America: “Hey Britain, France- my best friends. It seems that we need the money we loaned you.”
France: “Let me pay a stop to Germany and demand our money.”
Germany: “What? Why? Please don’t.”
France: “Pay up.”
Danmark’s navy by that time was considered to be the best of Northern Europe, and Bonaparte knew that the French navy needed those ships and crew to oppose the British. Even it took the British to use up half of their strength of an entire armada and an admiral’s life to destroy the Franco-Spanish Armada at Trafalgar.
I can tell you what exactly happened now as I’m still in Nottingham, England. Out of the 10 English friends that I know 8 of them regretted their choice of choosing Brexit.
IIRC, that was more a cunning policy on Berlin’s part than anything else. Hyper-inflating the currency meant that the Weimar Republic could pay off reparations faster and convince the Western Allies to renegotiate them.
Problem was that it destroyed all faith in the Weimar government and Herr Hitler had a miracle solution.
It’s also the US’ fault because we didn’t want to restrcture the debt owed to us by our good friends the French and British.
Those two events were ten years apart. Weimar did pretty well for itself during the mid and late 20s, with the economy recovering, and its government treated less like the caretakers of a failed state and more like an actual power in its own right.
I usually ignore that era due the failure of its political system in stopping Hitler rises to power.
But I feel bad for the last President who likely knew Hitler were likely cause a other war as he lay dying in his bed. The night of the long Knives is when I consider the Weimar republic dead as JFK
“The British believed that Bonaparte actually wanted to use the Danish Royal Navy to oppose the Royal Navy’s supremacy in Europe, as part of the means of part of his plans of invading the British isles” Fixed it for you.
The fact that no such plan have ever proven to exist isn’t going to stop the anglophiles for making the terror bombardment and aggression against neutral countries into something almost justified. After all it is only unjustified aggression if it is perpetrated by the Germans or French.
Are we talking 1807? Because are we all going to forget that the reason the danes weren’t going to work with the british against Bonaparte’s movements in Germany was because just 6 years prior they had sailed into Copenhagen and bombed the city in 1801? Of course, back then the crime was “neutrality”, and not “having a navy”.
Now we are just missing Scottish independence like Norwegian independence and we might be approaching a 1:1
Of course. After all, the Germans and French are savages with no regard to human life.
hastily shovels 2-3 million Bengalis into mass graves
Why didn’t you guys pull a Scuttling off Scapa Flow?
I mean Germany did it rather than give their beloved fleet to Britain.
Nothing like thumbing your nose at someone at the moment of their victory because you can.
I’m not an expert on the Napoleonic wars, but I’d be very surprised if no such plan was ever considered by Napoleon.
Of course, that’s speaking on the level of “Napoleon had a map of Europe and a rough idea of the strength of navies and armies.”, not "these detailed instructions that whoops we lost that section of the files in a fire that really happened "
I’m not saying that makes Britain’s actions just in any sense of the word, only that it seems like “would the Danes be on board to help?” would make sense to consider if he hadn’t scrapped all plans for fighting the Royal Navy at sea. Why not ask a naval power with a grudge against Britain?
But I’m not familiar enough to know if I’m not missing something obviously torpedoing that.
Psss that for amateur they should had set them on fire and send them to the British instead…
No because they could put the fire out.
By sinking them their fate is secured.
The most expert tactical move I can think of for any naval engagement is to have your entire armada destroyed by a cyclone. It’s sure to take your enemy by surprise.
I like to see those Brits trying putting out a burning fleet full of gunpowder.
Ah like in Japan… Poor Mongols couldn’t fight the divine winds.
Before 1807 and before 1801, as the stronger Swedish Navy was weaken by the wars with Russia.
Another saying which I know is that Britain feared that the Danish Navies will be in the end under the influence of Bonaparte and use them against the Brits, and the admiralty decided to strike first before the French ever had the chance.
Makes sense from an Imperialistic British viewpoint? Sure. Like it made sense for Schlieffen to plan for violation of Belgian neutrality. Or it made sense for the United States to intervene in Vietnam.
Everything makes sense if you can carefully tailor a narrative for it after the fact. Something something war with Eurasia. Or was it Eastasia? Definitely Eurasia. After all, we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.
I’m pretty sure “an imperial power/leader would consider whether or it this was strategically useful” is not even remotely the same thing as “would this be morally defensible?”.
This applies to both Britain and Napoleon.