Napoleon massacred more than 100,000 Caribbean slaves and should be remembered as a genocidal dictator and inspiration for Hitler rather than a military genius and founder of modern France, a French historian said yesterday.
"I refuse to bow down before the statue any longer, I have opened my eyes," said Claude Ribbe, a respected black academic and part of a governmental commission on human rights whose book, Napoleon's Crime, is published this week, on the bicentenary of the emperor's great triumph at the battle of Austerlitz this Friday.
"A kind of generalised self-censorship exists about this man in France ... he furthered the emergence of all the racist and pseudo-scientific theories of the 19th century that were subsequently taken up by the Nazis."
The book includes first hand officers' accounts describing the methods ordered by Napoleon to stamp out a slave revolt on the then French Caribbean island of Haiti, and in Guadeloupe. The basic strategy, he said, was to "exterminate every black on the islands over 12" and replace them with docile imports from Africa. The rebels were killed, but thousands of innocents were shot, drowned, savaged by dogs or gassed in the holds of slaveships.
Ribbe, accompanied by Guadeloupe Socialist MP Victorin Lurel, called for a protest against "historical revisionism".
"He had great qualities, of that there's no doubt," Mr Lurel said. "But Napoleon also did some wholly abominable things.
Quote:Napoleon massacred more than 100,000 Caribbean slaves and should be remembered as a genocidal dictator and inspiration for Hitler rather than a military genius and founder of modern France, a French historian said yesterday
Napoleon also massacred ten thousands of Turks and Arabs when he attempted to invade Egypt. He really was a bestial dictator.
---
They dance tsifte-teli, sit on lounges, drink coffee & ouzo and eat feta, doner, dolmades, baklava, mezes, tzatziki, imam-baildi, souvlaki, moussakas etc.
An other one that understood how to make money. Easy, just find an excuse to spit on
France, compare with Hitler and you're sure to sell your crap in the anglo american world.
How many "Chouants" (the Catholic rebels from Brittany) were massacred too ? those are the
purest celtic white we have in France so the massacres of the blacks had nothing to do with
race contrary to Hitler's murders. First lie easily demonstrated.
The truth is that massacres is the only way rebellions were crushed since the beginning of
humanity until 1800 or something. That stopped largelly thanks to the ideas of the French
Revolution and ... Napoleon.
This message has been edited by ultrarep on Dec 1, 2005 9:51 AM
I can't understand why the French see Napoleon as a great man. He was a bloodthirsty general that dragged France into one war after another one. He was a (bad) dictator. PERIOD !
Don't try this at home lads
quoted from:
panda
"Of course we knew it would be a tuff fight. The little Viets are our tiny cousins. They are practically Chinese but only much shorter."
Eric I can't understand why the French see Napoleon as a great man. He was a bloodthirsty general that dragged France into one war after another one. He was a (bad) dictator. PERIOD !
that's not the topic in case you didn't noticed.
The French sentiments about Napoleons are mixed: he saved France and the Revolution, achieved a lot of reforms all over Europe but he failed to impose peace and took his moto "the best defense is attack" a little too literally so in the end France lost and Germany could be Prussified.
And no it's NOT Napoleon that wanted war, it's Britain that kept building coalitions over and over again.
If you think Napoleon is just a bloodthirsty dictator, it's because you are a brainwashed and ignorant moron, something we already knew, no need to insist.
Who cares whether someone is 'bloodthirsty,' what matters is if he's a winner. The Great people in history aren't Great because they were peaceable and multicultural, they are great because they were winners. That's why the elites hate the West so much, because it used to be the most winningest of the winners. The Asians can take pride in "scourge of God" Attila the Hun or "Rape and pillage" Genghis Khan with impunity, but God forbid any white person praise Cortes or Pizarro, that would be racist.
" so in the end France lost and Germany could be Prussified."
Should it rather have become a part of France?
Despite your constant villification of Prussia, it was far from the bogeyman everyone makes it out to be. They had an army that war immensly successful, particularly if one takes the size of Prussia proper into account. If success makes them bad, then they are really evil...
About Napoleon, he was a brilliant man, but at the end he stumbled over his own hubris. Nobody can rule Europe alone, the Romans, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin. There is always a counterweight.
Reaver180 Should it rather have become a part of France?
only the left side of the Rhine was annexed. And the people was damned fine with that btw. Well before they got tired of those endless wars, like any other French.
For the rest, Napoleon destroyed the rotten and corrupt feodal system, gave people Liberty, unified 200 Germans state in more viables 3 bigger states Bavaria, Wurtemberg, Bade and did a lot of reform.
Despite your constant villification of Prussia, it was far from the bogeyman everyone makes it out to be. They had an army that war immensly successful, particularly if one takes the size of Prussia proper into account. If success makes them bad, then they are really evil..
immensly successful, well, Napoleon repetedly crushed them.
In 1806 Napoleon conquered Prussia and occupied until 1812 when his armies were destroyed in Russia.
Prussia never did us any good. In the civilized west you don't massacre prisonners like they did after Waterloo and in numerous time.
In the West you are not brutal without reason, like the Prussians were in 1815, 1870, 1914 in occupied territories. Prussia didn't do any good to Germany either (hard repression to kill the Republican ideas after the fall of Napoleaon, WWI).
About Napoleon, he was a brilliant man, but at the end he stumbled over his own hubris. Nobody can rule Europe alone, the Romans, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin. There is always a counterweight.
In the end the French were among those who suffered the most of the war. But don't forget it's NOT France that started the wars. France had been agressed by all the Kingdom of Europe at the same time because they were afraid of the ideas of the Republic that threatened there power.
As for Germany, they suffered a lot too. The only good thing Napoleon could have given the Germans: a Nation and Liberty, was confiscated by the Prussians. For Russia and Spain, Napoleon definitly was a disaster.
Prussia and Britain are the only real winner of all this.
Specially Britain: Well done, congrats.
Eric
I can't understand why the French see Napoleon as a great man. He was a bloodthirsty general that dragged France into one war after another one. He was a (bad) dictator. PERIOD !
Roland
that's not the topic in case you didn't noticed.
The French sentiments about Napoleons are mixed: he saved France and the Revolution, achieved a lot of reforms all over Europe but he failed to impose peace and took his moto "the best defense is attack" a little too literally so in the end France lost and Germany could be Prussified.
And no it's NOT Napoleon that wanted war, it's Britain that kept building coalitions over and over again.
If you think Napoleon is just a bloodthirsty dictator, it's because you are a brainwashed and ignorant moron, something we already knew, no need to insist.
and now me
I agree largely with Roland point, I have to add only General Napoleone BUONAPARTE was of italian origin and a french-naturalized thief
"non tutti i francesi sono ladri ..... BUONAPARTE si"
his empire and army was largely built sacking Italy and Germany but he couldn't rob in the russian steppes
To that Italian, Napoleon was born a frenchman not an italian, he was born one year after Corsica began french. French or italian are hardly races but mixture of races. More than 1 million gauls slaves were deported by caesar to italy, this would make northern italy and France quite racially similar except france had a massive Frankish input in the north than the italian lacks.
And you guys demonising Napoleon, he was nothing like hitler, this was war and France had to do everything to survive the wolves that surrounded her. If you ask me, it was napoleon kindheartedness that failed us; if he was more like hitler, we would have destroyed everyone completely and they wouldn't be there crying about french tyranny.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
And they liked the fact that they were French now? And yes, nationality was an important point, as was ethnicity, though not as much as it would be later.
"And the people was damned fine with that btw. Well before they got tired of those endless wars, like any other French."
No, they weren't happy with it. It was not only the war, but the economic expoitation, the neglect of German culture, the requisition of properity and the fact that the French army could basically do what it wanted, since it was now "French" territory.
"For the rest, Napoleon destroyed the rotten and corrupt feodal system, gave people Liberty, unified 200 Germans state in more viables 3 bigger states Bavaria, Wurtemberg, Bade and did a lot of reform."
LOL, I prefer not to fall for propaganda, lol the irony, the champion of republicanism would later proclaim himself Emperor. The corrupcy stayed, only the people who you had to bribe changed.
"immensly successful, well, Napoleon repetedly crushed them."
Boohoo, France was bigger, had more men and used the best army system up to 1813 etc. Note the fact that Prussia under Frederick the Great and after 1813 handled the French quite well.
"In 1806 Napoleon conquered Prussia and occupied until 1812 when his armies were destroyed in Russia.
Prussia never did us any good. In the civilized west you don't massacre prisonners like they did after Waterloo and in numerous time."
Don't be that pretencious, so I gather the French forces committed no warcrimes during the whole Napoleonic wars? And also that the Prussian atrocities (which btw. are largely unsubstantiated) were somehow the rule?
"In the West you are not brutal without reason, like the Prussians were in 1815, 1870, 1914 in occupied territories. Prussia didn't do any good to Germany either (hard repression to kill the Republican ideas after the fall of Napoleaon, WWI)."
LOL, yeah right, 1815, I give you the reason, years of occupation, 1870 partisans, same in 1914. And Prussia was very lenient to other German powers of note, or Bavaria wouldn't have continued to exist. And this "Prussian repression" also happened in non-Prussian territories, how come? Face it, the people had realised that republicanism Napoleon style was not better.
"In the end the French were among those who suffered the most of the war. But don't forget it's NOT France that started the wars. France had been agressed by all the Kingdom of Europe at the same time because they were afraid of the ideas of the Republic that threatened there power. "
Maybe at the beginning, but that can't justify the continuation of the war after the French system had been established safely in France.
"As for Germany, they suffered a lot too. The only good thing Napoleon could have given the Germans: a Nation and Liberty, was confiscated by the Prussians."
Oh, come on, you are sounding like a Bush agitator "Liberty" lol. The "liberty" to exist as French puppet states, no thanks.
"For Russia and Spain, Napoleon definitly was a disaster.
Prussia and Britain are the only real winner of all this.
Specially Britain: Well done, congrats."
And I am glad that France didn't get the Rhine border, thanks Prussia!
Re: Napoleon The Inspiration For Hitler December 4 2005, 11:42 PM
"To that Italian, Napoleon was born a frenchman not an italian, he was born one year after Corsica began french. French or italian are hardly races but mixture of races. More than 1 million gauls slaves were deported by caesar to italy, this would make northern italy and France quite racially similar except france had a massive Frankish input in the north than the italian lacks."
so you don't deny HE was a thief too, LOL
really he was a corse according with the opinion of the islander, and a frenchman according his own
I was kidding of you
but as you noted HE was of italian origin and family culture, wasn't his elder brothers born italian ? and his mother and father ?
about celts I remember you northern italy was celtic before France, Gaul meant "foreigner celt" and was the name italian celts used for those from France, the legionaries serving Julius Caesar were largely celts themselves, double LOL
Reaver180 LOL, I prefer not to fall for propaganda, lol the irony, the champion of republicanism would later proclaim himself Emperor. The corrupcy stayed, only the people who you had to bribe changed.
yes becoming emperor was a very bad move, was justified by political reasons, to be able to deal with other Europe monarchy, but in fact probably shows that Napoleon was getting a little too full of himself.
But Napoleon monarchy was largelly based on merit rather than right of birth. The French (so the rhinelanders) were still more free than they ever were before. And Napoleon never restored the power of the clerics.
Boohoo, France was bigger, had more men and used the best army system up to 1813 etc.
still he crushed them. If you're weak you avoid to be agressive me think.
Note the fact that Prussia under Frederick the Great and after 1813 handled the French quite well.
sure that after the campaign of Russia that was easier.
Maybe at the beginning, but that can't justify the continuation of the war after the French system had been established safely in France.
France never was safe: each time a coalition had been crushed, Britain managed to build a new one. One Napoleon biggest mistake is probably not to have retreated on our "natural frontier" and adopted a more defensive posture.
And I am glad that France didn't get the Rhine border, thanks Prussia!
You'd better thank Britain and Russia.
One day that would be great if France and Germany tried to "unify" our history books at school. We are not that far I think.
This message has been edited by ultrarep on Dec 5, 2005 9:47 PM
LOL, yeah right, 1815, I give you the reason, years of occupation, 1870 partisans, same in 1914. And Prussia was very lenient to other German powers of note, or Bavaria wouldn't have continued to exist. And this "Prussian repression" also happened in non-Prussian territories, how come? Face it, the people had realised that republicanism Napoleon style was not better.
Prussia was a state that was repressive to anything that it had any influence over. It tried its hardest to assimulate the Germans into its ideals and values (German nationilism was based on Prussian beliefs, Protestantism, anti-Catholicism which Bavaria and the Western states were the majority of, a central state under a Prussian King or Kaiser, from the house of Hohenzollern, introduction of the Prussian German, each area of Germany had a different form of German, dailects etc). Prussia as mentioned above also disliked its non german subjects, ie Sorbs and Poles, both Catholic, both enemies of the German Prussia, and both cultrally distent. Then came in Germanisation, a term that saw great opression of the minority langauges, the relgions practiced, and the very notion of a cultural identity that had existed for as long as the German one. Prussia by any means did not need to oppress its non German subjects so much, but I must admit, the Prussians unified Germany in a way the other major states couldn't have.
But being brutal for the fact of occupation is ridiculous. Thats like saying Poles have a right, or had a right, to brutally kill any German that lived within Polish borders after its rebirth. Or any country had a right to do that to Germans after world war 1, or especially after world war 2.
"The biggest travesty this world has ever seen was the destruction of the Polish state" - Karl Marx
Who cares whether someone is 'bloodthirsty,' what matters is if he's a winner. The Great people in history aren't Great because they were peaceable and multicultural, they are great because they were winners. That's why the elites hate the West so much, because it used to be the most winningest of the winners. The Asians can take pride in "scourge of God" Attila the Hun or "Rape and pillage" Genghis Khan with impunity, but God forbid any white person praise Cortes or Pizarro, that would be ra
cist.
Notanonymous, you really should change your name to Notorious , just kidding.
What you said is not political correct, but it's god d amned truth. Only one thing, the west wins only in these few hundred years and won't last for always.
One competitor is looming---- China is reviving.
This message has been edited by bysand on Dec 8, 2005 8:52 AM
>>>The Asians can take pride in "scourge of God" Attila the Hun or "Rape and pillage" Genghis Khan with impunity, but God forbid any white person praise Cortes or Pizarro, that would be racist.
<<<<<<
This is actually what we (ASIAN) take pride in ....
This is actually what we (ASIAN) take pride in ....
"India: 9,500 year old city found underwater"
While the "West" Was still living in Caves and eating raw meat us "Asians" Were building Cities and Empires....
A very abigious thing to say, since Greeks and Etruscans are just as old as many Eastern nations and they had administration and cities. Its funny though, cause its a very pride filled moment when 'Asians' regard their conquering of the West (or there lack of), but the moment the Europeans do the same its something to get your back up against. Give it up with the 'our culture is superior to the Wests' if that were the case then 'Asians' wouldn't be so influenced by countries 1/10 their size (population and land) that exist half way across the globe. Tired of hearing of bashings from either side. So you had a city 9,500 years ago, and so what you're saying is the you have been 'building empires and cities' for lets give or take 5,000 to 7,000 years before Europeans, Europeans caught up within 2,000 years, and you got under the influence of the 'barabians of the west'? You had more time to build better governments and better empires and administration, farming techniques etc, and you didn't. Nothing to be proud of if you're a Tortoise of the world.
And no, 'European' culture isn't barabaric and evil that wants to just conquer everything, cause if you could have done it (wider Asian community), you would have. And if you say, we wouldn't, its cause you couldn't...
When 'Europeans' were building Empires and Cities... 'Asians' began to move to caves and eat raw meat.
"The greatest travesty this world has ever seen was the destruction of the Polish state" - Karl Marx
This message has been edited by Rzeczpospolita on Jul 5, 2009 4:43 PM
Britain was provoked to be fair, napoleon tried to
stop them making money.
BTW after waterloo it was wellington that advised strongly
against punitive terms for france. So maybee we werent as evil
as u think babe.
______
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees
This message has been edited by may18a on Dec 12, 2005 3:28 PM
Britain was provoked to be fair, napoleon tried to
stop them making money.
When Napoleon took the power, the war against France had started since a while. Napoleon
is the result of this war, at first he was just a successfull general of the
Revolutionary army.
And I don't think the Revolutionary France provoqued Britain. Why would they ? as if
France hadn't enough problems like that.
BTW after waterloo it was wellington that advised strongly
against punitive terms for france. So maybee we werent as evil
as u think babe.
I think you're right. .. and I don't think Britain is evil. They are just devilish
... and I like when you call me babe
This message has been edited by ultrarep on Dec 14, 2005 10:55 PM
"I can't understand why the French see Napoleon as a great man. He was a bloodthirsty general that dragged France into one war after another one."
Napoleon reformed pretty much every part of the French state. His reforms have lasted till today. He was an administrative genious. Unfortunately he was also a megalomaniac.
If my memory serves me correct it would appear the US is dragged into one war after another also. The US inspired embargo on Iraq killed more ppl than Napoleon ever did.
And "genocide" is an attempt to destroy/wipe out an entire group of ppl. Although he killed alot of them, he did not kill every person of caribbean descent.
And the modern day Generals who make decisions that result in thousands of innocent deaths????
Achilles inspired Alexander, Alexander inspired Napoleon, Napoleon inspired Hitler, and Hitler inspired....(better not say).
This will continue till the end of time gentlemen. Murder, war, and genocide are common nature for humans. It's disgusting how we glorify such people.
Current Topic - Napoleon The Inspiration For Hitler
, just kidding. 
