Trump wants to buy Greenland

[innonimatu]

I wass going to respond, but @Marla_Singer did an excellent job.

Please get your fact straight. Napoleon Invade Russia with around 685,000 men. As he advanced along the main road, the retreating Russian army used a scorched earth policy and destroyed anything along the route that would have been useful to the French. When he reached Moscow he had about 100,000. The fire that burned the city was likely started by the Russians as they abandoned it. They had destroyed all fire fighting equipment in the city before they left. Napoleon had no reason to destroy the city; He had hoped for a peace treaty upon occupying it.

They wouldn't have had to defend with a scorched-earth policy if Napoleon hadn't invaded, would they? Or they could have surrendered and start serving some relative of Napoleon as ruler while he sacked the place, because that was the kind of peace treaty Napoleon went for. I don't blame them for resisting in the best possible, and as it turned out effective, way. I do blame Napoleon for all his wars.

The french also absolutely wrecked the Iberian Peninsula, razing entire cities for resisting. Would you say that their victims were to blame for having resisted the invaders?
As a warmonger, Napoleon was worse that a Hitler of the 19th century: he had opportunities for peace, had peace treaties done, and constantly went about breaking the treaties and starting new wars, because he was utterly unable to scale down his imperial ambitions. And as a destructive force in Europe he came near. The french "republic" like to talk the nice talk (human rights, yeah...) but their actions were the opposite even before Napoleon.

 

[FriendlyFire]

They wouldn't have had to defend with a scorched-earth policy if Napoleon hadn't invaded, would they? Or they could have surrendered and start serving some relative of Napoleon as ruler while he sacked the place, because that was the kind of peace treaty Napoleon went for. I don't blame them for resisting in the best possible, and as it turned out effective, way. I do blame Napoleon for all his wars.

The french also absolutely wrecked the Iberian Peninsula, razing entire cities for resisting. Would you say that their victims were to blame for having resisted the invaders?
As a warmonger, Napoleon was worse that a Hitler of the 19th century: he had opportunities for peace, had peace treaties done, and constantly went about breaking the treaties and starting new wars, because he was utterly unable to scale down his imperial ambitions. And as a destructive force in Europe he came near. The french "republic" like to talk the nice talk (human rights, yeah...) but their actions were the opposite even before Napoleon.

First of all there were certain codes of warfares that the great powers generally adhered too at that time, the term gurellia warfare actual comes from the Spanish campaign a brutal and botched war where rules were pretty much were abandoned by both sides pretty quickly. A similar thing occurred during the Russian campaign by the end of it, Russians would be slaughtering French POWs

That said the Russian stratergy was pretty much the right one, Napolean made mistake after mistake, from not halting once he took smolenks (sp?) to over staying in Moscow, to retreating over the same route, to underestimating the Russians army
And lets not forget that Russia also started the war because it wanted to retain its Polish conquests.

Because its not tyranny when Ivan annexes other countries clay.

 

[stfoskey12]

Why does the US want Greenland, maybe to protect/control northern sea lanes during the global warming.

So we can get ahead of Canada (and indisputably ahead of China) in the land area rankings. /s

 

[red_elk]

They wouldn't have had to defend with a scorched-earth policy if Napoleon hadn't invaded, would they?

The claim that it was Russians who were burning their cities, definitely sounds like Napoleon had nothing to do with it. I doubt it even requires refutation.

...to retreating over the same route

Like he had a choice.

 

[Marla_Singer]

As a warmonger, Napoleon was worse that a Hitler of the 19th century: he had opportunities for peace, had peace treaties done, and constantly went about breaking the treaties and starting new wars, because he was utterly unable to scale down his imperial ambitions.

Alright I won't insist but what you say here is just factually wrong. It's not France which started the European wars, but the European Aristocracy which formed 7 coalitions to get rid of a model of society that was threatening their social rule.

It was a matter of survival for so many people, and there was no opportunity for peace precisely for that reason. If the Russian Aristocracy was ready to burn down their own capital city just to deprive Napoleon's army from any chance of a supply, that just proves how determined they were to never sign peace. The wars lasted 20 years for a reason, turning so ugly and being retriggered 7 times despite multiple capitulations and peace agreements which never lasted very long.

As for saying "Napoleon was worse than Hitler", you really need to put aside the ideological aspect of the conflict to say something that strong. As a matter of fact, even if the French revolution has indeed been quashed military speaking in 1815, its ideas actually prevailed in the following decades.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Hi I want to buy the statue of liberty.

I will give you about $3.50

Why so much? It's just a great big knickknack in need of constant maintenance, at this point. It doesn't have the same meaning as it once did, given how much antipathy the current regime there has to any would-be immigrant who is the wrong color/religion/socioeconomic status.

I've paid lots for it in Civ games, but only because I want the points for Wonders.

Good to hear, because I want to buy Canada from Queen Elizabeth II.

The Washington Post article speculated offering $20 TRILLION - 10 for the Queen, and 10 to be divvied up among every Canadian citizen. Someone on the CBC.ca comment board said that amount should really be doubled, since the amount we'd get wouldn't even buy a house in a lot of cities.

The people living there should be asked first.

Why? I highly doubt this has happened the majority of the time land has been bought and sold throughout the course of human history.

So because people were sold to other countries along with the land before, we should continue allowing it now?

It was actually a smart move, as they had no way to defend their colonies and hold on to them. They saw that they would lose them.. so might as well get some $$ for them before that happens

That's a sound strategy in Civ when you're in a tight spot.

 

[red_elk]

If the Russian Aristocracy was ready to burn down their own capital city just to deprive Napoleon's army from any chance of a supply

I doubt that burning down St. Petersburg by Russian Aristocracy would deprive Napoleon's army of anything. May be delay his advance a bit due to astonishment.
As for Moscow, the fire started after French army entered the city and begun pillaging it. Whether it was a Russian plot or "carelessness" of French soldiers is not 100% established.

that just proves how determined they were to never sign peace.

He was hated by common folks too. The fact that he got his ass kicked was in no small part result of partisan war and peasants sabotage.

 

[Lexicus]

As a warmonger, Napoleon was worse that a Hitler of the 19th century

I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous. What positive stuff did Hitler leave behind? Napoleon rationalized and modernized the administration of large swathes of Europe, sweeping away the old feudal restrictions and privileges. His legal code informed the systems of law still used across much of the world today. His campaigns and battles are still studied in military academies around the world.

It was a matter of survival for so many people, and there was no opportunity for peace precisely for that reason. If the Russian Aristocracy was ready to burn down their own capital city just to deprive Napoleon's army from any chance of a supply, that just proves how determined they were to never sign peace.

And this is a distortion of history as well. The truth is that Alexander would have been happy enough living at peace with Napoleon after Eylau but he invaded Russia because of his obsession with sealing off Europe from British trade. It was his invasion that created the Russian determination not to make peace with him under any circumstances.

As for saying "Napoleon was worse than Hitler", you really need to put aside the ideological aspect of the conflict to say something that strong. As a matter of fact, even if the French revolution has indeed been quashed military speaking in 1815, its ideas actually prevailed in the following decades.

Honestly I think it is tantamount to Holocaust denial to claim that Napoleon is worse than Hitler.

 

[HiRezAudio]

I seriously don’t understand why Trump cancelled a meeting with the PM of Denmark just because they won’t sell Greenland.

Why the hell would they do that in the first place ?

And you believe this nonsense?
Sheesh, sheesh and sheesh again.

 

[Truthy]

I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous. What positive stuff did Hitler leave behind? ...Honestly I think it is tantamount to Holocaust denial to claim that Napoleon is worse than Hitler.

I think he meant worse specifically with respect to military aggression; i.e., Napoleon was more of a warmonger than Hitler, but Hitler was worse overall.

 

[warpus]

Trump answers to his crazy voter base who doesn't even know where Greenland is, or what it is. They read his tweets and that's how America keeps on chugging along

 

[Socrates99]

Trump answers to his crazy voter base who doesn't even know where Greenland is, or what it is. They read his tweets and that's how America keeps on chugging along

A result of lead in the water and defunding education.

 

[Truthy]

I think the Mercator projection is to blame for this whole thing

 

[Socrates99]

I think the Mercator projection is to blame for this whole thing

Hes exactly the kind of guy who'd look at a map and go "Wow look at how much land I'd be adding! It's Yuge!"

 

[Lexicus]

I think he meant worse specifically with respect to military aggression; i.e., Napoleon was more of a warmonger than Hitler, but Hitler was worse overall.

Maybe so. But I stand by what I said; I will note that it doesn't necessarily apply to what inno said.

 

[Truthy]

Hes exactly the kind of guy who'd look at a map and go "Wow look at how much land I'd be adding! It's Yuge!"

If you look, they're coming out with all these new maps. The Peters and a hella of a lot more. Making America SMALLER because some people, I don't know who, think it's politically correct. All these countries no one's ever heard of are HUGE... but America is small. They didn't have these maps when I was in school. But just like that they're making America smaller. Very fishy. We're looking into it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Honestly I think it is tantamount to Holocaust denial to claim that Napoleon is worse than Hitler.

relativising the holocaust to own the libs.

 

[Lexicus]

Napoleon and Hitler were both megalomaniacs whose early successes made them believe they could do anything.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I don't know why the Donald suggested buying Greenland.

My theories are:

(a) he'd heard that global warming was melting the ice, and though he could install some golfing greens in the becoming greenland;
(b) he'd heard that China was buying up rare earth mines in Africa, and didn't want them to beat the USA to the rare earths in Greenland;
(c) it was a Trumpian compliment.

As for Napoleon being worse than Hitler. Well unlike Napoleon, Hitler never got around to
invading Portuagl, so that is a legitimate, albeit subjective perspective, from the Portuguese.

 

[innonimatu]

As for saying "Napoleon was worse than Hitler", you really need to put aside the ideological aspect of the conflict to say something that strong. As a matter of fact, even if the French revolution has indeed been quashed military speaking in 1815, its ideas actually prevailed in the following decades.

French national assembly: let's recognize the right of slaves in (present-day) Haiti to freedom (they kicked out asses anyway). Napoleon: let's re-enslave them (try and fail, but keep them miserable ever after). I rest my case against Napoleon being a liberator or anything, though I could go on and on.

relativising the holocaust to own the libs.

the holocaust was not warmongering, it was another level. But don't bother to read what I wrote before sending a barb.