Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ 13 Jun 2021 11:30)
Just gonna nitpick here on a historical point. Napoleon basically wrecked all of Europe like five times in a row and only lost because Alexander intentionally stalled peace negotiations to halt Napoleon's advance into Russia since Napoleon had already taken their capital. If Napoleon had kept marching he could have easily just taken all of Russia before winter.
Napoleon was probably the world's most successful general, like, ever.
This is a very rosy portrayal of what happened and what would have happened, and the oddest conclusion I've ever seen anyone come to.
Nobody is questioning the success of the Napoleonic wars up until 1812. It was one of the most epic expansions of an Empire ever seen. The problem came in direct regards to his invasion of Russia. First, Russia was not militarily supporting the British. They were merely trading with them, in complete disregard of the embargo Napoleon imposed, the exact same way the US was trading with the French in direct disregard for the embargo the British had imposed. Trade nations trade. It's kind of our thing. Russia's tactics regarding foreign invasion are time honored and have been repeated multiple times throughout history. The French did not "take" Moscow. The Russians abandoned it and took any and all supplies. They then steadily withdrew in the face of the French forces, using scorched earth tactics to leave no supplies or food, and in many cases, destroying roads and other thoroughfares to make every mile as painful on the French as possible. By the time Napoleon reached Moscow, his army of 400K-450K troops was already cut down to an army of 100k. The Russian army of ~130K was bolstered by local militias, and if anything, was larger than it started. The Russians were well-supplied and well-fed. By the time Napolean had reached Moscow, his supply lines were already fractured, and they never did do a good job in the first place due to a lack of quality roads. Had Napolean not delayed the 5 weeks, there would have been no difference whatsoever in the outcome. He did not have the supply lines, he no longer had the numbers, and the Russians would simply have led him on a military chase, burning their own land behind them to prevent the French and their allies from gaining anything from their "conquest". Meanwhile, the Russian militas and Peasantry were fighting using guerilla tactics, constantly chipping away at the remaining French forces.
There were no "decisive" battles in the Russian Campaign. Direct combat losses were similar. But in the end, the French lost their shirts, losing in the area of half a million soldiers, a couple hundred thousand horses, a thousand big artillary units, and gaining absolutely nothing in return. Russian losses are tallied around 210,000 military and milita. Both sides had approximately equal civilian casualties.
Nowhere in the history of the Russian Campaign, the war Napoleon started, and Russia WON was there any ability to conquer all of Russia. Nowhere was there even the supplies to conquer Russia. And the very invasion of Russia is what cost Napoleon and his allies the greatest army seen to that point. It was a complete and total tactical blunder, and led directly to the defeat and exile of Napoleon, and ultimately, the fall of the French Empire.
When determining the success of Generals, it's important to look at end results. Julius Caesar, for instance, greatly expanded the Roman Empire, brought new wealth and peoples into the fold, and did not push so far beyond supply lines that the Roman Legions would be able to be crushed by the environment. He, or Augustus, are arguably the most successful generals, like, ever. They did not overreach, and everything they took yielded something for the betterment of Rome. Absolutely nothing taken, not a single step gained in Russia yielded ANYTHING for the French Empire. No attempts were made at holding or even maintaining that which was taken, and in the end, the very goal of getting Russia to respect the embargo against the Brits was also a failure, and indeed, the Russians aided the British in future conflicts.
Had Napoleon ignored Russia and just let them do their thing, France might well still be the foremost world superpower today. Indeed, it's quite possible the some of the wars of the last century may not have occurred, due to the iron hold they may well have maintained over a great portion of Europe. Instead, due to the MORONIC invasion of Russia over a trade dispute, Napoleon was deposed and exiled, and when he tried for a great comeback, hundreds of thousands more French lives were lost in defeat, and Napoleon got to live out his last 6 years in exile on a British-ruled Island.
To say that Napolean was the "most successful general, like, ever" is to completely ignore the end results of his campaigns. Had he not attacked Russia, had he kept the focus he'd had until 1812, and had he consolidated, then no historian on the planet would disagree with you. However, that is not what happened. Due to the Russia Campaign and his following defeats in the Wars of the 6th and 7th Coalitions, France lost all it's allies, most of it's colonies, and Napoleon lost the right to be claimed as the "greatest" anything by history.
Quote (Saucisson6000 @ 13 Jun 2021 11:37)
you type
"Benjamin Franklin's first audience with King Louis XVI, at Versailles"
and then you can enjoy your french white flags, which are not related to Black XistenZ mockery.
But i think we are just going away of my initial point: Michael Flynn's Russia connections.
King Louis XVI's contributions to the American revolution were minimal at best, and came at a high price. The United States started life heavily in debt to the French, and lost hundreds of thousands of lives in the fight against the British. The French lost a couple thousand, and took part in very few battles. In all honesty, pirates given letters of writ did more damage to the British in the American Revolution than the French did.
Moreover, the "We Surrender" flag of France was not used at the time of the American Revolution. It was used in 1815 after Napolean lost France it's spot on on stage as the World's Superpower.
And what connections does Flynn have to Russia, exactly? This should be a good read, because nobody ever claimed he had "Russian Connections". If having discussions with Russian Diplomats means he has "Russian Ties" then literally every President and their staff, as well as most Congresspeople have "Russian Connections".
What a load of garbage. If you want to point the finger at Flynn for "lying to the FBI" in what were supposedly just casual chats, not even true interviews, feel free. If you want to go off about his words regarding a coup, I'll back you. But "Russia Connections"? Get real.
This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Jun 13 2021 01:25pm