# 200th Anniversary of Waterloo



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Tomorrow is the bicentenary of the great British (and German and Dutch) victory at Waterloo, which finally stopped Napoleon in his tracks and shaped the history of Europe for the next century - including the troublesome creation of an artificial country, Belgium, later used as an expedient German gateway to France in two world wars.

Some regard Napoleon as a villain, but I think a case can be made for seeing him as something of a visionary. Personally I am no fan of the European Union, but I think it is quite possible to see in it the fruition, achieved by political rather than military means, of what Napoleon was striving for. He was a tyrant of course, but a more rational one than Hitler, who was a political midget by comparison. Now, as 200 years ago, no one is certain whether the vision of a Europe under one ruler is a good thing or a very bad thing.

I have an interest in Napoleon, as a distant ancestor's diary records entertaining him to a cold meal on 4 October 1820, when he was in captivity on St Helena. That occasion is understood to have been the last time Napoleon left Longwood House, his residence there.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I loath him. A deceitful, opportunistic, dishonest tyrant who directly caused the deaths of millions. The best way to describe him is as a sort of Mafia "Capo", using his family as tools to control his territory, only this is a mafiosi with serious political power on a world stage. Nevertheless, he operated as a mafiosi, not a statesman. We should have handed him over to the Prussians for execution.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ "Using his family to control his territory" was or is, of course, a tried and tested dynastic technique used for centuries, if not millennia. Is your comparison with the Mafia an apt one? I'm not sure - as I understand it, the Mafia is a rather conservative, parochial organisation, interested only in its own areas of business; I think you have to grant Napoleon a bigger vision than that. He swept away many archaic practices and political arrangements.

I wouldn't disagree that he was treated very leniently on the two occasions of being defeated.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I just read "Napoleon: A Life" (https://www.amazon.com/Napoleon-A-Life-Andrew-Roberts/dp/0670025321) which was a fascinating study of his life, from it's early beginnings, through his rise and ultimate decline and exile.

He was truly remarkable; ambitious but hardly a monster. The European kingdoms had been fighting amongst themselves for centuries so he can hardly be blamed as being a pioneer in this.

He did, afterall, restore order to France after the chaos of the revolution and the terror. Much of what came out of the Napoleonic era led to the world as we know it today, including the seeds of unspeakable horrors perpetrated by Adolf Hitler.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I just read "Napoleon: A Life" (https://www.amazon.com/Napoleon-A-Life-Andrew-Roberts/dp/0670025321) which was a fascinating study of his life, from it's early beginnings, through his rise and ultimate decline and exile.


Roberts is something of a Napoleon fanboy, although his book is quite exhaustive in its research it is very uncritical, in that he justifies or mitigates Buonaparte's misdeeds rather than accepting that he did "bad things". Try Corelli Barnett's "Bonaparte" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bonaparte-...r=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=Napoleon+Corelli+Barnett and Alan Forrest's "Napoleon" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Napoleon-A...d=1434569848&sr=1-1&keywords=Napoleon+Forrest



SG_67 said:


> He was truly remarkable; ambitious but hardly a monster.


It depends upon one's definition of a monster. A tyrannical ignoring of Rule of Law, imprisonment without trial and judicial murder, the execution of PoWs and civilians (which would be legally described as crimes against humanity and war crimes today), destruction of the means of subsistence leading to famine in many areas, the re-introduction of slavery, waging unprovoked wars of aggression. These look like the actions of a monster to me.



SG_67 said:


> The European kingdoms had been fighting amongst themselves for centuries so he can hardly be blamed as being a pioneer in this.


They'd been fighting what could be called limited dynastic wars, rather than the wars of conquest and destruction that Buonaparte waged. The casualty rates in the limited wars of the 18th century didn't come anywhere close to even one of Buonaparte's campaigns. They sought territorial advantage, the gaining of a fortress or a province, he sought domination of Europe, a big difference!



SG_67 said:


> He did, afterall, restore order to France after the chaos of the revolution and the terror. Much of what came out of the Napoleonic era led to the world as we know it today, including the seeds of unspeakable horrors perpetrated by Adolf Hitler.


Don't be taken in by his propaganda! The Revolution was over by the time of his coup in 1799 and order had already been restored by the Directory. This was a fairly popular representative democracy, and the "chaos" of the Revolution had been over for five years. 
Whilst the Revolution was going through it's radical phase in 1793-4 Buonaparte was a fervent Jacobin, a radical revolutionary, a personal friend of Robespierre's brother, and was very close, both politically and personally with those organising the Terror. When Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety fell at Thermidor, Buonaparte was imprisoned and nearly faced execution for his role in supporting the Terror. Having been rehabilitated he conquered Northern Italy and treated it almost as a private fiefdom, looting the cities of their art treasures, many of which (but not all, he kept a fair bit for himself) he sent to Paris as booty to pay for the war. 
At Brumaire he overthrew the extant parliamentary democracy of the Directory, and replaced it with a personal dictatorship, which he subsequently made hereditary when he made himself Emperor. 
His tyrannical rule of Germany pretty much created German nationalism and paved the way for aggressive nationalism all over Europe, which in turn led to the particularly vile form of nationalism developed by the Nazis. No Buonaparte would have meant no Hitler. Although we can't blame Buonaparte for Hitler's horrors, we came blame Buonaparte for creating a milieu in which Nazism could develop and thrive.


----------



## ChrisRS (Sep 22, 2014)

So I am curious to France's attitude towards this. Are they erecting statues or tearing them down?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> ^ "Using his family to control his territory" was or is, of course, a tried and tested dynastic technique used for centuries, if not millennia. Is your comparison with the Mafia an apt one? I'm not sure - as I understand it, the Mafia is a rather conservative, parochial organisation, interested only in its own areas of business; I think you have to grant Napoleon a bigger vision than that. He swept away many archaic practices and political arrangements.
> 
> I wouldn't disagree that he was treated very leniently on the two occasions of being defeated.


The vision was a question of scale. The capo looks to control his territory and, not trusting anybody else puts his brothers, nephews, sons in control of districts, subject to his control. Buonaparte did exactly the same, promoting Joseph from King of Naples, a kingdom that Buonaparte created, to King of Spain, for example. Making his brother in law King of Naples in turn. Although monarchs did use relatives as governors I can't think of many monarchs who destroyed existing polities to create a "district" for their brother to look after. Again, like a capo, he demanded tribute from his family. Westphalia, for example being taxed into economic collapse to support France. 
The archaic structures, like the Holy Roman Empire, were indeed swept away by Buonaparte, but only to replace them with his own structures designed to maximise his personal control.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

ChrisRS said:


> So I am curious to France's attitude towards this. Are they erecting statues or tearing them down?


I believe the French are quite proud of Napoleon. I understand they prefer to celebrate the Battle of Ligny, two days earlier, where they defeated the Prussians. I have even heard of some delusional revisionists who try to portray Waterloo as in some way a French victory, but that is a little counter-factual.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> ...
> His tyrannical rule of Germany pretty much created German nationalism and paved the way for aggressive nationalism all over Europe, which in turn led to the particularly vile form of nationalism developed by the Nazis. No Buonaparte would have meant no Hitler. Although we can't blame Buonaparte for Hitler's horrors, we came blame Buonaparte for creating a milieu in which Nazism could develop and thrive.


It may be the conventional British view, but I believe you are painting him in a rather negative light. He was instrumental in unifying Germany; I suspect most Germans prefer a united Germany and I'm not sure you can say this led directly to Hitler, any more than the creation of Belgium can be held responsible for the von Schlieffen plan.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> It depends upon one's definition of a monster. A tyrannical ignoring of Rule of Law, imprisonment without trial and judicial murder, the execution of PoWs and civilians (which would be legally described as crimes against humanity and war crimes today), destruction of the means of subsistence leading to famine in many areas, the re-introduction of slavery, waging unprovoked wars of aggression. These look like the actions of a monster to me.


What wartime leader wouldn't meet almost every item in that description?

And what are your thoughts on the Kellogg-Briand Pact (aka the Paris Pact)?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

He was neither an angel nor a monster. He was ambitious, proud, full of hubris but at the same time good to his soldiers, just with respect to minority rights, introduced laws and modes that are still in place today. 

There are many instances where he forbade looting and pillaging and insisted on paying for requisitions when on the march. There are many accounts of his mercy to downed enemies and yet he did order the killing of civilians during uprisings, killed Arab POWs (although this was not seen as unusual when dealing with non-Europeans) and ordered the death of the Duke of Enghien. 

Like many historical figures one has to judge him according to the whole of his life and actions. On balance, he was a man of his times with attitudes consistent with this. 

Keep in mind it was the Russians who burned Moscow and who adopted a scorched earth policy when Napoleon marched on Russia.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Napoleon's skill as an attacking military commander is on the short list of best ever. Hannibal, Alexander, him, Jackson, and Rommel are at the top of that list in my mind. He exploited his advantages so unbelievable well and like many before him, truly thought he could not be beaten. Of course he was incorrect.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> He was neither an angel nor a monster. He was ambitious, proud, full of hubris but at the same time good to his soldiers, just with respect to minority rights, introduced laws and modes that are still in place today.


Yet although he introduced the Civil Code to Europe he ignored it whenever it suited him. He allowed civil rights to minorities, such as Jews, but so had the Convention. The Convention had outlawed slavery and he re-established it. The National assembly had abolished the privilege of the nobility yet he re-created it. The Revolution had established legal equality and "The Rights of Man", he disregarded these principles. He created an image of caring for his soldiers, yet his ignoring of logistical realities led to a phenomenal, and unnecessary death rate amongst them. He cared for his soldiers yet disregarded their medical needs (apart from the guard) leaving thousands to die unattended in so-called "hospitals". When he retreated from his invasion of Palestine he simply abandoned his sick and wounded, as he did in Russia. Indeed, when he saw it to his political advantage he even abandoned a whole army in Egypt, similarly abandoning an army to destruction by disease in Saint Domingue.



SG_67 said:


> There are many instances where he forbade looting and pillaging and insisted on paying for requisitions when on the march. There are many accounts of his mercy to downed enemies and yet he did order the killing of civilians during uprisings, killed Arab POWs (although this was not seen as unusual when dealing with non-Europeans) and ordered the death of the Duke of Enghien.


And many instances where his men were ordered to subsist by looting, and very many instances where looting and rapine was certainly not discouraged, in most of his campaigns in Germany and Russia, and certainly in Spain and southern Italy. His appallingly bad logistical arrangements often meant that his men had to subsist by looting, resulting in famine for the inhabitants. The appalling way that the French army behaved in Spain and southern Italy led to the guerilla campaigns that caused them such problems. Indeed, the defeat at Baylen was caused at least in part by Dupont's army being so weighed down with loot that the army couldn't move fast enough.



SG_67 said:


> Like many historical figures one has to judge him according to the whole of his life and actions. On balance, he was a man of his times with attitudes consistent with this.


I would argue that he actually wasn't a man of his times, but was a man ahead of his times. No contemporaries behaved with such cavalier disregard of the contemporary conventions of behaviour in international relations or in warfare.



SG_67 said:


> Keep in mind it was the Russians who burned Moscow and who adopted a scorched earth policy when
> Napoleon marched on Russia.


It was indeed, but it was Buonaparte's armies who devastated Portugal, Spain, southern Italy and Germany, and it was Buonaparte's armies who ensured that nothing lived where they had marched in Palestine.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Napoleon's skill as an attacking military commander is on the short list of best ever. Hannibal, Alexander, him, Jackson, and Rommel are at the top of that list in my mind. He exploited his advantages so unbelievable well and like many before him, truly thought he could not be beaten. Of course he was incorrect.


Yet they were all beaten.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> What wartime leader wouldn't meet almost every item in that description?


I would like to think that most wouldn't! I'm not sure that either Roosevelt or Churchill could have been described in those terms, yet they were successful war leaders. I don't think that either Montgomery, or Alexander or Eisenhower would have either.



vpkozel said:


> And what are your thoughts on the Kellogg-Briand Pact (aka the Paris Pact)?


A good idea, if unworkable in the form that it took.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Langham said:


> Tomorrow is the bicentenary of the great British (and German and Dutch)


Don't forget the Prussians!

While the KGL, and Nassau, Hanover, Brunswick, Hess etc. and Netherlands-Belgian troops were all under British overall command, with British forces totalling about 83,00 men; the 125,000 man Prussian force was a separate and very much needed entity.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Yet they were all beaten.


Alexander and Jackson weren't. They died as pretty much undefeated. Rommel died before Germany lost as well.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> I would like to think that most wouldn't! I'm not sure that either Roosevelt or Churchill could have been described in those terms, yet they were successful war leaders. I don't think that either Montgomery, or Alexander or Eisenhower would have either.


Churchill not only allowed the death of civilians, he knowingly allowed the death of his OWN civilians. Roosevelt forcefully interned an entire race of Americans.



> A good idea, if unworkable in the form that it took.


Kind of like labeling people who you disagree with politically as war criminals.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Alexander and Jackson weren't. They died as pretty much undefeated. Rommel died before Germany lost as well.


Alexander was forced to abandon his conquest of India by his men. A good leader wouldn't have demanded more of his men than they would accept. 
I was under the impression that Jackson did very poorly in the 7 Days campaign, almost invariably failing to turn up as planned and as ordered. Rommel was defeated at El Alamein, when his offensive was stopped by Auchinleck.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Churchill not only allowed the death of civilians, he knowingly allowed the death of his OWN civilians. Roosevelt forcefully interned an entire race of Americans.
> 
> Kind of like labeling people who you disagree with politically as war criminals.


Executing captured civilians and ordering the execution of PoWs is a war crime. Executing civilians without trial to serve as examples is also a war crime.
Don't you agree?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Executing captured civilians and ordering the execution of PoWs is a war crime. Executing civilians without trial to serve as examples is also a war crime.
> Don't you agree?


Those are the easy ones, and of course I agree with the civilian ones. POWs can get a but trickier and I know that there were several documented instances of US execution of POW in WW2 - especially in retaliation for Malmedy and more widespread in the Pacific.

How about executing innocent civilians to protect a secret? Where do you fall on that?

And no stance on FDR as a war criminal? Stalin? Mao?

The point is that far too many people now throw around the term war crime far too casually and just like Watergate was both one of the best and worst things ever to happen to journalism, Nurenburg was one of the best and worst things that ever happened to the way we look at conflict.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Alexander was forced to abandon his conquest of India by his men. A good leader wouldn't have demanded more of his men than they would accept.
> I was under the impression that Jackson did very poorly in the 7 Days campaign, almost invariably failing to turn up as planned and as ordered. Rommel was defeated at El Alamein, when his offensive was stopped by Auchinleck.


But Alexander was never defeated overall in battle.

Jackson was tardy in the 7 days campaign, but his Valley Campaign kept an entire Union Army from being able to join McClellan at Richmond. And although tardy, his flanking movement still had its intended effect.

Rommel did lose in the desert, but in now way was that through a lack of military prowess. He was simply outmanned.

Interestingly, Rommel studied Jackson's Valley Campaign, and his desert war was extremely similar to it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> _*Those are the easy ones, and of course I agree with the civilian ones.*_ POWs can get a but trickier and I know that there were several documented instances of US execution of POW in WW2 - especially in retaliation for Malmedy and more widespread in the Pacific.


Then you agree that Buonaparte was a war criminal.



vpkozel said:


> How about executing innocent civilians to protect a secret? Where do you fall on that?
> 
> And no stance on FDR as a war criminal? Stalin? Mao?
> 
> The point is that far too many people now throw around the term war crime far too casually and just like Watergate was both one of the best and worst things ever to happen to journalism, Nurenburg was one of the best and worst things that ever happened to the way we look at conflict.


We were looking at Buonaparte. If you wish to start a thread about whether other people are war criminals please feel free to do so. Whether these people were or weren't has no bearing on whether Buonaparte was.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> But Alexander was never defeated overall in battle.
> 
> Jackson was tardy in the 7 days campaign, but his Valley Campaign kept an entire Union Army from being able to join McClellan at Richmond. And although tardy, his flanking movement still had its intended effect.
> 
> ...


Yet as "attacking commanders" they all failed at some point. An attacking commander whose men will no longer follow him, an attacking commander who repeatedly fails to attack and an attacking commander who attacks a position that is too strong for him. All are examples of failure as attacking commanders.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Then you agree that Buonaparte was a war criminal.
> 
> We were looking at Buonaparte. If you wish to start a thread about whether other people are war criminals please feel free to do so. Whether these people were or weren't has no bearing on whether Buonaparte was.


You are the one calling him a war criminal and defining the behavior that makes one. Don't get upset if people point out that others fall into your definition.

And no, I do not consider him a war criminal. Of course, my list of war criminals is probably far smaller than yours....


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Yet as "attacking commanders" they all failed at some point. An attacking commander whose men will no longer follow him, an attacking commander who repeatedly fails to attack and an attacking commander who attacks a position that is too strong for him. All are examples of failure as attacking commanders.


Well, everyone fails at some point, so sure in that respect, the list of great attacking generals is well, no one.

Of course, the list of great anythings that never failed is also no one.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

That's the problem with the concept of "Great Men", the myth is easy to create and believe in, but the truth isn't the same.


----------



## Repington (Dec 9, 2014)

One of the many ironies of Buonaparte's life is that he applied to join the Royal Navy in order to expel the occupying French from his Corsican homeland; he only turned against the cause of Corsican nationalism when his family fell out with the great Corsican freedom fighter Pasquale Paoli.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> You are the one calling him a war criminal and defining the behavior that makes one. Don't get upset if people point out that others fall into your definition.


I'm not getting upset. As I said, if you wish to discuss the war criminality of others please go ahead. Whether or not Roosevelt is a war criminal makes no difference to a discussion of Buonaparte.



vpkozel said:


> And no, I do not consider him a war criminal. Of course, my list of war criminals is probably far smaller than yours....


But you said "_*and of course I agree with the civilian ones." *__S_urely one either is or isn't a war criminal, if you agree with that particular definition, which you did, then you agreed that he's a war criminal. As far as your final point is concerned, of what relevance is that? Apart from some obscure need to define your own viewpoint of course.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> That's the problem with the concept of "Great Men", the myth is easy to create and believe in, but the truth isn't the same.


I could not disagree more. If you are looking for perfection, then perhaps.

But my definition of great is someone who made the world better than it would have been without them. Same thing for nations.

Britain has its faults, but can you imagine the world without what Britain has brought to it? Same for the US and Rome.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> I'm not getting upset. As I said, if you wish to discuss the war criminality of others please go ahead. Whether or not Roosevelt is a war criminal makes no difference to a discussion of Buonaparte.


Couldn't the same be said for you bringing up war criminals in a thread about Waterloo?



> But you said "_*and of course I agree with the civilian ones." *__S_urely one either is or isn't a war criminal, if you agree with that particular definition, which you did, then you agreed that he's a war criminal. As far as your final point is concerned, of what relevance is that? Apart from some obscure need to define your own viewpoint of course.


No, being a war criminal is not binary. Scale, frequency, and intent all come into play. The last point indicates that I think you throw that term around a lot more casually than I do - which all of your responses have confirmed.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Churchill was the biggest war criminal ever to come from England. His list of war crimes is endless. He was a racist, anti-semitic, anti-Irish, anti-worker, anti-worker's rights, anti-social democracy, anti-African, anti-Asian, secluded, upper class bully.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Churchill was the biggest war criminal ever to come from England. His list of war crimes is endless. He was a racist, anti-semitic, anti-Irish, anti-worker, anti-worker's rights, anti-social democracy, anti-African, anti-Asian, secluded, upper class bully.


Yet a Trade Union member.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> I loath him. A deceitful, opportunistic, dishonest tyrant who directly caused the deaths of millions.


That could also be a description for Churchill, just add arrogant, bigheaded, racist, xenophobic bully and it will be perfect.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Couldn't the same be said for you bringing up war criminals in a thread about Waterloo?


Given that the thread is about the final defeat of the Corsican tyrant it is entirely relevant. I didn't bring up "war criminals", I said that Buonaparte was a war criminal. It was you that extended the discussion.



vpkozel said:


> No, being a war criminal is not binary. Scale, frequency, and intent all come into play.


You agreed that his ordering the killing of civilians (by firing squad) was a war crime. Do you now say that it wasn't?



vpkozel said:


> The last point indicates that I think you throw that term around a lot more casually than I do - which all of your responses have confirmed.


And your point is?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Churchill was the biggest war criminal ever to come from England. His list of war crimes is endless. He was a racist, anti-semitic, anti-Irish, anti-worker, anti-worker's rights, anti-social democracy, anti-African, anti-Asian, secluded, upper class bully.


No, there were others who were worse!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> That's the problem with the concept of "Great Men", the myth is easy to create and believe in, but the truth isn't the same.


Exactly, the myth of Churchill, mostly self-penned only exists in England. The truth that the rest of the world know is that he was a massive war criminal for close on 50 years in dozens of countries!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> No, there were others who were worse!


Who, Bomber Harris? Henry V? Hardly!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Yet a Trade Union member.


So what, so were Hitler and Stalin initially.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Who, Bomber Harris? Henry V? Hardly!


I give in. I can't think of anybody worse. I'm not going to enter into a discussion of his war criminality though.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> So what, so were Hitler and Stalin initially.


He maintained his membership throughout his life, once he'd joined.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

https://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/wha...tisemitic-war-criminal-and-racial-supremicist


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Churchill was the biggest war criminal ever to come from England. His list of war crimes is endless. He was a racist, anti-semitic, anti-Irish, anti-worker, anti-worker's rights, anti-social democracy, anti-African, anti-Asian, secluded, upper class bully.


I think there is much truth in all that. He was a product of his time and class, and casual racism and prejudice were merely the common currency of most English people until the 1970s.

He was also blessed with other qualities however - brave, tenacious, a good leader and orator, and he could drink most men under the table.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Don't forget the Prussians!


Yes I know, that was a slip of the finger on my part. However, I tend to think of them all as Germans.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Churchill was the biggest war criminal ever to come from England. His list of war crimes is endless. He was a racist, anti-semitic, anti-Irish, anti-worker, anti-worker's rights, anti-social democracy, anti-African, anti-Asian, secluded, upper class bully.


And yet no rational person can argue that the world would be a much worse place had he not been exactly where he was during one of the most crucial periods in man's recent history.


----------

