3 ms·
I had the same experience some years ago when I looked up a terror bombardment against Copenhagen by the British in 1807: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_
by olau 6y ago
I had the same experience some years ago when I looked up a terror bombardment against Copenhagen by the British in 1807:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Copenhagen_(1807) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Copenhagen_(1807)
I was trying to find out if terror bombardments were a standard part of war at the time, but couldn't help noticing that there was a pretty stark difference between the facts present in the English version and those present in the Danish.
Denmark was neutral, and Danish troops were stationed with the king at the border to guard against a possible attack from the French army, while the navy was mostly not fitted out for war in alignment when the neutral status. Then the Brits came and set the capitol on fire with a huge bombardment, when the Danish king refused to abandon neutrality. Well, he had to abandon it afterwards - when the Brits took the navy, there was no defending against Napoleon.
- deathlight 6y agoAnd interesting that around three decades hence would be signed the treaty on Belgium neutrality whose breakage would be cited by the Brits as casus belli against the Kaiser in WW1. But strategic hypocrisy has always been an element of statecraft so I digress.