BOOK REVIEW: NAPOLEON by GEORGES LEFEBVRE

NAPOLEON

Although Lefebvre was a Marxist historian writing in 1935-1936, his book is nevertheless the 'Great Man' type of work that the Marxist school were very much against. He wrote while Hitler was in power in Germany and there are conscious and subconscious allusions to the dictator throughout this book. He uses the Nietzschean phrase 'the will to power' several times in reference to Napoleon as if it was simply Napoleon's unbridled ego that led to the many wars of the early C19th. He lays the blame for war squarely at Napoleon's feet.

Few people realize that after Nietzsche died in 1900, his sister Elisabeth gathered together his unfinished notebooks and published them as The Will to Power: Attempt at a Revaluation of all Values. She was feted by the Nazis and told Hitler that her brother would have welcomed him and Nazis philosophy. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Yet the philosopher's views as espoused by his sister, were very much in favour with Hitler and his cronies. This support with such a highly regarded academic background appealed to the dictator's vanity. In return for this endorsement, Elisabeth became a virtual sainted grandmother of the Third Reich. However, she reinterpreted many of Nietzche's ideas and warped his views in order to please her powerful new patron.

Elisabeth inferred that her brother Friedrich would have been a supporter of Hitler's anti-semitism. In fact, Nietzsche ended his friendship with Wagner because of the latter's anti-semitism and spoke of the anti-semite as being the lowliest type of person - the exact opposite of what Elisabeth was saying to Hitler. The Nazi dictator's own philosophy of Social Darwinianism - that the strongest should survive and that the devil could take the hindmost  - could be bolstered by the now warped ideas behind the theory of the will to power, hence Hitler made use of it. Thus Nietszche became the so-called 'Philospher of the Third Reich' and has often been unfairly denigrated subsequently because of this.

Hitler persecuted and murdered the Jews - Napoleon gave them equal rights, and freed them from unfair restrictions throughout the territories under his control. And he was the first person to suggest that they should be given a homeland of their own in the Holy Land.

Napoleon was unlike Hitler, Stalin and Mao in other respects. Those three dictators eliminated all opposition. Despite repeated treachery from Talleyrand, Fouche, Bernadotte and many others, Napoleon did not have them executed. Indeed, he even invited Cadoudal - who have been plotting to murder him - to become an officer in his Army. Also, despite innumerable assassination attempts upon his life by D'Artois, the 'legitmate' heir to the vanished Bourbon throne, paid for by English gold, Napoleon did not respond in kind by trying to murder the British monarch.

Lefebvre goes out of his way to blame Napoleon for 'all the wars' and states that the Coalitions against him were only reacting to his plans of conquest - this despite the fact that Napoleon was usually attacked first by the other powers before he crushed them in battle. Neither does Lefebvre mention that after 1805, Napoleon could easily have deposed Francis of Austria; after 1806 he could have deposed Frederick William of Prussia - but he did neither; and after 1807 he could have really put the Tsar in his place - yet Alexander was treated incredibly leniently at Tilsit.

Lefebvre, despite his main Orwellian thesis i.e. 'Napoleon bad - Allies good', then goes on to describe Tsar Alexander's ambitions and empire-building plans and his unsated desire for more and more territory to add to his beloved Russian homeland. ( Long before Alexander, the Russians sent the Second Kamchatka expedition to Alaska from 1733-1743 and soon had vessels trapping sea otters off the Alaskan coast and subsequently down the Pacific Northwest as far south as California.) In fact, Lebevre goes into great detail about the Tsar's plan to attack France in 1811 - the very best and most detailed explanation of Alexander's treachery - when he was supposed to be an ally of Napoleon - I have ever read. This casts Napoleon's invasion of 1812 in a completely new light. In the end, both powers were determined upon war and it was simply a question of who could get their strike in first.

Lefebvre states that Napoleon wanted a quick battle in 1812 and then a new settlement with Alexander to ensure the success of his Continental System. Lefebvre's grasp of the economic, social and cultural aspects of this period in European history is superb - be it about Prussia, Russia, Austria, 'Germany' or even the minor states. His use of detailed records of imports, exports and trade statistics add to the fullest explanation of each powers diplomatic and trading status I have ever come across. His conclusion that England greedily viewed the seas as totally its own domain should come as a surprise to no one. He could have made more of the fact that with its command of the seas, no other power was able to grab as much land and as many colonies as the British, then and subsequently, even outdoing Russia in the end.

Lefebvre's Napoleon is an erudite and scholarly work that still reads like a novel - it is exciting, thought-provoking and stimulating. Certainly five stars.

Copyright 2012  John Tarttelin FINS 

A SOULADREAM PRODUCTION

VIVE L'EMPEREUR No.2

I am delighted to announce that the second issue of VIVE L'EMPEREUR will soon be available in France. Edited by my friend and colleague Pascal Cazottes it covers many aspects of Napoleon's 1812 Campaign in Russia and the fate of the Grand Army. There are also articles about the young Napoleon and Dominique Jean Larrey, surgeon to the Imperial Guard.

Blog Copyright John Tarttelin FINS 2012

A SOULADREAM PRODUCTION

NAPOLEON AT THE BEREZINA RIVER 1812

MY FRIEND PASCAL CAZOTTES

Pascal has a sense of humour and I was very pleased that he liked by little Gimped tribute to one of today's most prolific and distinguished writers in the field of Napoleonic studies. His articles on the SNI/INS website are superb and detailed and a real treasure for those blessed with the ability to read the French language. Pascal has recently been involved in the mammoth task of editing a new French magazine VIVE L'EMPEREUR. As a mere author I blanch at the colossal effort, intellectual ability and stamina required for such a task.

As well as being a brilliant writer in his own language, Pascal translated my article about Napoleon and the Tamboran eruption into French and included it in the very first edition of the magazine. He has also sent me many very rare pictures and images from C19th French magazines, and here are some of them:

NAPOLEON SHOWS THEM HOW

Napoleon never forgot that he was a gunner and he was forever showing his men how to sight the pieces, often under a veritable hail of shot and shell. On many occasions his soldiers begged him to retire but the Emperor retorted that the bullet that would kill him had yet to be cast. His physical bravery was a constant example to his soldiers, especially the young Marie Louises whom he relied upon in 1814. When a spluttering shell landed amongst some of them, Napoleon rode his horse over the shell. When it exploded, it did for the unfortunate horse but the Emperor scrambled to his feet, dusted himself off and smiled a silent "Eh bien!"

Crossing the Niemen 1812

Here are more of the pictures that Pascal has sent me. Some are impossible to place but they give a vivid image of the times.

Coignet at Austerlitz

Plan of the Battle of Borodino

Ben Weider

Ben founded the International Napoleonic Society. He was a gentleman and a great scholar and the world is somewhat lost and more empty without him. Pascal and I cherish his memory and, in celebration of his great life we try to maintain his legacy - Ben wanted to make sure that Napoleon's memory would not be tarnished and besmirched by poor historians and lazy historiography. We salute you Ben.

Mon ami Pascal

C. JOHN TARTTELIN FINS 2012

THE REAL NAPOLEON - The Untold Story

THE REAL NAPOLEON - The Untold Story

I am very pleased to announce that I have just signed a contract with The History Press who are going to publish my book later this year - the 200th anniversary of The Grand Army's invasion of Russia. It is hard to believe that two whole centuries have passed since those momentous days when the likes of Coignet and Bourgogne showed just what human beings could endure during the coldest Russian winter in a century.

Recently, in a branch of Waterstones I noticed that they were still selling Paul Johnson's character assassination of The Emperor. He blamed Napoleon personally for 'all the wars' which is complete nonsense. Alongside it on the shelves was Frank McLynn's book - readable - but he was far from a fan as well.

Yesterday, I watched a superb programme about Carthage and how it was destroyed and its very memory erased from the pages of history by Rome. For five hundred years Carthage had an empire when Rome itself was "Hicksville on the Tiber" according to the excellent presenter Richard Miles. Rome was jealous of the Carthaginian state and, more especially, of its immense wealth.

The Romans had no navy but in a bizarre turn of fate they discovered an intact Carthaginian vessel complete with builders' marks - so they were able to reconstruct the design 'to the letter'. Despite being massacred in early sea battles they later bested the Carthaginian fleet and took control of the whole of the western Mediterranean. But they also razed the city of Carthage to the ground and distributed salt so that nothing would ever grow there again. The population that survived the terrible fire as the city was taken were made slaves.

But the greedy, brutal and vengeful Romans went even further. They slandered and traduced everything the Carthaginians had ever stood for. They had burnt the magnificent library at Carthage so there was not even books or scrolls to 'speak up' for the lost empire of the Carthaginians. The Romans then said that the nobles of Carthage had burnt their own babies and children alive to appease their voracious gods and that they had perverted sexual practices. (Which is pretty rich coming from the Romans! Caesar himself tried to hide his homosexual dalliances as a young man). In short they utterly destroyed the memory of a civilization that had lasted for centuries.

I was instantly struck by the parallels with Napoleon and the British Empire. While he was alive, the English aristocracy and politicians spoke such a load of tosh about Napoleon to their own people and anyone else that would listen, that it is surprising they classed him as human at all - The Corsican Ogre was one of the lesser slurs used against him. It was said he slept with Hortense, his stepdaughter and other such scandals manufactured to belittle and degrade him. He was always drawn as a pygmy with a large nose by the caricaturists like Gilray and never given the status of 'the old nobility' and aristocracy in Europe. It was open season on Napoleon all year round. And, of course, Pitt and a cabal of degenerates in the Cabinet tried to murder him - a task they happily delegated to d'Artois and his creatures.

The first thing Louis XVIII wanted when he re-entered Paris in 1814 was Napoleon's personal fortune. The Emperor had been very careful with money, unlike his Bourbon predecessors, and the 320lb Louis wanted some to spend on his boyfriends.

The Carthaginians have had a bad press for two thousand years, but in the two centuries since Napoleon's death, hundreds of 'history' books have been written about him that are better fiction that anything written by Dickens or H.G.Wells. More books have been written about Napoleon than any other individual in human history. (I am very happy to add one more). Most of these books were anti-Napoleon diatribes that rehashed the same old twaddle and presented it as 'history'. In The Real Napoleon, I take many of them to task - it wasn't hard to show them as ignorant purveyors of lies and misrepresentation. In short, like in  Animal Farm they started with "England good - Napoleon bad" and went on from there. And, of course, what was the 'bad' pig called in that book - Napoleon!

Thanks to regular readers of this blog, it is getting an average of  50 hits a day, over 1,000 a month - so I know there are people out there who are prepared to make up their own minds and are not going to drink in the bilge served up by so many 'English historians'.  Napoleon was no saint, he made mistakes - sometimes bad ones, like the invasion of Russia itself - but had Austria and Russia lived up to the peace treaties they signed years earlier with him, there would have been no need for further conflict on the continent of Europe. But then again, there was all that English gold just ready for anyone who would attack France...

A belated Happy New Year to all readers of this blog - I shall keep you posted as to the publication date of The Real Napoleon.

C. John Tarttelin 2012

SOLDIERS OF NAPOLEON'S GUARD

Across ice and snow, through storm and shell, they followed him. They marched across the achingly dry deserts of Egypt and dragged their weary freezing bodies through the winter hell of Russia in 1812. They were soldiers on Napoleon, men of the Guard and with their hero Le Tondu to lead them, nothing was impossible.

Men from tiny villages in the depths of rural France followed in his shadow and strode as conquerors into Spain, Germany, Austria and Italy. Most of the time, France was attacked as in 1805 when English gold glimmered and glinted in the eyes of Austria's Francis and Russia's Alexander, leading them to make the colossal error of judgment of joining in a coalition against France. Napoleon's armies were quickly sent against them and at Ulm Mack was forced to surrender after the Guard fought "not with our arms but with our legs" as one soldier put it. Little Coignet marched 120 miles in just over two days! Napoleon had 'his long boots on' and the Grand Army stepped into the glare of history.

Over the past two centuries ridicule has been heaped upon 'little' Napoleon and the achievements of his men of iron forgotten. He was in fact five feet six inches tall according to Maitland of HMS Bellerophon in 1815, when Napoleon made the error of assuming his vengeful enemies might harbour some degree of magnanimity towards him after Waterloo and placed himself in their care. After all that huge blob of matter called Louis XVIII, Jabba the Gut, had been put up in princely style by the English Establishment. Even during the Peace of Amiens they didn't kick out the Bourbons. Furthermore they still allowed Monsieur, second in line to the old French throne - D'Artois (evil incarnate straight from Hollywood central casting) to continue to plan his assassination attempts against Napoleon while based on English soil.

All very pointless for, as Cadoudal said, they tried to get rid of a First Consul and only succeeded in putting an Emperor in his place. Consummate arrogant fools with 'royal blood' only succeeded in blowing up innocent French civilians in the Rue de Saint Nicaise. An 11 year old girl who held the horse attached to a cartload of explosive was blown to bits, another woman watching for Napoleon, who was on his way to the opera, was blinded, and a third woman had her breasts blown off when the 'infernal machine' exploded. And all paid for with English gold. That's 'British fair play' for you. But you won't read about this in the history books. Generations of British 'historians' have blackened Napoleon's name and damned his character, for the crime of being a genius, the even worse crime of not being a 'gentleman' and the heinous crime of not being British!

Napoleon would not respond in kind, even though would-be assassins begged him to let them cross The Channel and rid him of the Bourbon menace. After Ulm, Coignet said that Napoleon chatted to the Austrian officers very amicably and even let them retain their swords and knapsacks. What an ogre that man was! By Jove the bounder was kind to his defeated enemies - what other sneaky expedients might he not pull out of his locker! Similarly at Tilsit he refrained from grabbing huge chunks of Russian territory as he could so easily have done. Lithuania was his for the asking but instead all he required Tsar Alexander to do was close his ports to English vessels. Hardly a large war indemnity for having attacked France in the first place. As Walter Runciman said, how many times did Napoleon forgive the kings he so often defeated - having been attacked by them in the first place - only to be so harshly treated by them in 1814 and 1815.

Papa Francis made sure Napoleon never saw his son again after he abdicated in 1814 and went to Elba and he made sure his own daughter Marie Louise, Napoleon's wife, was distracted by a one-eyed lover  - and she then conveniently 'forgot' her marriage vows. Francis was a nonentity as were George III, 'Prinny' the Prince Regent, Tsar Alexander and Prussia's Frederick William. Pathetic characters who thought that just because they had 'royal blood' they were somehow special. And how envious they were of Napoleon, how greedily they viewed his belated conquests after they had attacked him often without even declaring war - as with Austria in 1809 when she attacked Bavaria, France's ally, thinking Napoleon was too preoccupied with the trouble in Spain to do much about it.

No wonder his soldiers followed him when they saw evidence at every turn of the lies, the scheming, the convoluted machinations of the Royal Courts of Europe. After the gruelling Battle of Eylau Coignet saw his Emperor get down on his haunches and bake potatoes for his starving ADCs. Le Tondu was in the midst of his Guard and felt as safe as he would have been in the heart of Paris - he himself being the beating heart of the Grand Army. With Napoleon at its head, the Grand Army was for so long, unbeatable.

Copyright. John Tarttelin 2011

A SOULADREAM PRODUCTION

THE GREAT FIRE OF MOSCOW 1812

NAPOLEON IN RUSSIA

The Moscow fire was caused by Russians incendiaries let out of prison on the orders of Rostopchin, Governor of the city. He later denied the part he played and Leo Tolstoy gave the impression everything was Napoleon's fault in War and Peace.

Most of the city was devastated and hundreds of buildings were burnt to the ground - their cellars subsequently becoming traps for careless members of the Grand Army who did nor watch where they were putting their feet. It is often stated by many historians that the fire meant Napoleon could never have wintered in the city due to a lack of resources. However, anyone who reads the memoirs of Bourgogne and Coignet will discover that there was ample food for the Army had it been carefully utilized. At the time, a lot of supplies were wasted or squandered for the famished soldiers, seeing the inhabitants burning their own city, took to looting and stealing everything within their grasp. Had the Army retired the following Spring the retreat would have taken place in much milder weather. Then again, it is doubtful if Napoleon could have remained that long away from Paris for political reasons - it was his absence that led to the Malet conspiracy.

Although, as the map shows, some two-thirds of the city was burnt out, there were still plenty of massive mansions and houses for the troops to shelter in. Bourgogne states that: "To last for the winter we had seven large cases of sweet champagne, a large quantity of port wine, five hundred bottles of Jamaica rum, and more than a hundred large packets of sugar. And all this was for six non-commissioned officers, two women, and a cook." He adds: "We had a large number of hams, having found a shop full of them; add to all this a quantity of salt fish, a few sacks of flour, two large barrels filled with suet, which we had taken for butter, and as much beer as we wanted. These constituted our provisions, in case we had to spend the winter in Moscow."

Napoleon stayed far too long in Moscow. He kept hoping the Tsar would sue for peace now that French troops were in the city, but Alexander was determined to have nothing to do with his emissaries - to him it was already total war, even if Napoleon did not realize this. The unusually mild Russian autumn also added to the Emperor's determination to wait it out. But no message came from the Tsar.

The early glut of provisions was bad for the Army's morale. Soldiers set up impromptu markets and bartered for food, furs and valuables.

For Bourgogne, Moscow was the most beautiful city he had ever seen, and this from a man who had been to Paris, Madrid, Berlin, Warsaw and Vienna. On September 14th he got his first sight of the place: "It was a beautiful summer's day; the sun was reflected on all the domes, spires and gilded palaces... the effect was to me - in fact, to everyone - magical." Hence the shock when the inhabitants then set torches to their own buildings.

The religious Muscovites were outraged when they saw horses being stabled in their churches. It made the invading Army seem to them to be little more than a horde of godless savages, even if some did attend mass.

While Marshal Davout did his best to serve Napoleon, Murat seemed hell bent on destroying his own cavalry - posing for any passing Cossack who was near enough to see the glittering uniforms of his own creation. 

AND THEN CAME THE FIRE

The longer he waited, the worse it became for Napoleon and the Grand Army...

C. John Tarttelin FINS 2011

A SOULADREAM PRODUCTION