Napoeon and his fellow criminals wanted to deliberately annihilate the people of Haiti and Guadelope with poison gas and other methods after uprisings, and he planned to replace them with more docile expendable slave labour from africa.
Like his fellow ruthless meglomanic dictator Hitler, Napoleon callously wasted the lives of his men and called his young conscripted soldiers his "annual income".
HItler and his ass buddies on the other hand wanted to deliberately annihilate the Slavic people of Eastern Europe and Russia. There were also plans to use the Russians as expendable slave labor if they were to win.
People never considered an invasion to be mass murder or killings, because people and soldiers will always be killed in war, and it's nothing new. That's how it's always been since the beginning of history.
You have a very complicated and weird way of perceiving things.
In 1812, Napoleon intended to destroy the Russian army in a pitched battle and possibly force the Tzar to sue for peace. He had no plans to mass murder people, and his soldiers were civilized most of the time.
@expertstrategy Perhaps if I answer in French I might get through to you "Qui s'excuse, s'accuse". You say "apoleon intended to destroy the Russian army in a pitched battle and possibly force the Tzar to sue for peace" and that is not the act of a megalomaniac butcher?
some people think that wellingtons ass wasn't saved by blucher at waterloo
if the prussians went back to berlin after lighy than grouchy would have come and wellington would have to retreat.napolean alone would have defeated wellington the british were crumbling though napoleans attacks failed they caused massive british casualties
@10Cnote I meant pretender in the sense that he crowned himself emperor. Vain pipsqueak. Was Hitler a great military leader? Or Pol Pot? Bonaparte was defeated by a 72 year old man (Blücher). As a child I used to hear the mantra "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game". Which of course is a load of tripe. ITS WHETHER YOU WIN. Blücher won. Bonaparte lost. He spent the rest of his pitiful life on St Helena, as a broken pathetic loser. I thank Blücher that I don't speak French!
@verziehen well don't give ol blucher all the credit. he was the straw that broke the cammel's back. on his own he couldn't beat ol nappy. also remember that many of napoleon's reforms greatly aided france and some are still in use today befor you go calling him a warmongering little pipsqeak(which he wasn't fully).
@bh5496 You need to read The Hussar General The Life Of Blücher by Roger Parkinson. He was no straw. He and Gneisenau were determined to beat the Corsican dwarf and they succeeded. Napoleon was responsible for some 4.1 million deaths. Praising his so-called reforms, would be like praising Hitler for autobahns. Napoleon was a megalomaniac and a psychopath.
@verziehen, both the allies and Napoleon had a share in the deaths of millions of people. Civilian casualties are always a result of a war whether or not someone is fighting defensively or not. Most of those casualties were a result of the warmognering attitude of the Allies.
Comparing Napoleon with Hitler is ridiculous. Napoleon's true legacy was the French civil code which was the basis of many civil codes in the world. Hitler only left destruction in his path.
@expertstrategy I put Churchill into the same "butcher" and/or "psycho" class along with John F Kennedy and a host of others. Butchers are butchers. Megalomanic psychos are megalomaniac psychos. Some deny the numbers quoted in the holocaust of the Jews has been exaggerated. Any number was too many! Napoleon was a butcher. But I am grateful to Blücher that I don't speak French.
@verziehen, even though the German people didn't speak French, their kings have spoken it for a while since it was the lingua franca of the elite of Europe. It was also the language of diplomacy for many centuries.
I don't think it really matters whether or not a person was a megalomanica or not. Napoleon was far from being a saint, but he never ordered any mass executions while he was the ruler of France. I don't see how Napoelon was a psycho. He's far from being a crazy person.
@expertstrategy Any man who thinks he ought be and furthermore crowns himself Emperor is, as they say, a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock. Of course he ordered mass killings, by waging war on whomever he chose. Whether or not anyone else speaks French is their sorry lot. I am just grateful to Blücher, that by being the catalyst to defeating little psycho, it is not my native tongue!
@verziehen, Napoleon didn't declare war in 1803,1805,1809,1813, and 1815. He did invade Spain and Russia.
Why don't you give me a few examples of him personally ordering mass killings. I seriously doubt you can even find any. War will always involve civilian and military casualties. I've read plenty of books about Napoleon to know that he didn't order any mass executions of people during his reign.
@expertstrategy So let me get your way of thinking right. When he INVADED Russia, he expected that there would be no killing involved. Dare I say - mass killings? Killings of course are not executions, well not if you are Napoleon, or one of his deluded ardent followers. To the rest of humanity which abhors war waged by a megalamoniac of course, such behaviour is egotistical psychotic butchery, mass murder, especially to civilians who get involuntarily caught up in the barbarity.
@verziehen "Killings of course are not executions, well not if you are Napoleon, or one of his deluded ardent followers"
I didn't say that Napoleon expected that there would be no casualties when he invaded Russia. I guess you could call battles mass killings, and Borodino was the bloodiest single day battle in the whole war.
A mass deliberate execution is when a group of people or POWs are being herded to an isolated location and they are all killed on the spot by their captors.
@verziehen, Throughout history, in war, it is universally viewed as acceptable to kill enemy soldiers on the battlefield, because if it wern't, then every soldier in history would have been condemned..
Napoleon didn't order any mass executions of people throughout his reign, he wasn't anything like Hitler or Ivan, who killed people on a daily basis.
@bh5496 wellington alone couldn't defeat napolean either their plan was for wellington to hold the french off untill the prussians arrive therefore the allies would have superior numbers and only the stupidest general could lose it for the allies once the prussians came
This has been flagged as spam show
Napoeon and his fellow criminals wanted to deliberately annihilate the people of Haiti and Guadelope with poison gas and other methods after uprisings, and he planned to replace them with more docile expendable slave labour from africa.
Like his fellow ruthless meglomanic dictator Hitler, Napoleon callously wasted the lives of his men and called his young conscripted soldiers his "annual income".
EddieExile 1 week ago
Comment removed
EddieExile 1 week ago
Best Napoleonic movies director : Sergei Bondartschuk :D Gotta luv War & Peace from 1967 :D
agovics1 1 week ago
Gott in himmel,Blucher you old devil.
bazzatheblue 1 month ago
Vive la Emperor!
Viz12345 1 month ago
HItler and his ass buddies on the other hand wanted to deliberately annihilate the Slavic people of Eastern Europe and Russia. There were also plans to use the Russians as expendable slave labor if they were to win.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
People never considered an invasion to be mass murder or killings, because people and soldiers will always be killed in war, and it's nothing new. That's how it's always been since the beginning of history.
You have a very complicated and weird way of perceiving things.
In 1812, Napoleon intended to destroy the Russian army in a pitched battle and possibly force the Tzar to sue for peace. He had no plans to mass murder people, and his soldiers were civilized most of the time.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@expertstrategy Perhaps if I answer in French I might get through to you "Qui s'excuse, s'accuse". You say "apoleon intended to destroy the Russian army in a pitched battle and possibly force the Tzar to sue for peace" and that is not the act of a megalomaniac butcher?
verziehen 1 month ago
some people think that wellingtons ass wasn't saved by blucher at waterloo
if the prussians went back to berlin after lighy than grouchy would have come and wellington would have to retreat.napolean alone would have defeated wellington the british were crumbling though napoleans attacks failed they caused massive british casualties
Prussia75 2 months ago
Great Film
KomanBrendo 2 months ago
4:00 it is epic... Those brits know how to march forward for sure!!!
Rostokouban 3 months ago
Britain and Germans (Prussians) were big time allies for a long time back in the day. Shame what happend. Worked well together.
pugilistofpower 4 months ago 5
FUCKING NAPOLEON !
WHY!!!!! Why didnt you call off the battle!
projectbrumaire 4 months ago
'Marshall Forward' ^^
AAAAAAAARRGHH 4 months ago
"I'll shoot any man with pitty in him!" doesn't it just make the hairs on your neck stand to attention.
10Cnote 4 months ago
Now there was a soldier! At 72 Generalfeldmarschall Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher beat that upstart pygmy pretender Bonapart!
verziehen 5 months ago
@verziehen Bonaparte was no pretender, he was one of the greatest military tactitions of the history of war and the world.
10Cnote 4 months ago
@10Cnote I meant pretender in the sense that he crowned himself emperor. Vain pipsqueak. Was Hitler a great military leader? Or Pol Pot? Bonaparte was defeated by a 72 year old man (Blücher). As a child I used to hear the mantra "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game". Which of course is a load of tripe. ITS WHETHER YOU WIN. Blücher won. Bonaparte lost. He spent the rest of his pitiful life on St Helena, as a broken pathetic loser. I thank Blücher that I don't speak French!
verziehen 4 months ago
@verziehen well don't give ol blucher all the credit. he was the straw that broke the cammel's back. on his own he couldn't beat ol nappy. also remember that many of napoleon's reforms greatly aided france and some are still in use today befor you go calling him a warmongering little pipsqeak(which he wasn't fully).
bh5496 2 months ago
@bh5496 You need to read The Hussar General The Life Of Blücher by Roger Parkinson. He was no straw. He and Gneisenau were determined to beat the Corsican dwarf and they succeeded. Napoleon was responsible for some 4.1 million deaths. Praising his so-called reforms, would be like praising Hitler for autobahns. Napoleon was a megalomaniac and a psychopath.
verziehen 2 months ago
@verziehen, both the allies and Napoleon had a share in the deaths of millions of people. Civilian casualties are always a result of a war whether or not someone is fighting defensively or not. Most of those casualties were a result of the warmognering attitude of the Allies.
Comparing Napoleon with Hitler is ridiculous. Napoleon's true legacy was the French civil code which was the basis of many civil codes in the world. Hitler only left destruction in his path.
expertstrategy 2 months ago
@expertstrategy I put Churchill into the same "butcher" and/or "psycho" class along with John F Kennedy and a host of others. Butchers are butchers. Megalomanic psychos are megalomaniac psychos. Some deny the numbers quoted in the holocaust of the Jews has been exaggerated. Any number was too many! Napoleon was a butcher. But I am grateful to Blücher that I don't speak French.
verziehen 2 months ago
@verziehen, even though the German people didn't speak French, their kings have spoken it for a while since it was the lingua franca of the elite of Europe. It was also the language of diplomacy for many centuries.
I don't think it really matters whether or not a person was a megalomanica or not. Napoleon was far from being a saint, but he never ordered any mass executions while he was the ruler of France. I don't see how Napoelon was a psycho. He's far from being a crazy person.
expertstrategy 2 months ago
@expertstrategy Any man who thinks he ought be and furthermore crowns himself Emperor is, as they say, a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock. Of course he ordered mass killings, by waging war on whomever he chose. Whether or not anyone else speaks French is their sorry lot. I am just grateful to Blücher, that by being the catalyst to defeating little psycho, it is not my native tongue!
verziehen 2 months ago
@verziehen, Napoleon didn't declare war in 1803,1805,1809,1813, and 1815. He did invade Spain and Russia.
Why don't you give me a few examples of him personally ordering mass killings. I seriously doubt you can even find any. War will always involve civilian and military casualties. I've read plenty of books about Napoleon to know that he didn't order any mass executions of people during his reign.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@expertstrategy So let me get your way of thinking right. When he INVADED Russia, he expected that there would be no killing involved. Dare I say - mass killings? Killings of course are not executions, well not if you are Napoleon, or one of his deluded ardent followers. To the rest of humanity which abhors war waged by a megalamoniac of course, such behaviour is egotistical psychotic butchery, mass murder, especially to civilians who get involuntarily caught up in the barbarity.
verziehen 1 month ago
@verziehen "Killings of course are not executions, well not if you are Napoleon, or one of his deluded ardent followers"
I didn't say that Napoleon expected that there would be no casualties when he invaded Russia. I guess you could call battles mass killings, and Borodino was the bloodiest single day battle in the whole war.
A mass deliberate execution is when a group of people or POWs are being herded to an isolated location and they are all killed on the spot by their captors.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@verziehen, Throughout history, in war, it is universally viewed as acceptable to kill enemy soldiers on the battlefield, because if it wern't, then every soldier in history would have been condemned..
Napoleon didn't order any mass executions of people throughout his reign, he wasn't anything like Hitler or Ivan, who killed people on a daily basis.
expertstrategy 1 month ago
@bh5496 wellington alone couldn't defeat napolean either their plan was for wellington to hold the french off untill the prussians arrive therefore the allies would have superior numbers and only the stupidest general could lose it for the allies once the prussians came
Prussia75 2 months ago
Hi Duke :0)
ich sag nur Beide Daumen hoch!!!!
Hoffe es geht dir gut.
Ich schreib dir demnächst mal .
Bis dahin alles gute
Doris
Und danke für dein tollen Kanal:0)
maeuschen64 8 months ago 2