Paris on Fire: The Rise and Fall of the 1871 Commune

“To the barricades!” boomed through the narrow streets leading to Montmartre, one of the city’s hills in the middle of Paris. It was 18 March 1871 and, as so many times in the 19th century, revolutionary fever was gripping the French capital. It had been building up for several months and reached its peak in the last gasps of the Franco-Prussian War (July 1870-May 1871). Its agents were members of the rapidly growing working class, which was driving economic growth while at the same time living in increasingly miserable conditions, while the rich were getting richer. France’s catastrophic defeat by Prussia was the icing on the cake of the unrest caused by dissatisfaction with the exploitative regime and government of the incompetent Emperor Napoleon III, the nephew of a much more famous and successful, but equally megalomaniacal, namesake.

When Napoleon III cowardly surrendered and fled into exile after his defeat against von Bismarck’s army at Sedan, the French overthrew the Empire and proclaimed the Third Republic for the third time in the last few decades. But at the head of the provisional government was the conservative and popularly hated General Adolphe Thiers, a man with no sympathy whatsoever for the increasingly loud calls of the workers for a more just and egalitarian order. He kept a watchful eye on the tense events in Paris, from where he withdrew to Versailles with his entire government, fearful of its inhabitants. There he planned to crush an uprising that had crossed all human limits.

When, on 18 March 1871, the Parisians woke up to the screams of their fellow citizens in Montmartre, it was not yet clear that the uprising would turn into a bloodthirsty and murderous civil war. At that time, the members of the official French army under Thiers only wanted to take from the insurrectionary-minded masses the cannons that were stationed at the iconic Montmartre. They were defended by members of the National Guard, the unofficial Parisian army created during the Franco-Prussian War, whose members were mainly members of the lower working classes.

Despite the numerical superiority of the French army, the Guards, with the help of the local population, bravely prevented the cannons from being taken over. The atmosphere was tense, but the French soldiers, in a show of solidarity, put down their guns and began to fraternise with their fellow citizens.

But the solidarity did not last long. The divisions in French society, especially between the larger and majority working-class cities and the rural, traditionally more conservative countryside, were growing. In the cities, and especially in Paris, working-class masses, in a Marxist and socialist spirit, demanded rights and participation in decision-making. It was not enough to get rid (again) of the monarchy and the emperor, this time they demanded a progressive, left-wing republican government that would break with the old elites, the nobility, the army and the church.

They demanded a social revival and a new democratic political order in which everyone would participate. All men, of course. Women played an extremely important role in this movement, but they neither demanded nor obtained political rights, such as the right to vote.

In this turbulent period, when the geopolitical balance on the European continent was being upset with the rise of German power, when crowned heads were falling in France and when the international socialist workers’ movement was being born, anything was possible. The dream was also allowed to simple, hard-working and hitherto invisible and second-class people in society.

For the first time in history, their dream of a fairer society was realised. Workers established the first truly functioning power under their control. This was the Paris Commune, the progressive self-management of the working class. Although it lasted only a few weeks (18 March 1871-28 May 1871) and failed miserably, it was a landmark historical event because it represented the beginning of a new political system.

It brought many progressive innovations, such as compulsory and secular education, the separation of Church and State, the beginnings of gender equality, the right to divorce by mutual consent, social assistance and health care for the weakest, and so on. Its many positive features were copied most successfully by none other than the Russian Bolsheviks. All the socialist revolutions that followed the Paris Commune found inspiration in it.

The consequences of the short-lived Paris workers’ uprising of 150 years ago thus shaped the history of the whole 20th century and are still with us today. Its tragic end is also etched in historical memory and still stirs the French people today.

In order to put an end to the Commune, the French soldiers brutalised its supporters as never before and never since. During the so-called bloody week, some 20 000 people were slaughtered in the streets of Paris, including many women and children, more than, for example, during the entire year of Jacobin terror during the French Revolution a hundred years earlier. It was a massacre of unparalleled proportions and the largest in 19th century Europe.

19th century France in turmoil

Since the French Revolution of 1789, France has been marked by both political and class struggles, often interlinked and interdependent. After Napoleon’s defeat and abdication, the Bourbon dynasty regained the throne with King Louis XIII, who initially established a moderate constitutional monarchy, but whose reactionary brother, Charles X, installed an ultra-royalist, far-right regime as early as 1830.

This regime defended exclusively the interests of the aristocracy, the landed gentry and the clerics, and the liberal opposition overthrew Charles during the July Revolution of 1830 and made Louis Philippe, a member of the Orléans branch of the royal dynasty, king.

But he too was overthrown by the revolution in the revolutionary European year of 1848, and France was given a second republic (the first dating back to the French Revolution). A democratic republican future beckoned for the French.

But there was at least one dangerous and unpredictable constant on their ever-changing political scene: Napoleon’s nephew, Louis Napoleon. He grew up in the spirit of his uncle’s greatness, convinced that, as his legitimate successor, he was called to preserve the dynasty and continue its Bonapartist tradition.

There was little to distinguish this brash and impetuous man apart from an unshakeable self-confidence and a belief in his own abilities. He spent most of his time in exile, thanks to the July monarchy of Louis Philippe d’Orléans, who feared usurpation of the throne. Their fear was justified.

Napoleon had already attempted a coup d’état and seizure of power in 1836 with a handful of followers. He repeated the exercise in 1840, but was arrested and thrown into prison, from where he managed to escape. He lived in the delusional belief that he was called to lead France into a new era. With characteristic ‘modesty’, he wrote: “I believe that some people are born to lead the human race into the future. …. I consider myself one of them.” But instead of being a messiah, he had the reputation of a clown surrounded by pretenders and profiteers.

But when the February Revolution of 1848 swept away the Orlean monarchy, Louis Napoleon quickly returned to Paris and took advantage of the general confusion. He succeeded in an almost unbelievable way, being elected as President of the Second French Republic.

But the presidency was not enough for him, even though a pro-monarchy majority sat in the Assembly, which adopted a number of conservative measures and limited political rights already won, such as restricting the right to vote and media freedom, and strengthening the influence of the church in the school system. This led to another coup d’état in 1851 – this time successfully.

A year later, he proclaimed himself Emperor of France and three years later (1848-1851) the Second Republic was history. Subtlety and political opportunism were clearly part of his DNA.

But by then the pro-republican and anti-royalist movement was already very strong, and at the same time the left was also gaining momentum, which, in the spirit of Marx’s recent Communist Manifesto, was increasingly vocal in its warnings against the unequal and exploitative capitalist ideology. The first workers’ uprisings took place, quickly and brutally repressed, but never silenced for long. Paris, in particular, was a centre of progressive ideas and a meeting place for the opposition.

Between 1850 and 1860, the population of Paris doubled to almost two million, mainly as a result of the immigration of male manual workers, who came with bread on their bellies and were even poorer than the Parisians. The rapid urban growth had led to a shortage of suitable housing, and masses of paupers crowded into the narrow grey streets of Paris and the shacks in the emerging industrial centres on the outskirts of the city. In some places there were as many as 15,000 per square kilometre!

Thousands were dependent on humanitarian aid – in 1870, at least a quarter of all Parisians were on the poverty line. People joined workers’ associations in large numbers, and women, doubly exploited, at home and at work, increasingly called attention to their economic and social rights. To look after their families and homes, they worked from home, mainly for the textile industry. They earned about half as much as men in the factories and workshops.

Most people thus had nothing to gain from Napoleon’s new regime, and discontent was growing, but he persisted in his belief that the fate of France was in his hands. He had the nobility, the rich and the merchants on his side, and he was lining his own pockets and those of the Treasury.

The average Frenchman increasingly despised ‘little Napoleon’, as Victor Hugo called him. He therefore introduced some liberal reforms, such as the legalisation of strikes and the end of media censorship, which led to a boom in newspapers. Republicans, leftists, anarchists and various militants gathered in the popular cafés of the Latin Quarter, dreaming of regime change. The temperature was approaching boiling point, especially in Paris.

19th century Paris

Paris had always been a centre of political mobilisation and when the law allowing freedom of association was passed in 1868, people gathered at balls, in cafés, but also in warehouses and public spaces. In two years, there were as many as a thousand events at which public political and social debates took place.

Napoleon III was aware of the dangers of such public debate and increased the number of police and spies omnipresent at such events. They carefully recorded everything they heard.

Social contradictions were becoming more and more evident during the Industrial Revolution. On the one hand, Paris, as a capital city, was experiencing an unprecedented economic and technological boom, its craftsmen were world-renowned for their luxury and high-quality products, financial institutions were moving there, art, literature, theatre were flourishing.

All this progress was a distraction from the growing masses of impoverished and impoverished people. The decaying and overcrowded eastern and northern districts of Paris were dark and dystopian, like a Gothic city, where disorder, violence, misery, suffering and disease reigned. The ragged and exhausted wretches dragged themselves through streets full of excrement and filth.

The city was unhealthy, the water stagnant and the smells unbearable. Every year, more people died there than were born. Only one fifth of the houses had running water. This was the other face of Paris, which coexisted uneasily with the modern and the rich, and was more like other medieval European cities.

Napoleon III was aware of the problems of uncontrolled population growth and the decay of some neighbourhoods, including the city centre. He also increasingly feared the possibility of renewed uprisings, which in France had always been accompanied by the traditional barricade-raising. The narrow streets of Paris were perfect for this. Since 1827, Parisians have erected barricades eight times.

In 1853, the Emperor entrusted the famous architect Georges Haussmann with the special task of architecturally transforming Paris into a true imperial city. The two men were perfect for each other. Haussmann, too, was an arrogant and vain bully and tyrant, ready to do anything to ensure that France would never again become a republic. The new image of Paris was his life’s project.

The architect and the emperor had three main aims: to let more light into the city and, after the many outbreaks of cholera, more air, and to improve the sewage system and sanitation in general; to improve the conditions for trade and the flow of goods and services by building shopping centres, luxury cafés and restaurants; and to limit the possibility of uprisings by erecting barricades in the traditionally revolutionary districts.

They were able to achieve all this by building wide boulevards across the small streets that criss-crossed medieval Paris. One of them led straight into the most seditious quarter.

The reconstruction of Paris involved the destruction of some 100 000 dwellings, which further increased property prices in the city, which were already astronomical. Between 20% and 30% of the population had to move, and most of them found a new home in Montmartre in the 18th arrondissement, in la Villette in the 19th arrondissement and in Belleville in the 20th.

Haussmann’s projects were grandiose and spectacular, as they were intended to show off the grandeur of Paris, which Napoleon saw as the centre of the world. The renovation was so costly that Haussmann put the city 2.5 billion francs in debt. Despite the fact that the financing of his projects became a public scandal, the Emperor persisted in supporting him. Opposition to the regime and the discontent of the masses grew as a result.

Parisians were losing touch with the city and feeling increasingly alienated. Moreover, they did not have the right to elect their own mayor, since this office had already been abolished during the French Revolution. The municipal representatives of all twenty districts were appointed by the Emperor.

All this led to ever louder calls for municipal autonomy and self-government. The idea of a political system in the form of a commune, freely governed by the Parisians and thus their own masters, was born.

The Franco-Prussian War and the collapse of the Empire

But it was not only the domestic political scene that was turbulent. In order to realise his imperial ambitions, Napoleon set himself ambitious foreign policy goals. These soon proved unrealistic, as did most of his projects.

In 1870, Napoleon III pushed a reckless and foolish France into war with Prussia and its southern German allies. The official trigger was said to be the bid by Prince Leopold of Prussia’s Hohenzollern dynasty for the vacant Spanish throne. And if Prussia became King of Spain, France would be surrounded by the Hohenzollerns, rivals for supremacy in Europe.

But the French Emperor wanted the war he was sure would be his to win for other reasons. It was to restore the prestige he had lost with the rise of the republican and socialist wave at home and the foreign policy debacle in Mexico following the defeat and execution of his protégé Maximilian of Habsburg, whom he had rather bizarrely helped to install as Emperor of Mexico. He wanted to remind Europe of the power of France as it knew it after its victory in the Crimean War (1853-1856) and with Austria in 1859.

But the Emperor greatly overestimated the strength of the French army and underestimated the strength and organisation of the mighty Prussian army. Under the Iron Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian army was the best organised in Europe. The creation of the North German Federation, dominated by Prussia after the victory over Austria, shifted the balance of power.

Bismarck was convinced that victory over France would enable him to successfully unite the German lands under Prussian leadership and thus dominate Europe. The French, however, lived under the illusion that their army was stronger and that they could afford to issue ultimatums to their neighbour. So they demanded that she agree to the French annexation of Belgium and Luxembourg and that the Hohenzollerns give up the Spanish throne.

Bismarck was categorically opposed, well aware of Prussian superiority. Besides, the Prussians had many allies among the German lands, the French had none. Napoleon’s territorial demands had also greatly annoyed the British.

French mobilisation was slow, chaotic and ineffective. The troops were without coherent instructions, without cash and supplies, and even without useful topographical maps and other essential military supplies.

In the Prussian case, the opposite was diametrically opposed. They had detailed mobilisation plans, but strategically they concentrated on building and rebuilding railways. The Prussians also had much better artillery, more mobile troops and more capable officers, who, unlike the French, were appointed on the basis of ability rather than origin and social class. The French ‘only’ had a new firearm, the machine gun, which allowed them to fire bullets much faster. Their key mistake, however, was that they did not pay enough attention to the railways.

Within eighteen days of the declaration of war, the Prussians already had 1.2 million troops on the border with France, and the demoralised French troops began to suffer one defeat after another. It was looking more and more like the Prussian siege of Paris would come sooner or later. There was growing discontent at the incompetence of the army and the Emperor, who, instead of preparing for the defence of the capital, preferred to concentrate on civil disturbances. He installed a military governor, which, of course, was further resented by the Parisians.

The left was already contemplating revolution and, led by the legendary revolutionary Louis-Auguste Blanqui, even staged an unsuccessful attempt at an uprising. Tensions between the regime and the Republican opposition and anti-government sentiment – especially in Paris – were growing.

During the war, National Guard troops, which, unlike the official French army, were not answerable to the Emperor, were also reinforced in the capital. This increasingly organised and militant republican army was made up mainly of the poorer classes. It was also popular because it paid its soldiers 1.5 francs a day. It soon grew to almost 200,000 soldiers and became the counterweight to the professional army.

At the end of August 1870, a united German army attacked the French army. The French suffered very heavy casualties and 100,000 soldiers of the official army withdrew with the Kaiser to Sedan, a small town near the Belgian border. The Germans quickly surrounded them, a battle broke out in early September and the Emperor surrendered, including almost 100,000 soldiers.

The military scales tipped definitively in favour of the Prussians, although fighting continued under the new provisional French government of national defence. Two days after the defeat at Sedan, the Empire fell and the Third Republic was proclaimed. As the third French monarch since 1830, Napoleon III ended up in exile in Britain, the traditional refuge for political refugees.

Siege of Paris

Many on the left finally saw an opportunity to make the newly founded republic progressive and break completely with the old regime. But this vision was not shared by all, and soon there were internal disputes between the more moderate and the more radical republicans.

The atmosphere in Paris was different from that in the countryside, which was much more conservative. The composition of the provisional government was thus ‘only’ moderate, and the left was horrified and disillusioned. In Paris, they mobilised quickly and, only a day after the proclamation of the Republic, they, together with members of the International of the International Workingmen’s Association, founded in London in 1864 by Karl Marx, formed a Central Committee with representatives from all the districts, demanding local elections and local government.

In addition to internal disagreements, the war with Prussia was still going on. Prussian troops were rapidly approaching Paris. The siege of the capital began on 19 September 1870. To help Parisians prepare for the coming hostilities, the Central Committee declared a moratorium on rent payments and other relief measures. Women also took an active part in the defence of Paris, forming themselves into troops.

But the city had poor walls and was generally ill-prepared, making it almost impossible to defend. Cold and severe hunger quickly set in and living conditions became impossible. All people talked about was food. Butchers were getting rich from cat and dog meat, and all the animals from the zoo would end up on their plates. The isolation of Paris continued because of the siege, and contact with the outside world was possible only through balloon flights and pigeons carrying letters.

After a four-month siege, the city was literally starved out and the provisional government was forced to sign an armistice, although the left was against any concessions to the Germans. The terms of the armistice were relentless and shameful – in addition to heavy indemnities, the French had to limit the size of their army, and the worst was the loss of Alsace and Lorraine.

After the signing of the Armistice, the Provisional Government of National Defence immediately called new elections. The result was a defeat for the Republicans and the Socialists – except in Paris, the monarchist and conservative right prevailed everywhere.

Many people were unable to vote because of the war. Especially those in the occupied territories and displaced persons, and the half million or so prisoners of war, who would probably have tipped the balance to the left. The divide between the capital and the rest of the country was growing.

General Adolphe Thiers, a representative of the bourgeoisie, the church and the old regime, became Prime Minister, ambitious, hard-working and a good speaker, but opportunistic and arrogant, and used to imposing his own opinions and views. No wonder the left was suspicious, because he never made it clear directly what kind of regime he stood for.

The Paris Central Committee did not agree to an armistice and was convinced that it could only achieve victory against the Prussians and save France’s reputation through a new, popular political organisation. They were also aware that the Prussians, who were still in front of the city, could help Thiers and his followers to re-establish the monarchy.

In the weeks following the Armistice, the influence of the Paris National Guard also grew. The official professional army, which had disappointed the French greatly in the light of their defeats and incompetence, had to be severely cut back by the French. Meanwhile, membership of the Guard was steadily increasing. The new government viewed the developments with unease, since the Central Committee of the National Guard had become a real revolutionary authority. Among other things, it demanded that the Guards retain their arms and cannons, most of which were stationed on the hill in Montmartre.

On 27 February 1871, Prussian troops marched triumphantly into Paris. As they defiantly strolled around Paris, preparing to leave in accordance with the terms of the armistice, the Parisians were seething. The new laws passed by the government did not help matters. Targeted at rebellious Parisians, they have abolished a number of concessions, including salaries for members of the National Guard. After months of suffering under siege, many Parisians went bankrupt and lost their homes.

The Thiers government cowardly retreated from an increasingly restive Paris to Versailles. The National Assembly and most of the rich, aristocrats, officials, diplomats and military officers followed. Versailles, which had been virtually deserted since 1789 and which the poor identified with royalism, further fuelling public opinion, became a beehive of activity. Restaurants, clubs, newspapers and various providers of goods and services moved there.

Paris was suddenly under the control of ordinary people. Radicalised by the war, they demanded municipal rights and social reforms and were ready to govern their own city.

The creation of the Commune

Anti-Paris measures began to rain down from Versailles in early March. Thiers banned left-wing newspapers, sentenced a number of revolutionaries to death in absentia, raised taxes and voted to end the moratorium on rent payments for the poor.

On 18 March, he also decided to take physical action against the insurgents, sending troops to take the guns from the National Guard. There were 171 of these in Montmartre alone. The inhabitants managed to protect them, and the women played an important role. When the military commanders ordered the soldiers to fire on the growing crowds in the streets, they stood in front of their guns and shouted: ‘Are you really going to shoot your brothers? On our men? Our children?”

That evening, a red flag was hoisted from the façade of the Hȏtel de Ville, where the Central Committee, which had become the de facto government of the Commune, had its headquarters. The uprising turned into a revolution. The Commune was officially proclaimed on 28 March, amidst artillery salvos and general enthusiasm, and the people ‘finally became their own masters’.

Paris was awash with red in memory of the French Revolution of a hundred years earlier, red flags and red sashes were flown, scarves and cockades became a compulsory accessory for the Communards. In general, the symbols, including Marianne as the embodiment of the French revolutionary tradition, had great meaning for them.

But in a way, life still went on as if nothing had changed. The next day, the shops opened as usual, people walked around the barricades and nobody really believed that they were in the middle of a revolt. Thiers, however, was already forging revenge. But he needed time, because his army was in tatters and many soldiers were still in German captivity.

The Central Committee of the Paris Commune immediately went to work. Composed of 65 men from many left, republican and anarchist currents, it first gave a definition of the Commune as a basic autonomous political community that would bring an end to class conflict and establish social equality.

There were different visions of the new society. The Proudhonists and Anarchists advocated direct democracy, while the Jacobins and Blanquists were supporters of centralised revolutionary power. The Blanquist ideology, later modelled on the Bolsheviks, supported an educational dictatorship. The most radical advocated radical social reforms that would completely change the structure of society.

They all supported compulsory and secular education, the right of association, freedom of expression, local control of the army, the police and public health, and concern for the welfare of citizens. Three hundred thousand people who had lost their jobs as a result of the war found hope for a better life in the Commune. They placed great emphasis on education, raising teachers’ salaries, opening more and more schools for girls, and building kindergartens close to factories, accessible to all.

Inspired by the principles of equality and solidarity, the commune’s leaders were themselves frugal, low-paid and public-spirited. They successfully provided public services, collected taxes, provided food and water, took out the garbage, banned begging, gambling and prostitution. Crime rates have also fallen.

They banned evictions, introduced gradual debt repayment, banned night work for bakers, equalised wages, improved the status of women and foreigners, and limited the power of the church. Subsidies to religious organisations and religious instruction in schools were abolished.

Anticlericalism was very pronounced, as the church embodied the old regime and provided lavishly for the rituals of the rich, while in the poor districts it was Spartan and people had to pay large sums of money for every service, from baptism to weddings and funerals. Attendance at the services was getting worse and worse, and many churches were turned into political clubs where Marseillaise and other revolutionary songs were sung instead of church hymns.

Women in particular turned against the church because it looked down on them and their role. One leading communard woman declared, “Marriage is the greatest mistake of humanity. Being married is like being a slave.”

The position of women improved considerably during the Commune. They demanded mainly economic rights, while political rights – such as the right to vote – were neglected. As they had already done during the Franco-Prussian War, they excelled during the Commune. In the spirit of their predecessors from the French Revolution, many of them took part in the defence of the city, organised protests, cared for the wounded and spied. Newspaper advertisements called on them to join the National Guard and some formed women’s legions, such as the Amazons of the Seine.

Freedom of expression was the basis of the new regime for the Communards. During the Commune, no fewer than 90 newspapers were published, the most influential of which was Pàre Duchêne, which had already been published during the French Revolution. It took over the revolutionary calendar of the French Revolutionary period and issued 60,000 copies a day. Thiers’s spies regularly sent the Commune’s newspapers to Versailles, so that the government was kept closely informed of its activities.

In addition to the newspapers, political content was also disseminated through pamphlets, posters and cartoons. France is still characterised today by a rich tradition of political caricature and a high tolerance for borderline humour, controversy, mudslinging and mockery of political figures and events.

One of the more far-reaching measures was the introduction of workers’ management of companies. The government was asked to formally declare a republic and to grant the commune the status of a self-governing body which would itself elect all its representatives. For all this they needed funds, which they borrowed from the central bank, and they also had some influential and wealthy donors, such as the well-known Rothschild family.

The revolutionary spark spread much less successfully to other cities. In Lyon, Bordeaux, Rouen, Marseille, communes were set up, but these lasted mostly only a few hours or days.

Commune vs. Adolphe Thiers

One of the priorities of the Paris Commune was to protect the city from the Versailles army. The latter was preparing tirelessly for an attack on Paris. The Communards found it increasingly difficult to maintain a balance between effectively managing the city and deterring the Versailles forces.

On 10 May 1871, the provisional French government and the German Empire signed a peace treaty under which France lost Alsace and Lorraine, had to recognise William I as German Emperor and pay five billion francs in reparations.

In return, von Bismarck released the captured soldiers who had joined the so-called Versailles army. Embarrassed by their defeat by the Prussians, they wanted more than anything to restore their pride and prove themselves again. The opportunity to do so was soon to come.

From the end of March, Thiers had been sending patrols to the walls of Paris to look at the Communards and their positions. Although he was initially prepared to negotiate with the Communards, he soon changed his mind. The first battles took place just two days after the Commune was proclaimed and the French soldiers immediately showed their true colours. They dealt with the Comunards in the most brutal way, sending a clear message. There would be no mercy, even if they were fellow countrymen. Summary executions became one of the most draconian constants in the suppression of the uprising.

But Paris was at least temporarily free. Ordinary people were wandering through the mondane areas of the western part of the city that they had never known before. Some retook the neighbourhoods from which Haussmann had evicted them. For a while, everything was business as usual and there was a semblance of normality in the city. The cafés were full, the concerts were well attended, people addressed each other as ‘citizen’ and ‘citizeness’ as during the French Revolution. An entrance fee was charged to visit the former Royal Palace to cover the costs of the war veterans, and revolutionary songs, especially those of Marseillaise, echoed in the streets. Many foreigners were impressed by the initial successes of the Commune and called it the most ‘capable revolutionary government of modern times’.

The Communards were aware that they were also being watched from abroad and had to maintain high standards of morality, justice and responsibility towards their fellow citizens, in stark contrast to the corrupt regime of Napoleon III.

But Thiers’s army kept knocking at the door of the city, which was being approached by black clouds. The Communards therefore also tightened their control over the inhabitants. They searched for men who did not want to join the Commune, and searched homes for spies and those who did not want to join the National Guard. It was compulsory for anyone between the ages of 18 and 40 to join the National Guard.

Moving in and out of Paris was becoming increasingly difficult. Fearing an attack by Thiers, the Communards also became violent, taking hostages and arresting suspicious people. In response to the summary executions of their members, they voted for a Hostages Act and legalised the arrest of priests. The population began to fear them.

But Thiers failed to take advantage of this, and the Parisians feared and hated him even more. Executions of prominent Communards were carried out in rapid succession and Thiers had no qualms about violating the Geneva Convention of 1864, signed after the bloody Crimean War and the war between Austria and France, which regulated the treatment of opponents in military disputes. It treated the Communards as criminals and terrorists, not as legitimate opponents, thus denying them any protection under international law.

The attacks of the Versailles army caused even more damage to Paris than the Prussians had done shortly before. That is why, in a symbolic act, the Communards destroyed his home on 15 May. They also burned all the buildings and monuments connected with the current government and the former monarchical regime. The most sensational, however, was the demolition of the Vendȏme Column, which represented the empire of Napoleon and, therefore, his nephew. The latter had the statue of his uncle, which adorned the top of the tower, dressed in ancient Roman clothes. The Communards sold tickets for the event and on 16 May thousands of curious people gathered in front of the column to watch the symbolic fall of the regime.

Bloody Week

But nothing more could stop Adolphe Thiers and his troops. The shelling and bombing of Paris, which had already begun in early April, only intensified. Even the hopes of the Communards that reinforcements from friendly cities would come to their aid did not materialise.

Thiers was confident, having successfully reorganised his army and, convinced of the superiority of its guns and cannon, bombarded the city without stopping. Nervousness was spreading and Marx’s daughter Jenny, who was there on 12 May, wrote to her father that the end of the Commune was near. One of the reasons for this, she saw, was the lack of military organisation and planning by the Communards.

On the day that Thiers’ troops finally entered the city, there was a big concert in the open air, where many brave Parisians gathered. When the army opened fire on them during the concert, it became clear that there would be no fraternal solidarity. They were falling without clear targets, just to hit as many living targets as possible. Women, children, the elderly, foreigners, innocents, no one was spared. Bodies began to pile up in the streets of Paris.

Suddenly there were 50,000 soldiers in the city and within a few hours there were 130,000. There were only about 20,000 Communards. Their National Guard was disorganised, their military leaders did not give coherent instructions, and they did not even make use of the weapons at their disposal. For example, the cannons at Montmartre were left unused. Within a day, Versailles’ troops were in control of a third of Paris, and met relatively little resistance as they advanced.

French soldiers and officers, humiliated by the Prussians not so long ago, took revenge on ordinary Parisians. Moreover, they were told that the Communards were bandits and criminals whose lives were not worth living. The violence escalated by the hour and on 21 May the so-called bloody week began.

Thousands of innocent people were randomly murdered in every possible way. Thiers, already known for his cruelty and barbarity, pretended to foreign diplomats that he knew nothing about the massacres. But the executions continued. Every reason was good. A red ribbon on the sleeve? A shot to the head. Walking too fast? A shot to the heart. A look at the ground? Bayonet in the chest.

They also killed and raped women mercilessly, and mass executions were particularly dear to their hearts. Communards and ordinary citizens alike had to first dig their own grave, and then they were lined up in front of it and shot. They were also lined up in front of walls, and then the piled-up corpses were left for all to see. In one church, as many as three hundred frightened people who had taken refuge there were killed at one time.

In their haste to hunt for new victims, the soldiers were often sloppy. As a result, many of the still half-alive victims ended up in the caves, and at night a terrible wail echoed through the silent streets. Many people found refuge in the Père Lachaise cemetery, but even there they were hunted down and shot by soldiers as they fled among the tombstones.

The massacres were also an attempt to demoralise the rebels, who, although they knew they were beyond redemption, many pockets of resistance were still active. Père Duchêne published his last edition on 23 May. Then Montmartre also fell.

The Communards, out of desperation, began to burn the town, saying that it was better to destroy it than to leave it to Thiers, and the massacre was joined by the buildings collapsing in flames. The wounded were also on the increase, dying of gangrene from amputations and inadequate care, with American and British humanitarian organisations doing their best to help.

On 28 May, the bloody week was over, and with it the Paris Commune. Long after its suppression, Thiers’ revenge continued, including the killing of prisoners. He wanted a complete purge of all (potentially) revolutionary elements, so that nothing similar would ever happen in the capital again.

A cash reward was promised to anyone who denounced the Communards, and between 22 May and 13 June 400,000 people were arrested. Whether they were really Communards or not was of secondary importance. The lucky ones who survived were deported far away from France and most of them ended up in New Caledonia.

During that bloody week alone, some 20,000 people lost their lives in Paris. While the government tried to cover up the many mass graves, the scale of its terror was so great that it was impossible to hide.

However, despite its short duration and tragic end, the Paris Commune was an important influence on the 20th century and inspired the emergence of many more or less successful and more or less democratic territorial progressive regimes.