Page 2 of 2
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:34 pm
I didn't read the original article, but are you suggesting that the pre-eminence of the military elite in the unified Germanies was as a direct result of Blucher's presumed inadequacies?
I.E. that they were going to make sure that those (if any) mistakes were not made again - at least by amateur soldier/politicians?
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:37 am
No if i understood the debate/articles correctly the original article claimed that it was only Bluchers actions after Waterloo that decided the downfall of Napoleon, and the replying article said that these actions nearly had the opposite effect as Napoleon was being politically removed and any overly aggressive action by the allies would have put him back in charge of the armyand state.
So once again Wellington showed his political skill by delaying assistance to Bluchers actions after Waterloo.
The article went on to say that the 20th century conflicts were a direct result of this, and the later siege of Paris, which encouraged Germany to develope as a martial rather than industrial power.
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:15 pm
From what i have read, it appears that the European Powers were quite in favour of Putting Bonaparte against a wall & shooting him out of hand!
Of course, the French Populace wouldn't have worn even the thought of that happening. I understood the reason why Bonaparte was not allowed to disembark from the Bellepheron was that as soon as his feet touched British soil he would be under the protection of British Common Law, & seeing as :-
A) He had committed no crime on any British territory, and
B) He had numerous supporters in Britain, both in the populace & the Establishment
There was no guarantee that he would actually be convicted of anything!