Do you agree with this article?

[travric]

From the looks of it, Mr. Ribbe, as a writer sure puts his interpretation on the Napoleonic facts as he sees it. He's like a lawyer making a case. Intellectually and morally I can see where he's coming from but something tells me he would have been better to perhaps plumb the depths of that society which gave rise to Napoleon and argued why was he given so much free reign to give life to his dreams which did entail alot of carnage. Perhaps even linking it up with what can conceivably be happening in our day. And I'd think that that takes real historical rigor and analysis. Really what we can't get away from is that I think the writer is writing a piece which argues that the the Allies were right on in destroying Napoleon. They had to because he was a really a despicable individual and madman.

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by travric

From the looks of it, Mr. Ribbe, as a writer sure puts his interpretation on the Napoleonic facts as he sees it. He's like a lawyer making a case. Intellectually and morally I can see where he's coming from but something tells me he would have been better to perhaps plumb the depths of that society which gave rise to Napoleon and argued why was he given so much free reign to give life to his dreams which did entail alot of carnage. Perhaps even linking it up with what can conceivably be happening in our day. And I'd think that that takes real historical rigor and analysis. Really what we can't get away from is that I think the writer is writing a piece which argues that the the Allies were right on in destroying Napoleon. They had to because he was a really a despicable individual and madman.

I don't think that his intention was to support the need to destroy Napolean's regime. The case in history is already successfully and undisputably made I think, simply by seeing that Napoleon would never be content with a France at peace with the world. It would be nice if he could have investigated what caused the rise of Napoleon, but that was never the writers intent, and such subjects would be beyond him.

I think this writer is more on a pop-kick trend of calling and comparing everyone in history "Hitler", purely for it's emotional impact. It's almost becoming a stereotype - Christopher Columbus is "Hitler", George Washington is "Hitler", Abraham Lincoln is "Hitler". I bet we can find a good handful of articles claiming such on the internet from self-proclaimed historians. And of course it's also reaching the current events political realm, we've all seen it - GW Bush is "Hitler", so is Obama. It just depends if you are talking to the nutcases on the extreme right, or the left. Go to the P&C forum here and you will see a post a day claiming the above to be facts.
Sadly, the result is a simplification of history and effectively diminishes the horrors of the atrocities committed during the Nazi regime. Using "Hitler" almost a verb, a description, not a name. Clearly, no one is "Hitler" except Hitler, and those using the term of Hitler to describe a current or past figure understand neither. So we can dismiss this article.

[NJGOAT]

The article is rubbish. The entire account of French actions in Haiti relating to "gas ships" and other large scale atrocities are completely false. The claims are pushed by a couple of fringe revisionist historians and are generally only parrotted on sites like Stormfront. I have never seen a single legitimate historian make any of the statements or claims about actions in Haiti under Napoleon's rule.

The rest of the statements are well known incidents that happened and aren't exactly outside of the norms for late 18th and early 19th century warfare.

[Snowball7]

yeah, it's crap.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by rishi85

And shouldn't Clinton, Bush, Obama et all should also be considered misanthropic killers?

Only by those who choose to let the over-sheltered, self-appoionted elite lead them around by the nose.