|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
someone has marked this for deletion. Even though only Ribbe has published on this topic, I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand because Ribbe is not only a historian-author, he's well respected enough to have been appointed to a human rights position within the french government by the prime minister. In other words, this is notable, it's not some obscure historian in some forgotten musty office that produced this information.
As far as the original research justification for deletion goes, that's silly since Ribbe is the researcher, not any of the wikipedia authors. So, while I don't object to deletion in general, I'll remove the delete tag for now since it's justified as being original research when it clearly isn't.
Qwasty 02:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I essentially agree; the topic/controversy is clearly notable and it would violate NPOV if we pushed it out of Wikipedia. However, the title of the article itself is conclusatory IMHO, and very original I think. In google, the phrase "Napoleon's Holocaust" comes up exclusively with Wiki-related content. I think this article ought to be moved to The Crime of Napoleon. The book and its claims clearly meet the Wikipedia notabality threshold, we need an article on the book, and unless/until the topic advances into a more general discussion and a term for the topic becomes established either popularly or in the academic community, it's probably premature for Wikipedia to have an article on the topic in addition to an article on the book and related controversy. A minor rewrite would be required if the article is moved. Studerby 07:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rewrite looks good. Studerby 15:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, it's really informative now. Qwasty 23:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes this definitely deserves to be on Wikipedia. It was a fairly big deal in France, with the bicentenial for Austerlitz in 2005 and all.UberCryxic 20:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Claude Ribbe accuses the Bonaparte regime for genocide! Is not a dictator enough frightening?! The evil deeds of a dictator are limited by the means he has. (I don’t know about any female dictators, but I have no reason to believe that there is no one or could not be.) I seriously doubt that it was possible to manufacture sulphur dioxide in the necessary amounts. There ought to be a paragraph with criticism like in the other articles with controversial historic claims.
2006-10-30 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
- It is easy to make enough sulphur diixode, by burning sulphur, which would be readily available in bulk from volcanoes in the area. Anthony Appleyard 18:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It might be easy to make sulphur dioxide on a small scale. What I serously doubt is that is was possible to make it in the industrial scale nessesary. After all, the Industrialism had not reached the Carribeans yet.
2007-02-16 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
At a second thought I found more problems with the accusations. The slaves had to be collected and taken to the ships. Sulphur had to be mined and transported to the harbours. There it had to be burned on-board the ships without setting fire on them. Afterwards, the corpses had to be disposed of. If the ships where burned up why use sulphur dioxide in the first place? You could as well have just locked the slaves up in the ships and then burned them up! However, the ships where probably to valuable to burn up. Where the corpses just thrown into the sea? The sight of shiploads of dead slaves floating at the harbours – as well as the stench of the fast decomposing corpses – would have made a lasting impact on anyone who happened to be there. Also, a hundred thousand skeletons from African-looking people would still lie on the sea floor. If mass-graves on land where used they would have had to take the corpses there. Was all this really possible in the early 19th century Caribbean considering administration, manpower and transportation? Even if the genocide was possible empirical evidence would still be necessary to show that it happened. Apart from the skeletons of the victims I have hard to believe that no administrative documents would be left. There would also be eyewitness accounts in the shape of letters and/or diaries. Finally, I wonder what the motif was. You have to find a motif that seemed reasonable to those i charge. Political and military leaders act in ways that appear rational to them. If they seam irrational to an outside observer that is because they misjudge the result of their actions. Mad generals do exists as well as mad dictators. (Napoléon I was one of them.) But anyone appearing mad was not necessary so.
2007-04-27 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
- It has been known from ancient times that burning sulphur produces a poisonous gas: e.g. Ancient Greek θειον = "sulphur", θειοω = "I fumigate". Anthony Appleyard 16:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You are just repeating the ”chemical know-how” argument. What I really question is if the necessary administration, manpower and transport existed at the time. I don’t think Napoléon I – or his brother-in-law Charles Leclerc – could have committed genocide even if he wanted. Also, I wonder what empirical evidence Claude Ribbe bases his claims on, or if there is any credible sources at all…
2007-06-04 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
I no longer consider Napoléon I a madman: he was just highly egoistic. However, this is an argument against him being guilty of genocide since there is no possible egoistic motif for ordering the death of a hundred thousand people. But my main counterarguments are that the necessary administration, transport and manpower most likely did not exist yet.
Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
From a desdendant of a victim of Napoleon's Genocides
Forthcoming book: Napoleon's Crimes: A Blueprint for Hitler
A translation into English is due in September of 2007. 220.127.116.11 03:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)