorb the Ottoman Empire. This was the main concern for Britain, as shown during the Crimean War. Thus, the polish success would be approved by Britain as a way of making Russia less able to attack the Ottomans.

All of that is pretty false, or untrue.

1. This was 1830 Nicolas I, not 1849 Nicholas I. Two very different beasts. And talking about sending troops to France is different then actually doing it. That statement was more a flig leaf to get further criticize the revolutionaries in the eyes of other conservatives; "See, those darned French could have been crushed by the glorious Russian army if not for those traitorous Poles!" Or something like that.

2. How, exactly, could the French provide support? I mean logistically. France is in Western Europe, while Poland is in Eastern Europe. Any material aid has to cross the German Confederation (meaning Prussia ignoring the supplies) or Italy and Austria (which means the Habsburgs ignoring said supplies) or shipped in (and the Poles had no port in the 1830-31 rising). Outside of declaring war and marching an army across Germany, the French can't do squat. At most, they can provide loans, but all the money in the world means nothing if there's no realistic way to get supplies to Poland.

3. Britain, even under the Whigs, was firmly supporting the Russians in their suppression of the November Rising. In fact, British society had very little sympathy for the Poles (especially in comparison to the French), And moreover, the British were staring down an incipient revolution in 1830-1832 in the form of the reform crisis. Britain was seeing tons of riots across the country during this period, had had all its attention focused on domestic issues, with the exception of Belgium (as the British long considered Antwerp a "dagger pointed at their hearts" and could never tolerate it in the hands of a hostile power).

So, for all the reasons I've pointed out, the November Uprising was always doomed to glorious, romantic failure.

 

[alexmilman]

Abstracting from chances of the uprising to succeede, if it happened it would be massive gain for Russia in the long term, as such humiliation would force RE to implement really radical reforms, which would more than balance loss of Congress Poland. At the same time increase of Russia's power would be overlooked (and thus not contained) by other powers, who'd underestimate Russian strenght, having in mind Russia's humiliation in Poland.

While I fully agree about the benefits for RE, unfortunately the whole thing is unrealistic just because of the humiliation factor: RE, as a Great Power, could not afford to lose to a minor rebellious state without losing its international position. Benefits of having such a position (real and imaginable) are besides the point. Unfortunately, a pure rationality is not always a driving factor.

If it was, inscription to the picture above would be along the following lines: “Officers of the Guards, there are great news! Finally, we can get rid of that ugly child of the Congress of Vienna with which my late brother saddled us! The Russian money will not be wasted on these ingratitudes anymore! Thank God! We are free, at last!” [1] 😂😂😂

Wouldn’t this be wonderful for everybody? Well, it would not because the Poles will immediately proceed with the demands for the “lost territories” with the inevitable defeat, a need of occupation, continued financial support and a need of an accommodation… Expecting that one side starts behaving rationally is already excessively optimistic but both, especially the Poles of that time (no offense), is a pure fantasy. 😂😂😂

[1] It is tempting to add “Champaign for everybody!” 😜

 

[The Link]

Sorry, but when your example being cited is Karl Marx the socialist (who had no access whatsoever to high levels of government and wrote about the events some 34 years after the fact, and was only twelve when said events happened), I have to question the source. It reads like an often repeated rumor that Marx decided to take as fact.



Also not true. Or rather, flipped topics. Prussia had threatened to invade Belgium with the Dutch, in order to suppress the uprising there. France threatened war over that, not Poland. The French had zero ability to power project into eastern Europe, and such a theoretical war (coming within months of the installment of a new "revolutionary" regime in Paris) would only see the French face off against an 8th coalition. Threatening a fellow great power to spread revolutionary activity would be the fastest way to freak the rest of Europe out.




All of that is pretty false, or untrue.

1. This was 1830 Nicolas I, not 1849 Nicholas I. Two very different beasts. And talking about sending troops to France is different then actually doing it. That statement was more a flig leaf to get further criticize the revolutionaries in the eyes of other conservatives; "See, those darned French could have been crushed by the glorious Russian army if not for those traitorous Poles!" Or something like that.

2. How, exactly, could the French provide support? I mean logistically. France is in Western Europe, while Poland is in Eastern Europe. Any material aid has to cross the German Confederation (meaning Prussia ignoring the supplies) or Italy and Austria (which means the Habsburgs ignoring said supplies) or shipped in (and the Poles had no port in the 1830-31 rising). Outside of declaring war and marching an army across Germany, the French can't do squat. At most, they can provide loans, but all the money in the world means nothing if there's no realistic way to get supplies to Poland.

3. Britain, even under the Whigs, was firmly supporting the Russians in their suppression of the November Rising. In fact, British society had very little sympathy for the Poles (especially in comparison to the French), And moreover, the British were staring down an incipient revolution in 1830-1832 in the form of the reform crisis. Britain was seeing tons of riots across the country during this period, had had all its attention focused on domestic issues, with the exception of Belgium (as the British long considered Antwerp a "dagger pointed at their hearts" and could never tolerate it in the hands of a hostile power).

So, for all the reasons I've pointed out, the November Uprising was always doomed to glorious, romantic failure.

(sigh)... Do I really need to ask the same question all over again? Where exactly have I said that the French are about to fight the Russians during the November Uprising? Where has anyone in this thread suggested it? I'm merely pointing out that the French wouldn't condemn the Uprising. It's rather Lalli the one who made it sound as if everyone in Europe would suddenly send its troops to crush the Poles. Likely Prussia and Austria (then the November Uprising would be indeed crushed), but just them and noone else. Should the November Uprising succeed, Britain would eventually get over it.

 

[The Link]

While I fully agree about the benefits for RE, unfortunately the whole thing is unrealistic just because of the humiliation factor: RE, as a Great Power, could not afford to lose to a minor rebellious state without losing its international position. Benefits of having such a position (real and imaginable) are besides the point. Unfortunately, a pure rationality is not always a driving factor.
View attachment 906264
If it was, inscription to the picture above would be along the following lines: “Officers of the Guards, there are great news! Finally, we can get rid of that ugly child of the Congress of Vienna with which my late brother saddled us! The Russian money will not be wasted on these ingratitudes anymore! Thank God! We are free, at last!” [1] 😂😂😂

Wouldn’t this be wonderful for everybody? Well, it would not because the Poles will immediately proceed with the demands for the “lost territories” with the inevitable defeat, a need of occupation, continued financial support and a need of an accommodation… Expecting that one side starts behaving rationally is already excessively optimistic but both, especially the Poles of that time (no offense), is a pure fantasy. 😂😂😂

[1] It is tempting to add “Champaign for everybody!” 😜

Sorry, but while a matter of prestige is a factor, getting an ecstasy about eradication of some country doesn't sound rational.

 

[alexmilman]

Sorry, but while a matter of prestige is a factor, getting an ecstasy about eradication of some country doesn't sound rational.

Did I say anything about somebody being rational?

 

[Jan Olbracht]

While I fully agree about the benefits for RE, unfortunately the whole thing is unrealistic just because of the humiliation factor: RE, as a Great Power, could not afford to lose to a minor rebellious state without losing its international position. Benefits of having such a position (real and imaginable) are besides the point. Unfortunately, a pure rationality is not always a driving factor.
View attachment 906264
If it was, inscription to the picture above would be along the following lines: “Officers of the Guards, there are great news! Finally, we can get rid of that ugly child of the Congress of Vienna with which my late brother saddled us! The Russian money will not be wasted on these ingratitudes anymore! Thank God! We are free, at last!” [1] 😂😂😂

Wouldn’t this be wonderful for everybody? Well, it would not because the Poles will immediately proceed with the demands for the “lost territories” with the inevitable defeat, a need of occupation, continued financial support and a need of an accommodation… Expecting that one side starts behaving rationally is already excessively optimistic but both, especially the Poles of that time (no offense), is a pure fantasy. 😂😂😂

[1] It is tempting to add “Champaign for everybody!” 😜

Obviously, losing a war against his own subject is not something, that any ruler of the time could afford, let alone Nicholas I. Older brother really left him in situation without good options with dubious gift of Polish throne. Otherwise by mid 19th century (when modern Polish nationalism replaced sentiment for PLC) "Polish Question" would no longer be Russia's problem.

 

[alexmilman]

Obviously, losing a war against his own subject is not something, that any ruler of the time could afford, let alone Nicholas I. Older brother really left him in situation without good options with dubious gift of Polish throne. Othe by mid 19th century (when modern Polish nationalism replaced sentiment for PLC) "Polish Question" would no longer be Russia's problem.

Yes. Exactly my point. And don’t forget the considerable investments which the cash-strapped RE had been making since the Kingdom was created. Perhaps the best solution would be to give the crown to Constantine, either immediately or in 1825, and cut off all financial links but I suspect that a potential beneficiary would be reluctant to accept because in his existing status he was a de facto ruler with no responsibility, financial backing and ability to screw his younger brother, which he seemingly enjoyed.

So AI committed a fundamental stupidity, with the only reason being to satisfy his personal ego, causing numerous problems for his own country. On the other side of the equation, the Poles also were not happy because they did not get (a) all the lands they wanted (the fact that they were a beaten side somehow did not penetrated the brains of their nobility) and (b) complete rights which they were promised (and which would make their monarch a clown on a scale almost comparable to the PLC). The rest was a law of the unintended but predictable consequences.

 

[Ambusher11]

Sorry, but when your example being cited is Karl Marx the socialist (who had no access whatsoever to high levels of government and wrote about the events some 34 years after the fact, and was only twelve when said events happened), I have to question the source. It reads like an often repeated rumor that Marx decided to take as fact.

The French historian Louis Leger (though this is a 1889 source, so perhaps not completely unquestionable either) also claimed that the Austrian political circles were discussing potentially placing a Austrian archduke on the Polish throne, though he doesn't attribute it specifically to Metternich, who he just said was trying to mediate the conflict (which Nicolas I refused). Austria itself, while preventing Polish insurgents from entering Austrian territory and blocking arms from being exported into the area, did allow sympathy for the Poles to be expressed in the Augsburg Gazette.

Also not true. Or rather, flipped topics. Prussia had threatened to invade Belgium with the Dutch, in order to suppress the uprising there. France threatened war over that, not Poland. The French had zero ability to power project into eastern Europe, and such a theoretical war (coming within months of the installment of a new "revolutionary" regime in Paris) would only see the French face off against an 8th coalition. Threatening a fellow great power to spread revolutionary activity would be the fastest way to freak the rest of Europe out.

Guess you might be right about Prussia in 1830-31 only threatening to suppress the Belgian Revolution. I had looked at the 1863 Alvensleben Covention which, once leaked, caused France to threaten war with Prussia (not that the convention would've been implemented in any case, as Alexander II neither needed nor wanted Prussian help in suppressing the uprising), and assumed that there might've been a similar planned intervention by Prussia against the November Uprising that was similarly stopped by French threats of war.

 

[The Link]

Yes. Exactly my point. And don’t forget the considerable investments which the cash-strapped RE had been making since the Kingdom was created. Perhaps the best solution would be to give the crown to Constantine, either immediately or in 1825, and cut off all financial links but I suspect that a potential beneficiary would be reluctant to accept because in his existing status he was a de facto ruler with no responsibility, financial backing and ability to screw his younger brother, which he seemingly enjoyed.

So AI committed a fundamental stupidity, with the only reason being to satisfy his personal ego, causing numerous problems for his own country. On the other side of the equation, the Poles also were not happy because they did not get (a) all the lands they wanted (the fact that they were a beaten side somehow did not penetrated the brains of their nobility) and (b) complete rights which they were promised (and which would make their monarch a clown on a scale almost comparable to the PLC). The rest was a law of the unintended but predictable consequences.

If there is any stupidity commited by Alexander the First, it was to gradually start taking away the freedoms given to Congress Poland (a trend happily continued by Nicholas the First prior to Uprising). Many Poles accepted the situation made for Poland at the Congress of Vienna and actually used to praise Alexander in 1815. And as I explained, even by the time the November Uprising outbroke, there were many doubts among the Poles about whether to fight. The tsars were very much able to gain the polish loyalty permanently, and the tsars screwed it up. So blame them instead.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

If there is any stupidity commited by Alexander the First, it was to gradually start taking away the freedoms given to Congress Poland (a trend happily continued by Nicholas the First prior to Uprising). Many Poles accepted the situation made for Poland at the Congress of Vienna and actually used to praise Alexander in 1815. And as I explained, even by the time the November Uprising outbroke, there were many doubts among the Poles about whether to fight. The tsars were very much able to gain the polish loyalty permanently, and the tsars screwed it up. So blame them instead.

Poland's political traditions were fundamentally incompatible with the Russian Empire, so there would always be a conflict even IF the Tsars had decided to continue to have one super autonomous province in the face of absolutism everywhere else. The Polish elite would continue to agitate for more independence, as they saw the autonomy as a stepping stone. What happens when the Poles want to add the other Russian parts of the former Commonwealth to their autonomous province? Or when the independence faction inevitably conspires against the Russians? Or a revolt in the Austrian and Prussian partition regions gives ideas? No, Congress Poland was always doomed to failure.

 

[alexmilman]

Poland's political traditions were fundamentally incompatible with the Russian Empire, so there would always be a conflict even IF the Tsars had decided to continue to have one super autonomous province in the face of absolutism everywhere else. The Polish elite would continue to agitate for more independence, as they saw the autonomy as a stepping stone. What happens when the Poles want to add the other Russian parts of the former Commonwealth to their autonomous province? Or when the independence faction inevitably conspires against the Russians? Or a revolt in the Austrian and Prussian partition regions gives ideas? No, Congress Poland was always doomed to failure.

All true and the argument “pro-Polish AI” does not answer a simple obvious question: why the Emperor of the RE would have to bother to be a king of Poland as well? He would not. His first interest should be his own Empire and its well-being, not the expensively bought sentiments of a foreign and historically unfriendly nation, which was too weak to be a threat and, especially in OTL arrangement, could not be a military or economic bonus by a virtue of being completely separated from the RE in pretty much everything except getting subsidies (FYI, RE got out of the Napoleonic wars with a hugely devaluated currency, big debt and serious destruction of the manufacturing infrastructure but AI’s 1st priority was to invest into Poland).

Just create a rump state ruled by some reasonably neutral German princely dynasty and let it rot or flourish on its own.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

All true and the argument “pro-Polish AI” does not answer a simple obvious question: why the Emperor of the RE would have to bother to be a king of Poland as well? He would not. His first interest should be his own Empire and its well-being, not the expensively bought sentiments of a foreign and historically unfriendly nation, which was too weak to be a threat and, especially in OTL arrangement, could not be a military or economic bonus by a virtue of being completely separated from the RE in pretty much everything except getting subsidies (FYI, RE got out of the Napoleonic wars with a hugely devaluated currency, big debt and serious destruction of the manufacturing infrastructure but AI’s 1st priority was to invest into Poland).

Just create a rump state ruled by some reasonably neutral German princely dynasty and let it rot or flourish on its own.

Rump state would be strongly opposed by Prussia & Austria, so for Alex it would be better to restore 1795 borders (with RE keeping just Białystok and Tarnopol). Bonus is, that Prussia and Austria would face serious troubles with their Polish population, especially the former, which within 1795 borders was almost half Polish. Once nostalgia for PLC dies out and idea of ethnostate prevails among Poles, RE would be even able to play Polish card freely against western neighbours.

 

[alexmilman]

Rump state would be strongly opposed by Prussia & Austria, so for Alex it would be better to restore 1795 borders (with RE keeping just Białystok and Tarnopol). Bonus is, that Prussia and Austria would face serious troubles with their Polish population, especially the former, which within 1795 borders was almost half Polish.

Such a schema would probably remove from the table (or at least minimize) a thorny issue of the Prussian compensation, which split the allies and provided Talleyrand with an opening for making France an equal partner in Vienna. AI would be above the fry, all pink and fluffy, declaring for his only goal was removal an ogre from power and restoration of peace, justice, etc. in Europe.

Once nostalgia for PLC dies out and idea of ethnostate prevails among Poles, RE would be even able to play Polish card freely against western neighbours.

The point was that, whatever the final arrangement, the worst, from the Russian state perspective, was one of the OTL: it was a huge political and financial burden for the RE with no visible benefits as a compensation. This is why I was talking about Alexander’s idiocy: he created something that neither side was satisfied with and which the “3rd parties” could use against his “primary state” just to satisfy his ego.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

The point was that, whatever the final arrangement, the worst, from the Russian state perspective, was one of the OTL: it was a huge political and financial burden for the RE with no visible benefits as a compensation. This is why I was talking about Alexander’s idiocy: he created something that neither side was satisfied with and which the “3rd parties” could use against his “primary state” just to satisfy his ego.

Neither side was satisfied in 1815, but Prussians were the real winners in the long run.