The Edinburgh Review, that’s who. The liberal Edinburgh was one of the two great British political and literary journals of the first half of the 19th century. It’s conservative counterpart was the Quarterly Review, which enjoyed its heyday at about the same time. An article in the April, 1810 issue reviewed a Letter on the French Government that had just been published by an anonymous “American recently returned from Europe.” Unfortunately, we still don’t know who he was, but we gather from his letter that he was an anglophile, highly educated, and very well informed about the financial arrangements of the Napoleonic government in France. The Letter deals mostly with taxation and the other sources of revenue of France at the time, and includes estimates of the total income and disbursements of the Empire, the amount spent on the military, etc.
The British reviewer, also anonymous as usual at the time, threw in some interesting speculations of his own regarding the current political and military situation, likely reflecting the journal’s editorial point of view. It will be recalled that in 1810 Napoleon was at the zenith of his triumphant career, with an army of around 800,000 veterans. His power on the ground in Europe seemed unchallengable, at least as far as liberal opinion in Great Britain was concerned. The reviewer’s comments about Napoleon and France have an uncanny similarity to some of the “informed commentary” about Hitler and Germany that was appearing on both sides of the Atlantic after his stunning victories in 1940 and 1941. They also reveal, yet again, the pitfalls of attempting to predict even the immediate future. Political pundits take note.
Then, as in 1940, victory created a deceptive aura of invincibility. In both cases, Russia appeared to pose the only remaining credible challenge to the power of the autocrats on the European continent, and in both cases a remarkably large number of “well-informed” commentators dismissed her with a wave of the hand. Here’s what the Edinburgh’s reviewer had to say about her:
The states that border upon France are ruled either by the kinsmen, or by the vassals of Bonaparte; – all but the Spanish chiefs, who have only a little hour to strut and fret. The more remote empire of Russia is still in peace; and in peace she must remain, or be crushed without mercy, and without hope of restoration, for she seemed powerful only by the prudent reserve of Catherine. The succeeding governments, less sagacious, have experimentally shown us how much we overvalued the resources of that country.
Of course, we know in retrospect that both Napoleon and Hitler had a disastrous penchant for undervaluing the “resources of that country.” Both of them found it rather more difficult to “crush her without mercy” than they had expected. The rest of the reviewer’s comments about how to deal with the “hopeless” superiority of Bonaparte seem hopelessly naive to those of us who know “the rest of the story.” They are, however, interesting by virtue of their striking similarity to the advice of a class of writers that we now refer to as “appeasers.” In both cases, the proposed “solution” to the problem was to avoid offending the triumphant dictator. Here is what the Edinburgh’s man had to say:
We do think, then, that there is no chance of our being able to crush the power of France by direct hostility and aggression; but still we are of opinion, that, by skilful and cautious policy, we may reasonably hope to disable it. This, however, we must do by gradual and cautious means; …we ought not to disturb the quiet of the Continent. Every agitation that we can now excite there, is a fresh advantage to our enemy; …We should rather endeavour to keep the states of Europe so completely tranquil, that he shall have no cause or excuse for war – no resistance to fear, no plots to punish. If we could but behold the French forces inactive, we might hope to behold them subdued. …”What then?” it may be said – Are we to congratulate ourselves on the helplessness of all the states that might make head against France? Certainly; – if we are convinced, as it appears we should be, that nothing can be expected from their exertions, while every thing may be hoped from their repose.
Just as the appeasers of a later day, the reviewer’s sanguine hope was that, if England just stopped provoking the boogeyman, he would eventually go away. His people, informed of their folly by the burgeoning power of modern means of communication, would become restive, and his army would just “melt away”:
While the war continues, and especially while it is possible to impute its continuance to the restless hostility of England, the vanity and impetuosity of the French people may second the ambition of their ruler; but if they be ever allowed to settle into the habits and enjoyments of peace, all the natural interests and reflections which are generated by the very structure of modern society, will expand with tenfold vigour, and oppose a most formidable resistance to the tyranny which would again repress them for the purpose of its own extension.
Napoleon’s mighty army would simply fall apart of its own accord,
…degenerating, by disuse, toward the level of a new and inexpert militia.
Of course, as we now know, Napoleon’s mighty army, and later Hitler’s, did not “degenerate by disuse.” Rather, their “degeneration” resulted from their attempts to “crush without mercy” a foe both they and the respective “experts” of the day had underestimated.
I suspect that the pundits of our own day will have no more luck in their attempts to predict the future than those of earlier ages. However, the psychological type of the appeaser is as familiar today as it was in 1810 or 1940, as is that of their more bellicose and militant counterparts, who once wrote for the Quarterly Review. In fact, neither type has had much success in predicting events. It’s a great deal easier to predict how they will react to those events when they happen, though.