"The Russian Campaign 1812: Ultimate Chance for Peace?" Topic

Henry

What is the matter with you? I find it quite odd that you want me to invent events and reasoning for something that didn't happen? But surely, since it never happened, you have the ability to invent your own reasons as to why the Russians or whoever where there, rather than use it as a feeble excuse not to declare what you think Britain should have done in such a situation. After all, your mention of your wargaming experience certainly shows you have the ability to fantasize?

And you obviously mentioned your wargaming experience for a reason, otherwise why bring it up within this debate? But to me, it gave the impression that you were clutching at straws by introducing your hobby activities in order to support a debate? It didn't, it just wasted time and space.

And it is only your negative assumptions that suggest my mentioning of the Portuguese rolling over suggested I believed the Portuguese deserved what they got. You should really cut out your assumptions, it does not help your arguments.

But as I have just posted to Mark Baker, in the other thread discussing the very same topic, which is well worth reading considering the various and opposing posts, my interest in the Copenhagen affair has now ended. As I said to Mark, before researching the attack, I was under the wrongful impression that it was just a successful raid by the British, but after researching it, it is clear it was far more than that and it certainly cannot be passed off as just a raid, although British apologists will certainly want to cling to it. But that is their choice, naive and incorrect as I feel it to be, which I must accept and respect.

In terms of the Portuguese and indeed the Spanish, one could say that Britain set the precedent concerning neutral nations with their treatment of Denmark.

I'd rather not take lessons on debating from you Gazzola, if it's all the same to you.

It is rather disingenuous to blame me for this whole 'Russian ninja' fiasco though, given it was you who decided to invent it in the first place. I think that is where the fantasising is coming in. I even gave you the opportunity to bow out several posts ago, but you kept harping on about it. As for the precedent on neutral countries, would that Portugal got off as lightly as Denmark. Spain, of course, was a betrayed ally.

I am delighted, however, that you have finally heeded the phrase 'when you're in a hole, stop digging.'

Henry

Yes, I can well understand you not wanting to take debating lessons from me. It would mean you having to do some research on the topic. But you really should try it some time, I am sure you will learn from it. But be warned, their are no panzers in the Napoleonic period. Sorry, but that's a fact.

The other thread on this same topic, was well discussed with intelligent and well researched discussions and opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately, that does not seem possible with you, since you continue to insist on wanting imagined reasons for an imagined event. That might attract you, but it certainly does not attract me.

Bow out. What an absurd thing to say. And how gracious of you? But I stop when I want to stop, or in this case, with you, when the debate turns into a very boring repeating of the same question about something that didn't happen. And even then, your interest in that fantasy scenario, although I stated what I think the British government should do, you refuse yet again to say what you think they should do. Why is that? What is it you don't want everyone to know?

And really, one can't argue against Napoleon's treatment of neutral Portugal, after all, he was only copying the British treatment of neutral Denmark, and you know it. You might not want to accept it, but you certainly know it.

Digging a hole – oh dear, that is a sad phrase to employ. But I guess writing that made you feel better, because you want to believe it is the truth, just like you want to believe the attack on Demark was just a raid. Ah, well, if it makes you happy, who am I to spoil your world of imagination, which you so obviously seem to prefer.

However, I look forward to debating on another topic with you that might interest me, just as long as you don't start letting your imagination run away with you again. Think you can do that?

Cheers.

Apparently I spoke too soon.

One of the posters above has already blamed the allies for the deaths incurred in Portugal on another site (A.C.G). So I very much doubt that a discussion in this area will yield anything constructive, or even get a response, on their part.

Is this subject the one to which you are referring?

‘Those [Portuguese] civilians who had evacuated to the area behind the Lines were also experiencing considerable hardship. ‘It becomes very necessary that this state of things should have an end,' urged one of Beresford's officers on 18 December, ‘for the complete destruction of the Peasantry by Famine will be the consequence of its continuance as well as the ruin of the better orders.' Weeks after the occupation of the Lines many peasants were still making their way towards Lisbon. Donaldson of the 42d Regiment watched them passing through Torres Vedras: ‘It was a melancholy sight to see the poor natives, carrying their children, and any little thing which they were able to bring with them, moving along the road, after having left their homes and property-traveling they knew not whither, desolate and friendless. In a few days they might be reduced to beg, or perhaps die of hunger.' It has been estimated that approximately 300,000 evacuees crowded into the capital during the winter of 1810-1811 (including 87,000 in one day) and some refugees crossed the Tagus and moved into the Alentejo.'

‘Feeding the refugees was the biggest problem and, as Alexander Dickson noted, ‘everything which prudence and humanity could suggest was done by the inhabitants of Lisbon to alleviate the public misfortune. Charitable institutions were set on foot and food was daily distributed to such of the fugitives as were necessitous and helpless.' Corn, regardless of the price, was sought for in Ireland, the United States, Morocco, Greece and Egypt and 1,000 tons of Government shipping were lent to mercahnts to fetch grain from Algiers. Distribution of the food was left to the Portuguese authorities but they were quite incapable of dealing with the crisis. Mules and carriages-the means of distribution-were ‘injudiciously' seized by the Government and then, as an exasperated Wellington was to complain, the animals and their owners were kept ‘starving and shivering' and were never put to use. As a result the ‘misery and wretchedness of the refugees is beyond description, numbers perishing from need and want', wrote an eyewitness. ‘It is quite melancholy to see the state of the poor people; women are to be seen in all directions gathering herbs which they cook and nearly live on.' Around 40,000 people are reported to have died in the Lisbon area during the terrible winter and there was a real fear that when the armer weather arrived disease would increase to epidemic proportions right across central Portugal.'-John Grehan, The Lines of Torres Vedras, 159-160.

Henry

Well, I was not going to say any more, but I think you need to stop evading the question and tell everyone what you think the British should have done in the imaginary scenario? You do know that your refusal to answer the question is very revealing?

By the way, within the Napoleonic debate, my mentioning of a modern neutral country (Russia), invading another neutral country (Britain) with a massive military force, for any imagined reason, was to try and get you to stand in the shoes of the 1807 Danes. But your posts suggest that you think they should have just rolled over and handed over their own property, in this case the Danish fleet, to the arrogant British, just because they demanded it, without question and even though neither nation were enemies or at war with each other. But the brave and vastly outnumbered Danes, responded by telling the British where they could stick their demands and declared war. And, of course, I guess it could be considered that the British had already declared war by entering their space with such a large hostile force, but officially both nations were not at war with each other until the British launched their unprovoked invasion.

If you keep this in mind, then perhaps you can again enjoy the imaginary modern event, and more importantly, offer your answer? Over to you.

Gazzola, I stand in awe and bemusement in equal measure at this point. I am truly in awe of the way you have accused me of something I am innocent of, whilst doing that thing yourself. There is a word for that; don't worry, it'll come to me. Suffice it to say though, the 'shame on you' you directed my way has a better home.

You say that that it is odd that I am asking for information on a hypothetical event and invite me to invent reasons, but in our conversations it is you who has brought up the hypothetical situations yourself, every time.

You preferred not to discuss what actually happened at Copenhagen and which I laid out as a series of factual events (including the consideration given to an occupation by some politicians), instead preferring to focus on the hypothetical 'what might have been.'

Next you introduced your Russians in London scenario, except fail to explain why they are here and for what purpose. If we are going to dissect British intentions in hairsplitting detail, then the least you could do is provide a summary of what the Russians actually say in your story.

As for World War 2, it was you who started talking about it and the threat of Britain being invaded. Obviously, I'm sure you know that Operation Sealion wasn't even planned until 1940, or perhaps you were talking about another fictitious invasion plan. In response, I did mention Operation Sealion, as I thought that British plans for a hypothetical invasion that are common knowledge might be somewhat relevant to a conversation about Britain responding to a hypothetical invasion. Obviously 1939/40 is some way away from 2015, but that's certainly closer than 1807 and at least we're talking about the same country. I would have liked more of an idea of what you would have the government do beyond 'declare war' – an empty and purposeless gesture if there is no substance behind it. London's city walls are long gone.

Regardless, when I joined the thread I talked about actual military raids that took place and continued to talk about the British forces and Copenhagen, looking at what actually happened. You continued to focus on what 'The British', surely far less of one mind than The Little Corporal, 'really wanted', even though your own extensively posted sources show violent disagreement.

I do recall you wanting to focus on 1807 rather than any other eras at the start, so this partly explains my bemusement. One minute you want to stick to the facts, then we have hypotheticals, then I am told to come up with my own scenario (I'm not sure why I should – you suggested it after all). You really need to stick to one line of thinking if you ever want to be taken seriously. The British presented an ultimatum, the Danes rejected it. This was an informed decision. I could post an uninformed response, but that would be to no purpose and you did say you wanted to put me in the shoes of the Danes.
Without such an ultimatum, how can I possibly get into role?

Henry

Once more you evade the question with another load of waffle.

If you had actually read my last post you will see that I explained why I mentioned the modern day scenario. In doing so, I expected you to offer a decent answer to my question, yet oddly, you throw up even more feeble excuses and seem afraid to do so? Why is that? Why can't you give an honest answer to an honest question? Are you afraid of your own answer?

In fact, your response, was to waffle on about 1940 again and then accuse me of not wanting to stick to 1807. That really is hilarious and totally hypocritical. But at least you did not drawl on about your boozy pub activities this time.

However, the fact that you won't answer the question and keep bringing up 1940, in a debate that is meant to be about an 1807 event or at the very least, relate to it, suggests it is not really worth attempting to discuss or debate anything with you, unless of course, it relates to World War 2, panzers or the pub. But there are other boards for those topics, which is where perhaps, your boring pub tales should have been posted?

And if you reread the other thread on this very same topic, which actually has Copenhagen in the title, you will see quite clearly that myself and others, including Mark Baker, who seemed to impress you with his posts and who thought my evidence for a permanent occupation as sound (perhaps you missed that bit), have been discussing what happened concerning the invasion of Denmark and attack on Copenhagen in 1807. However, it was based on both sides doing a fair bit of serious research, not pub memoirs, so I can well understand why you may not have wanted to join in.

I am sad, although not surprised, you have again refused to answer the question. But one cannot crawl out of evading a question so easily when debating publically online and not rambling in the pub.

As for the 1807 topic, I have done enough researching and enjoyable debating on the topic, not here with you of course, but on the other thread. If you want to know more you can always look at the links provided. I am pretty sure you will learn something. But I suggest you read them before you go to pub. LOL.

Gazzola, is that a promise that you're bowing out now? Are you absolutely sure? Perhaps you should have put the shovel aside earlier and gone to the pub though. Six references to it in one post seems rather obsessive.

Henry

You seem very keen on me leaving the debate. Why is that? Would you like me to stay if I did not embarrass you further by not asking you to answer the question you so clearly keep avoiding?

Funnily enough my embarrassment by you is not a concern I have Gazzola.

Henry

I see you have popped over to the other thread discussing the same Copenhagen topic. Well, I am pleased to report that you have not diluted the debate with more cute, yet irrelevant pub reminiscences, well, not yet anyway. I do hope it stays that way.

79thPA,

I know exactly what you mean. I guess if I see an obvious error I become a little OCD. I am not normally that type of person but I think when I spent a lot of time trying to get it right and then see an obvious (at least to me) error I just have to fix it if I can.

Russ

The above post was not made by me? Is this a technical error?

Well, it looks like the topic has reached its end, in both (Copenhagen Map) and (1812) threads. What a shame. I tried posting this on the 16th but a post by Russ to 79thPA appeared instead, so I decided to try again making shorter posts, rather than one big one.

My opinion before researching the Copenhagen 1807 attack was that it was a raid. Not I am fully convinced it was not.
The number of ships, infantry, cavalry, field and siege artillery push it well beyond the raid excuse.

The war crime of bombarding the city is often brushed aside, but the idea of bombarding the city was in the minds of the British from early on. They threatened it with their proclamation, so it cannot be fobbed of conveniently as a sudden idea to end the siege quickly.

On the 13th, the day before the British said they would commence hostilities, an act of war in itself, they ordered a frigate, the Comus, to chase and attack a Danish warship, the Frederiksvaern, although the Danish ship had not undertaken any hostile act other than to attempt to sail away. (pages 171-172 Defying Napoleon by Munch-Petersen) And this attack, capture of the ship and killing of Danish sailors, took place before war was declared by either side, although, of course, a naval fleet with a very large military force and artillery, appearing on your doorstep, could also be considered as an act of war, never mind attacking one of their ships.

cont'd

But other evidence suggests the true intent of the British and their mindset concerning what I consider as a Napoleonic war crime and also an invasion.

In a letter to Gower, Canning included the following: 'And I must look for a tedious controversy here to be terminated by nothing but a peace (which God forbid) or a fleet in the Baltic.' (Thesis: The Copenhagen Expedition, 1807 by A.N. Ryan: page 65: letter Canning to Gower, June 9, 1807)

And it is very interesting how Jackson, the British envoy to Denmark, described the British military force when he was discussing the damage caused to Copenhagen: 'much consideration was not to be expected…from an invading army.' (page 170: Defying Napoleon) Here we clearly see Jackson describing the attacking force as 'an invading army'. Not a raiding party, force or unit, as you would expect, if it was just a raid.

cont'd

The British government certainly held the idea of having a permanent garrison in Denmark and they were not too pleased that the British military commanders included a clause to leave the after six weeks.

'I am not without my opinion that the prospect of an uncomfortable service had not something to do with the framing their opinions. The article of Capitulation was certainly admitted at the time when they thought us indifferent to the retaining the island; and when they were under orders to send home as soon as possible a considerable part of their forces with a view to another operation. That operation was Lisbon.' (Thesis: page 241: Letter canning to Gower, Nov 5, 1807)

I think the line 'when they thought us indifferent to the retaining the island' clearly indicates the true intent of the British politicians.

But as early as August 3rd, they were inquiring on the possibility of occupying and keeping Zealand, as can be seen in an extract from a letter from the British Secretary of State for war to the Admiral of the invading fleet: 'I should wish to know, regard being had to the temper of the inhabitants of Zealand, and the means of keeping any naval force in the Baltic, even of the lighter description to watch the Belt in the winter, how far permanent occupation of that island can be looked to as practicable.' (Thesis: pages 176-177: Castlereagh to Gambier, August 3, 1807)

You will note this was mentioned long before the siege, bombardment, capture of the fleet, or any declarations of war were made.

cont'd (last one)

'We are bound to withdraw our troops from Zealand by the 5th article of the capitulation in six weeks. Supposing that Denmark choses to preserve in the war, and to form an offensive league with France against us, they cannot claim, under the capitulation, a continued exemption for the island of Zealand from our hostilities; if not, when may our troops re-embark and re-attack Copenhagen consistently with the fair import of the agreement? ' (Thesis: page 190: Castlereagh to Cathcart, Sept 19, 1807)

Why on earth would the British be considering re-landing and re-attacking Copenhagen when the supposed aim of their attack had already been obtained? The only answer is that it was not a raid but a planned invasion and takeover. Not by the military, but by the politicians. They just fooled the military into thinking it was a quick grab and run operation, and it is ironic that their own military thwarted their true aim.

It has been a fascinating topic to research, containing some interesting debates from both sides and in both (Copenhagen Map and 1812) threads discussing this event. And it just goes to show what can be uncovered, and how preconceived views can be changed, when research is undertaken.