Napoleon's genocide 'on a par with Hitler'

[Hakluyt]

By Colin Randall in Paris
(Filed: 26/11/2005)

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4EBUCROVTRUDVQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2005/11/26/wfra26.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/11/26/ixworld.html

A French historian has caused uproar by claiming Napoleon provided the model for Hitler's Final Solution with the slaughter of more than 100,000 Caribbean slaves.

His accusations refer to the extreme methods used to put down a ferocious uprising in Haiti at the start of the 19th century. Then known as San Domingo, the colony was considered a jewel of the French empire and to save it troops launched a campaign to kill all blacks aged over 12.

"In simple terms, Napoleon ordered the killing of as many blacks as possible in Haiti and Guadeloupe to be replaced by new, docile slaves from Africa," Ribbe said yesterday.

He said he had found accounts from officers who refused to take part in the massacres, especially the use of sulphur dioxide to kill slaves held in ships' holds.

His book is already provoking controversy prior to its publication on Thursday. The newspaper France Soir juxtaposed images of Napoleon and Hitler yesterday before asking: "Did Napoleon invent the Final Solution?"

But in an editorial, it condemned the "inanity" of Ribbe's argument. Ribbe, 51, who is of French-Guadeloupe extraction, said he was unrepentant.

"I want the French to know exactly what happened in that period," he said. "As for the good things Napoleon did, that is irrelevant. Hitler developed the autobahns and inspired the Volkswagen; are we supposed to excuse him for his war crimes?"

Ribbe, who was recently appointed a human rights commissioner by the prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, added: "I was taught to think of Napoleon as a superstar. To mention his crimes against humanity has been a taboo."

[Felix the Cat]

Sparing blacks under the age of 12 was actually quite generous, considering the horrible and indiscriminate massacre of French civilians that had occured on the island a few years earlier

[Jimbo Gomez]

I was thinking the same thing cube. The arrogance of this guy is amazing. The 'battleflag' of the negroes on haiti was a white baby on a spear. To think they give this filth a gouvernment-sponsored job and that they allow him to slander their greatest statesman ever is just mindboggling.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Sparing blacks under the age of 12 was actually quite generous, considering the horrible and indiscriminate massacre of French civilians that had occured on the island a few years earlier

One would have thought that the desire for a population to racially cleanse its lands would have recieved more approval from the denizens of the Phora.

[Jimbo Gomez]

One would have thought that the desire for a population to racially cleanse its lands would have recieved more approval from the denizens of the Phora.

You know what they say about blood being thicker than water. Besides, most people here I think are in favour of deporting the wogs from Europe or the USA, not killing them.

It's not as if the negroes cleansed their own lands from the French. The French had been there for longer than them and actually imported them.

[Sulla the Dictator]

You know what they say about blood being thicker than water. Besides, most people here I think are in favour of deporting the wogs from Europe or the USA, not killing them.


A very generous assumption.


The French had been there for longer than them and actually imported them.

LOL I don't think the French get land rights by virtue of having arrived there 10 years before the first black, and I don't think that 'who was there first' is an argument that would be particularly advantageous to the French in a discussion about Colonial rights. :p

[Jimbo Gomez]

That island was virtually uninhabited, and of the few injuns living there, most of them had died because of the diseases the french imported. That's not an intentional genocide if you don't know about modern medicine. By all rights, the french were the longest inhabitants at the moment of the haitian wars.

[Sulla the Dictator]

That island was virtually uninhabited, and of the few injuns living there, most of them had died because of the diseases the french imported.


Well, no need to blame the French since the Spanish were in fact responsible. Unfortunately, that simultaneously undermines the argument that the French were there first. :P


By all rights, the french were the longest inhabitants at the moment of the haitian wars.


Incorrect. Blacks had been imported to Haiti more than a hundred years before the French set foot on Tortuga by the Spanish and Portuguese.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Well yes, I'll give you that, but even in that case they took the Spanish place completely legitimate, and, which you know is true, they imported most of the negroes that threw a ruckus a few centuries later.

The entire debate is actually only of secondary importance (although I admit it is quite interesting). In those days you pretty much were free to do whatever the hell you wanted during a war. Lord knows the negroes did against the French colonists.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Why should a WHITE racialist not feel more kinship with his fellow white colonists instead of an ethnic cleansing mob? One thing is to understand the logic behind that cleansing and even agree with the notion of it and another is to cheer for the opposing team.

While I understand what Mugabe is doing in Zimbawe with the whites living there...I do not applaud it since the victims in this case are my kin. Easy enough?

[Jimbo Gomez]

Why should a WHITE racialist not feel more kinship with his fellow white colonists instead of an ethnic cleansing mob? One thing is to understand the logic behind that cleansing and even agree with the notion of it and another is to cheer for the opposing team.

While I understand what Mugabe is doing in Zimbawe with the whites living there...I do not applaud it since the victims in this case are my kin. Easy enough?

The 'blood is thicker than water' logic yes.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Why should a WHITE racialist not feel more kinship with his fellow white colonists instead of an ethnic cleansing mob?


Because a legitimate worldview requires consistancy.


One thing is to understand the logic behind that cleansing and even agree with the notion of it and another is to cheer for the opposing team.


They're not the opposing team, they're putting the ideas that many Phoranese espouse into action. Indeed, from my point of view, they're the Maoists to your Stalinists. :p


While I understand what Mugabe is doing in Zimbawe with the whites living there...I do not applaud it since the victims in this case are my kin. Easy enough?

Why won't your kin leave? Do you, or do you not, believe in borders drawn along racial lines?

[Ambrosio Spinola]

There is no inconsistency at all, knowing that a footbal team has to win and the other one has to loose when playing does not mean I have to be happy the opposing team wins. A great deal already is to understand the concept behind the idea.

Its not "about leaving". Say the invasors finally win and effectively due to their numbers and social impact change my society...by rules of nature they will have won over a weak and selfdefeating west. I understand the logic of it, does that mean I have to applaud it? Not at all.
I do not believe we have some sort of holy aura around us and our civilization that will allow us second chances or replay the game..nope...If we finally fuck up and make way for more dinamic and agresive civilization then so it will be.

Its quite easy to understand really and I know you do...you do not have to agree with it.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Its not "about leaving". Say the invasors finally win and effectively due to their numbers and social impact change my society...by rules of nature they will have won over a weak and selfdefeating west. I understand the logic of it, does that mean I have to applaud it? Not at all.


This makes sense as it applies to Spain or Europe. This doesn't follow when discussing a Carribean or African nation. :p

[Felix the Cat]

Millions of white people were killed in Napoleon's wars, but there is little or no rancor against him in Europe today, not even in countries that suffered much worse than the Haitians

Why do black victims deserve special consideration?

[Jimbo Gomez]

Millions of white people were killed in Napoleon's wars, but there is little or no rancor against him in Europe today, not even in countries that suffered much worse than the Haitians

Why do black victims deserve special consideration?

Because unlike with their European fellow victims, nothing good happened in their history since then. They lack the skills to rebuild and continue playing in the mud and holding a grudge.

[Lenny]

This man is a hero:
........http://www.britishbattles.com/waterloo/images/duke-wellington-200.jpg

for defeating that lunatic Napoleon

----------
Because unlike with their European fellow victims, nothing good happened in their history since then. They lack the skills to rebuild and continue playing in the mud and holding a grudge.They are not holding a grudge, it's just one man saying this. I'd bet a nickel that next to no haitians think about this at all

Now, if there are some particularly bitter individuals in Haiti who do think about it and angry about it, it would not surprise me. There are some Southern whites in the US who are still fuming with feigned outrage and anger over Union General W.T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" even after all this time too, after all. Not to mention some Southern whites' "anger" of Lincoln's " 'invasion' of the South" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Petr]

Not to mention some Southern whites' "anger" of Lincoln's " 'invasion' of the South" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Please don't tell me that you're a moronic Yankee jingoist as well...


Petr

[Lenny]

Please don't tell me that you're a moronic Yankee jingoist as well...I live in a border area, and am pro-Union

Southerners who support the Confederacy are ok, I dont agree with them on the issue of secession & the Confederacy but by and large they are simply Southern patriots. Foreigners like you, on the other hand, who vehemently and strongly support the Confederacy, support secession, "hate Lincoln", hate "Lincoln's war of agression", hate "Yankees" (Yankees in the sense of Northerners) etc., are deserving of nothing but absolute contempt. You have "no dog in this fight", as it is a US domestic issue, and yet you strongly support the Confederate side in the Civil war. The thing is, your "support for the South" is nothing but thinly-veiled anti-Americanism, in the sense that you want(ed) to see the US break apart, that was your interest, not sympathy/support for Southerners. It was the same back in the 1860s, almost every single european country, and Canada, were on the side of the Confederacy, some european powers even sent small amounts of military supplies to the Confederates, but stopped short of recognition and massive military support, largely because the Confederates failed to win a single battle outside of the South. But what is loathsome about this is that the europeans supported secession and the Confederacy not because they "supported the South" (they couldn't care less for the South), but because they wanted to see the United States split apart thereby weakening it. If I were a Confederate-supporter I would be rather embarassed over this massive foreign support for secession, those foreigners were no "friends of the South" at all, they were just s.o.b.'s who were licking their chops at the prospect of the US splintering apart and tearing itself to bits.

Interestingly, the only european country that gave full support to the Union forces was Russia :eek: They even sent war ships to east coast ports and to San Francisco to help out

[Dionysus]

This man is a hero:
........http://www.britishbattles.com/waterloo/images/duke-wellington-200.jpg Surely you aren't in favour of a Great Catholic Emancipator, Lenny.:nono: Probably, he was a papist agent!:p


for defeating that lunatic NapoleonVive l'Empereur!;)

[Felix the Cat]

Lenny, do you begrudge the assistance given to George Washington by the Netherlands, Spain and France?

[Felix the Cat]

Surely you aren't in favour of a Great Catholic Emancipator, Lenny.:nono: Probably, he was a papist agent!:p
He was quite seriously accused of this in his lifetime. His Catholic policies were the main reason his government was so unpopular.

[Felix the Cat]

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/pitt2.jpg

[Lenny]

Lenny, do you begrudge the assistance given to George Washington by the Netherlands, Spain and France?I dont think this comparison is valid. The US war for Independence (1775-1783), although somewhat a domestic affair, was mainly an international affair, whereas the US Civil War was a purely domestic affair, as all civil wars are by definition. The massive foreign support for the secessionists in this domestic affair is (was) only because wanted to see the country break apart, I consider that to be contemptible.

You might say, "It actually wasn't a civil war but rather a war between two nations, US and CS. Therefore it was not a domestic affair but an itnernational affair just like the 1770s US-British war". As proof that it truly was a "civil war", a purely domestic issue, let me say this:
-There was considerable opposition in the South to secession prior to the actual commencement of fighting (the actual beginning of fighting forced most of the anti-secession Southerners into the Confederate camp, which is just what the radical secessionists wanted to happen). Even the Virginia state legislature voted against secession at first, and even as late as April 1861, by which time the war had started, they still only voted 80-55 in favor of secession, by no means an overwhelming endorsement at all.
-The border states/areas produced both Union and Confederate volunteers in significant numbers (more Union that Confederate, but still quite a few Confederates). Compare this to a true international conflict: WWI. How many French from the Champagne region of France volunteered to fight for the German Army? How many Germans from the Rhineland region volunteered to fight for the French Army? If there were any at all, it was very very small numbers.
-There were Northerners who supported secession. The Copperheads (pro-Confederate Democrats) wanted to recognize the CS as independent, and even some men from north of the Ohio river joined Confederate regiments.
-A number of prominent Southerners did not support secession at all. Sam Houston was one of these, he was very much opposed to secession. Sam Houston said in 1861 (prophetically) to some of the pro-secessionist radicals that were agitating for war: "Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives you may win Southern independence, but I doubt it. The North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche."

[Lenny]

Surely you aren't in favour of a Great Catholic Emancipator, Lenny.:nono: Probably, he was a papist agent!:pI consider him to be a hero for stopping Napoleon, not based on anything he did in politics

He was not some wildly pro-Catholic individual anyway, see here:
Although Wellington and the Home Secretary, Robert Peel, had always opposed Catholic Emancipation, they began to reconsider their views after they received information on the possibility of an Irish rebellion. As Peel said to Wellington: "though emancipation was a great danger, civil strife was a greater danger"

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRwellington.htm

[Felix the Cat]

Englishmen of the 1770s did not regard Americans as foreigners, nor did they regard North America as a foreign country, and the "revolutionary war" was no less divisive and controversial than the "civil war" of the following century

Many familes were split by the revolution, with members fighting on different sides, and both sides drew significant numbers of recruits from eachother's territories

Both wars were triggered by economic and political rivalries, and in both cases the stronger party underestimated the determination of the weaker, while again in both cases the secessionists had much sympathy in Europe

The critical difference in 1861 was slavery, which had become hugely unpopular in the developed European nations

The Civil War would have definitely seen foreign intervention if not for that single issue

[Lenny]

The Southern states were a fundamental part of the USA, whereas the colonies were never strictly speaking a part of the British nation, they were just colonies. That's the difference here, a civil war within one nation vs. a war between nation and nation's colony, these are two very different things.

The big argument in favor of formal independence in the early-mid 1770s was that the colonies were practically independent as it was, they had had a lot of independence ever since the early 1600s, but the King of England was (supposedly) trying to crush and suppress the long-existing American liberty with his policies, so the Americans needed to declare formal independence. The Southern states on the other hand were an integral part of the Amerian nation and did not have "quasi-independence" from the rest of the country for 150 years prior to the beginning of the Civil War, as the 13 colonies had from Britain before 1775.

Englishmen of the 1770s did not regard Americans as foreigners, nor did they regard North America as a foreign country, and the "revolutionary war" was no less divisive and controversial than the "civil war" of the following centuryI think many English did regard Americans as foreigners, and vice versa. One thing that is certain though, is that most American-born people at that time identified themselves as "Americans" or more likely as "[insert state name]ians", and not as "British" (except in the sense of being subjects of the British crown, but in that sense millions of black and brown people across the world were "British") or English.

Many familes were split by the revolution, with members fighting on different sides, and both sides drew significant numbers of recruits from eachother's territories

Both wars were triggered by economic and political rivalries, and in both cases the stronger party underestimated the determination of the weaker, while again in both cases the secessionists had much sympathy in EuropePeople who support(ed) secession and the Confederacy have been trying to compare the War for American Independence and the Civil War as if they were practically carbon copies of one another, for 145 years now. As wars go, the two were quite different I'd say. These were two fundamentally different conflicts as I noted above, some similiarities notwithstanding.

in both cases the secessionists had much sympathy in EuropeThere were no "secessionists" in 1776. The colonies were just that, colonies, never a part of the nation of Britain. If a group of rebels were trying to break northern England away to form a new nation, that would be secession, but colonials trying to gain formal independence cannot possibly be called "secessionists".

The critical difference in 1861 was slavery, which had become hugely unpopular in the developed European nations

The Civil War would have definitely seen foreign intervention if not for that single issueYes, but if not for that "single issue", there never would have been secession or the Civil War in the first place!

Another reason as to why the european powers were disinclined to recognize the CSA was that militarily the Union forces were far and away superior to the Confederate forces, so naturally the European powers didn't think that the Confederates could possibly win the war. They didn't want to bet on a losing horse, and certainly didn't want to wind up in a war with the US.

Lee lost his chance at Antietam, if he had won big there in the fall of 1862, that just might have gained recognition for the CSA by Britain and others. But he lost (They say that Antietam was a "draw", but Lee withdrew back to Virginia afterwards so it was clearly a strategic loss even if a tactical draw). The winter after Antietam, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, that action probably ended any Confederate hope of recognition because of the reasons you stated, i.e. european aversion to slavery



This has certainly become an interesting discussion considering it was originally just a post against yet another of that little weasel Petr's cowardly, worm-like attacks against me.

[Leif]

You might say, "It actually wasn't a civil war but rather a war between two nations, US and CS. Therefore it was not a domestic affair but an itnernational affair just like the 1770s US-British war". As proof that it truly was a "civil war", a purely domestic issue, let me say this:

Quite interesting then, if the "Civil War" was between states belonging to the same nation, and as the Union asserted they could not leave the Union ever, the fact that the Union suspended democratic liberties in the South and placed military governors over them seems a bit unconstitutional, considering the Union claimed the South was still a part of the Union, no?

[Jimbo Gomez]

After a war, the winner f*cks the loser up the ass ymir. Your side lost.

[Lenny]

Quite interesting then, if the "Civil War" was between states belonging to the same nation, and as the Union asserted they could not leave the Union ever, the fact that the Union suspended democratic liberties in the South and placed military governors over them seems a bit unconstitutional, considering the Union claimed the South was still a part of the Union, no?That was in wartime. Show me a country that doesn't "suspend liberties" in wartime. Even The CS government "suspended liberties" during the war, you know.

Interesting isn't it, that when speaking about the Civil War era, the pro-Confederate partisans and apologists suddenly transform into rabid ACLU-types