you disagree with that statement, fine. Entirely, partially, or in a few minor circumstances ? I'm talking about the major powers here. Do u also disagree with this:
I'm uninterested in characterizations of men as 'mass murderers', because it's ridiculously subjective.
vogtmurr said:
I think that "fairness" is not really something for me to evaluate either, on the grounds of subjectivity; rest assured that the treatment of occupied France in 1814 and 1815 was
in spite of what Napoleon did to the other European powers, not because of it.
vogtmurr said:
Your own credibility is at stake here too pal, and insisting on grouping napoleon with hitler and stalin puts the onus on you to assess the man in his entirety. Is there a single source you can provide which does a balanced job of that ?
Yep. P. W. Schroeder,
The Transformation of European Politics, 1763-1848.
true enough say, but if napoleon's treatment had been harsher than the allies in their own circumstances, do you think such generous terms would have been offered ?
Generous terms were offered in spite of France's past actions, not because of them; simply look at what Metternich and Castlereagh were forced to discuss all the way up to the agreement at Chaumont in 1814. The Russians and the Prussians were out for blood, and not an insignificant number of Austrians too.
vogtmurr said:
They would have taken steps to dismantle the power machinery in France and ensure it never became a threat again.
And the Russians and Prussians advocated same. Instead, France got off more lightly than it had treated Prussia; only three years of occupation and a relatively small indemnity, and most of France's core territory remained intact.
In 1814/15 they faced a very different geopolitical world. And you can't ignore the influence of Talleyrand, whom the Germans had no equivalent off at Versailles.
You should ignore the so-called influence of Talleyrand, because he did not persuade the allies to do anything they would not have otherwise done. His influence is colossally overestimated because of his memoirs, of course, and his persistent role (like a cockroach) in French policy for another two decades. Perhaps the sole thing that can be reliably laid at his own feet is the near-war between Prussia and the rest of Europe in the winter of 1814 over Saxony.
You could say the same of France in 1815, that they didn't commit that many atrocities but had historically posed a significant threat. It brought closure to a long period where France was the biggest agressor.
Only in retrospect. That was about as clear as mud in 1830, when the French made a rather large deal about wanting to get Belgium. Or in 1840, when the French nearly went to war with the rest of Europe over Syria and Egypt, in the famous
Wacht am Rhein crisis. Or in 1859, when the French destroyed the political settlement in the Italian peninsula. Or in 1867, when the French demanded Luxembourg and the Rhineland. And so on, and so forth.
vogtmurr said:
Sure Napoleon made demands on the rival empires, maybe even unreasonable ones. But he still respected their sovereignity when signing peace terms, after they continued to break them.
Other states were the ones breaking the agreements? Napoleon tended to do most of that. Should the allied powers be given props for respecting French sovereignty in 1814 and 1815 despite France's repeated abuse of its own treaties?
vogtmurr said:
Yes he did try to enforce unpopular governments in lesser states, but is it not possible he thought he was offering a better alternative than what they had ?
I agree that he considered the solution to be a better alternative: better for France, because those states were becoming French colonies.
