"This puts him in a new light" Topic

Apparently recent research has turned up this information regarding Bonaparte. Article here:
link

+

"Recent research"?
How could something so atrocious been kept secret so long?
Frankly, I do not believe it. And not from any Nappy-worship either.

Author must have a book in the pipelines he's keen to sell.

What a silly piece of hysteria. God knows I'm no fan of Napoleon, but there is plenty in the actual historical record to raise one's eyebrows, without stooping to this sort of breathless History Channel rubbish.

Clicked on the link.
Saw Daily Mail.
Deleted before it loaded.

Daily Mail = Bile, hatred and stupidity. I'd read the sun or the mirror before I'd read anything in that.

I closed the particular browser-window when I realized that 'The-French-Fuhrer-Genocidal-Napoleon-barbaric-Hitler-historian-claims' is part of the URL.

No seriously, was it about his evil twin?

I thought that old chestnut of the Hitler/Napoleon comparison was well past its sell-by date but then what can you expect from the Daily Mail?

What is the best book about the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars in the Caribbean?

Regards

So who do we blame for inspiring Hitler's atrocities with a watercolour brush?

Generally speaking, Hitler and his cronies/psychophants are to blame.

Claude Ribbe's 'work' has been largely discredited as history.

B

Perhaps the following may help:

'Certain external and by no means accidental similarities between Napoleon's career and that of Hitler have blinded some men to the far more significant contrasts. Unlike Napoleon, Hitler is likely to go down in history as another Attila or Jenghiz Khan. Hitler destroyed the law; Napoleon was a lawgiver whose code spread across continents. That difference alone should be enough to discourage comparison. Hitler was a maniacal crank with an ideology; Napoleon, sane and self-controlled, despised ideologies. Hitler appealed to hatred; Napoleon, to honor. Hitler extolled that dark, instinctual monster which he called the People and which Taine had called the gorilla; Napoleon had seen that monster in action during the Reign of Terror, and he preferred to perish rather than invoke its power. Napoleon, when he began his career, embodied the hopes of sane and noble minds (not the least among them Beethoven's); Hitler began and ended surrounded by a handful of psychopaths. But why insist on the contrast? Perhaps there is no difference between them but the difference between the Age of Reason and the Age of Hatred. It's a substantial difference.'-JC Herold, The Mind of Napoleon, xxxviii.

B

An article from the DM is seriously taken as a subject of discussion in a napoleonic forum. Please keep the level high and do not pay any attention to that rubbish.

I'm afraid the antics of the British press in recent times have made me change a long and fiercely held belief in press freedom. Now I think they must be regulated by law and our elected representatives.

Sadly that will not put an end to bad journalism or fake 'history' stories – far too much money to be made from them for any law to stop that.

The only similarity I can see between H & N is that the Mail would undoubtedly have supported N if it had been around at the time just as it lauded H in the 30's.

… breathless History Channel rubbish.

@Kevin,

Which bits have been discredited (I've never read it)?

Regards

I posted it because I am not a napoleonic historian and it was news to me. Also, not a fan of hitler. But, it appears he does cite or reference some sources and accounts, so I thought it was somewhat interesting.

Dave

WW,

From what I read, and I have not read the English version of the book, since it came out in 2008 or so was that French historians didn't accept it and the book was not well documented.

From what I have seen, the author has a political agenda and he appears to play loose with facts.

B

One has to recall that the Daily Mail's default stance begins with "We hate the French". It then expands from there.

I make no comment on the article cited in the OP, as I am not in a position to read the book or check the sources cited.

What I do feel compelled to say, though, is that simply dismissing something as rubbish purely because it was published in the Daily Mail is a dangerously biased stance for anyone claiming to be interested in history to take.

Yesterday, for example, it published an article by Tony Rennell about the suffering of the wounded in WWI, based upon the book 'Wounded' by Emily Mayhew (Bodley Head, 2013), which – allowing for some journalistic hyperbole to be expected in a tabloid newspaper – suggested that the book had a valuable contribution to make to our understanding of the plight of those who were seriously wounded but survived in that war.

Are some of the previous posters going to dismiss this book, unread, simply because it has been reviewed favourably in the Daily Mail?

arthur, going by their past record I'd say there is every chance of it. A positive review by the Mail is seen as a death knell by many authors, justifiably or not.

Personally I take any press review with a good bushel of salt, particularly any involving military history or even history in general. Few are objective, less are accurate and most don't appear to have read more than the sleeve notes. Biographies I avoid like the plague.

Arthur,

The book came out in 2005 and the article cited here is from 2008. I have seen nothing over the intervening years to support what the author of the book was maintaining, and he apparently claimed that journals were written by the French 'participants' in the alleged genocide in Haiti and Guadeloupe.

I have never seen any of the alleged 'journals' and I'd like to know if anyone else has.

Again, it seems to me that Ribbe has a political agenda here and is generally making 'facts' up as he goes along for whatever reason.

In short, his book is historically suspect and probably nonsense. It seems to me to be yet another attempt to equate Napoleon with Hitler, which is not only incorrect but also bags of bull.

B

bullocks

allowing for some journalistic hyperbole to be expected in a tabloid newspaper

Or…one man's hyperbole is another man's moving away from the strict truth and impartial reporting.

Regarding everything in the DM as more or less a lie has served me well over the years.

Are some of the previous posters going to dismiss this book, unread, simply because it has been reviewed favourably in the Daily Mail?

Naaaah. I know nothing about the Daily Mail.
I am dismissing it because it is breathlessly coming out with "new facts" that have not seen light in over 200 years. What is alleged cannot have been covered up for that long.
Speaking as a dude who has no use for either the French or Napoleon, I find it preposterous.
Sam can reject it because he is a scholar. I reject it because it smells.

I'm not dismissing a book or author of said book.

I'm dismissing the article by the Daily Mail. I won't read THAT.

Look, let's be honest: Hitler sells. It would be naive to think otherwise.

I've pitched book ideas to publishers before, in German History, and they've asked me if there's any way to work Hitler's name into the title.

One doesn't write a book about the dambuster bombing missions… one writes about Bombing Hitler's Dams. I have a colleague who wrote a fine history of the Volkssturm, and the publisher (an academic publisher) demanded that the title be altered to: Hitler's Volkssturm.

The same is true with Napoleon. One doesn't write a book about British encryption in the Peninsular War… One writes: The Man Who Broke Napoleon's Codes!

As far as most commercial publishers are concerned, a book that can work both Napoleon and Hitler into the title, probably gets moved to at least near the top-third the Non-Fiction list, right after Oprah's All-Sunflower-Seed-Diet, and How to Get Better Sex After Fifty While Making Millions in the Commodities Market.

If this was really true, you would think he would have continued his practise in Germany, Austria, Russia, and Spain, when conquered. Especially to control revolts and uprisings such as 1813, to keep the minions in line.

When you overstep the lines of decency and humanity and put yourself above the law, then there are no limits or controls to prevent it from happening in downtown Paris, or any other part of the world Napoleon would have gazed upon.

In the end, I think it's all bull…

Comparisons between Napoleon and Hitler are generally invalid expect for certain limited and quite detailed matters.

However, in the current case, Antoine Metral's "Histoire de l'expédition des Français à Saint-Domingue sous le consulat de Napoléon Bonaparte (1802-1803) suivie des Mémoires er Notes d'Isaac Louverture", published in 1825, does include the passage attributed to it by Ribbe and mentioned in the Daily Nazi article.

Of course, Ribbe was not an actual observer of the events that he described and he was writing under the Bourbon regime.

There are several sets of journals and memoirs of French participants in the campaign, most of which mention atrocities committed by both sides. Among the most important of these are Pamphile de Lacroix, Louis Boisrond-Tonnerre, Alfred de Laujon and Michel-Etienne Descourtilz. All of these are quite explicit about how the French treated the "rebels" and the general black population.

Jurgen

'Of course, Ribbe was not an actual observer of the events that he described and he was writing under the Bourbon regime.'

Ribbe 'was writing under the Bourbon regime'?

Ribbe is the author if the current book (2005) unless there is another author named Ribbe who wrote under the Bourbons between 1814 and 1830.

B

Maybe he wrote the book in Spain and thus "under the Bourbon regime" (The House of Borbón still reigns in Spain)
Or maybe he means to write under the effects of certain malt beverage.

He meant Antoine Metral, right? link

Regards

Yes, I meant Metral:).

Male + multitasking = failure.

Jurgen

Whirlwind,

That is indeed the author that I meant, but not that book.

Jurgen

But, if written, or at least published under the Bourbons, they can't possibly be true, at least if they're critical of Buonaparte they can't possibly be true.

I haven't read the book and I don't trust the Mail, but what the article says about Napoleon's lack of concern for the lives of his men is quite correct.
Much as I like the man, I can't help but think that he WAS capable of the attrocities the article describes. More to the point, I can believe that some of his sychophants were capable of just about anything in order to secure the good will of their emperor. Most of his subordinates had lived through the Revolution and subsequent "Terror" where all civilized ways and values were thrown out the window and much of the population of France, particularly those who rose to the top (like scum, not cream) were de-humanised and inured to mindless murder, torture and execution.
That the Haitians were committing atrocities themselves would have given Napoleonite zealots any excuse they needed.
I've read somewhere that French society was one of the most racist of the period and that they recognised something like a hundred grades of colour and station -Grande blancs, petit blancs, creoles, mulattoes quadroons, octaroons etc. so there IS cause for suspicion.
I'll wait until I can read the book and check it's bibliography/sources before I decide it's value or lack thereof. We tend to overlook the events in the Caribbean, despite it's importance to the period so anything that focuses on it should be of interest.

Chouan,

Are you sure that you typed what you meant?

Jurgen

a major flaw in your argument was that Richepanse was not a supporter of Napoleon, but of Moreau which was why he was given the assignment that he was.

And if you're going to make such pejorative statements as 'much of the population of France were de-humanized and unured to mindless murder' you at least should attempt to support it, which you have not done.

Your posting is full of sweeping, inaccurate statements which have little or no basis in historic fact.

B

…Also, not a fan of Hitler.

Well that's going out on a limb. •

'But, if written, or at least published under the Bourbons, they can't possibly be true, at least if they're critical of Buonaparte they can't possibly be true.'

If anything was written about Napoleon during the Bourbon restoration, it could not have been written in France if it supported Napoleon in any way.

Books were written to curry favor with the Bourbons, such as those memoirs which were critical of Napoleon, and the more critical the better, such as those by Clare de Remusat (1818), and Bourrienne (1828-1830), both of which are unreliable.

B

So the terror never happened? No crowd ever cheerd or made merry whilst innocent people were guillotined? No one was murdered by mobs or denounced as an enemy of the revolution because someone had a grudge and wanted them dead?
Yes, I spoke in broad statements, but they are correct. Many of those who rose to power through the revolution and terror did so because they chose to accept "terror" as an acceptable way to better themselves. In what way is that incorrect? I find it only too plausible that such people would happily erradicate anyone that stood in their way.
As to your point about Richepanse' allegiance,I am not, as seems clear to me from my post, overly familiar with events in the Caribbean though I wish I DID know more about it, nor do i have some vast library to hand in which I can look up facts, figures etc.
Regardless of that or allegiance, Richepanse would have used any means at his disposal to quell the Haitian rebellion and if wiping out every last slave on the island was deemed necessary, then that is what would have been done.
What is your problem with that? If YOU know about the subject, then inform those of us that do not. DON'T try a cheap put-down.
My History Honours degree was in modern History, including the rise of extremist politics, so I know THAT side of this discussion pretty well whereas my interest in the wars against the French has always been for pleasure and covers the main theatres. I know enough about the wars (studied on and off for over 45 years) to know that Bonaparte WAS callous of human life and that he was only to happy to leave his men to their fate whilst he hurried off to secure his own political situation – or was it his own safety? The Egypt campaign, Russia, Waterloo where lhe left his most ardent supporters to be slaughtered by cannon fire so he could get away. See anything in common?

I knew it, Napoleon was a bad'un! :)

'So the terror never happened?'

I never said that. And Napoleon didn't take part in it, nor did the overwhelming majority of military officers, Brune being an exception to that. In fact, there were some generals that were victims of the Terror, most of them unjustly.

As for the rest of your diatribe that you 'know to be correct' I would suggest that you support your accusations with factual references and not just your opinions. Your sweeping statements are too fantastic and are not backed up by any references or sources at all. In fact your two postings sound just like the English and allied propaganda of the period.

B

Looks like Kevin's made another new friend.

He has a special gift for that.

Spreewaldgurken,

It is a very special talent and one that has, I am sure, helped him throughout his life.

By the way, while it is nice that your username celebrates a great product of the former DDR, I hope that you are aware that it might be illegal under EU law to call yourself by it;).

Jurgen

Thinking about the validity – or otherwise – of making comparisons between Napoleon and Hitler, made me wonder whether, from a purely Anglocentric viewpoint, they do have a lot in common:

Both, in their own eras, posed the greatest threat in living memory to Britain's security by threatening the invasion of this country – an invasion that appeared both likely and practicable to contemporaries – that was only prevented by the Royal Navy in the case of the former and the RAF in the latter. In both cases the British Army had been forced to withdraw from mainland Europe, and our allies had been temporarily defeated and neutralised. And in both cases, British people could take pride in having been steadfast in their opposition to them, until such time as great alliances – in which British forces played a significant part – brought about their final defeat.

Obviously, that comparison takes no account of their differences – in particular the obscenity of the Nazis' racial beliefs and the Holocaust – but it reflects the British people's natural reaction to those who would attack or invade us, for which, I think, we need not apologise!

At what point in either of my posts B, You say "As for the rest of your diatribe that you 'know to be correct'"
First, I do not consider it to be a "diatribe", simply a statement that the leaders of France during the revolution and the Napoleonic Wars were ruhtless men who would stop at nothing to achieve power.
second. Where exactly, in either of my posts do I say that I know my view to be correct? THAT seems to be YOUR speciality, as does putting words into other's mouths.
I have stated quite clearly that I don't have access to a vast library as you appear to have and I certainly don't have time to waste on checking every word I write on what is after all supposedly a friendly discussion, not some doctoral thesis.
It is quite clear from your anger at my view that you are a Bonaparte apologist and will never accept that he was the direct cause of the loss humdreds of thousands of lives -and that was just amongst his followers and for no better reason -like Hitler- than to further his own ambition and pander to his own ego.
Fair enough, the Europe leaders weren't keen on him, he wasn't family after all -just an upstart, but there were several points throughout the wars where he COULD have called a halt to hostilities but instead just had to go for one more campaign to extend his empire that little bit further.
You say, "I would suggest that you support your accusations with factual references and not just your opinions. Your sweeping statements are too fantastic and are not backed up by any references or sources at all." Could I ask YOU to do just that and PROVE to me what splendid, jolly fellows, full of the milk of human kindness both the Revolutionary and Napoleonic leaders were? I suggest it isn't MY opinion that is fantastic but yours.

For Jurgen and Sam,

Gentlemen (and I use the term loosely),

Here is an appropriate quote from Abraham Lincoln that both of you might wish to heed and follow, especially when you wish to bait and attempt to pick a fight:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"

B

MS,

Thank you for your reply. It is very illustrative of your methodology here. You opened the ball, so I suggest that it is your viewpoint that should be supported. That you now refuse to do that indicates to me that you cannot logically support your point of view.

B

Brechtel198,

Once again, your utter predictability comes to the fore:). It is so easy to estimate how you will react to any given comment:).

Jurgen