My tribute to Jimmy Greaves (RIP)

My Answer on Quora.

Jimmy Greaves was a phenomenal talent and a natural goalscorer if ever there was one. Although he largely played before my time I have seen enough footage and reliably dissected his numbers to realize that he ranks with Bobby Charlton, Michael Owen, Alan Shearer, Gary Lineker and perhaps Harry Kane as one of the greatest English forwards.

Jimmy Greaves in a Tottenham kit source: Tottenham Hotspur website

In terms of an innate sense for goal I would place him alongside an uninjured Michael Owen. He was a predator par excellence with a strong pace and an explosive acceleration. ‘Greavsie’ rarely fluffed his lines and was clinical in his finishing on goal.

The Londoner played for a host of different clubs in a career that lasted from 1957–1980 however the bulk of his time was spent at Chelsea (his youth club) where he notched 132 goals in 169 appearances and Tottenham Hotspur, scoring a phenomenal 266 goals ls in 321 appearances. He also represented West Ham United and had a brief stint with AC Milan in Serie A.

To this day he remains the highest goalscorer in English top flight league football with 457 goals, winning the league’s golden boot on six occasions.

Greavsie playing for England source: Sky Sports

Greaves played 57 times for England and scored 44 goals including a record six hat-tricks. In terms of overall goal scoring for his country this places him fourth on the all-time list behind Wayne Rooney (53), Charlton (49) and Lineker (48).

However Greaves’ goals per game ratio (0.771) is better than his chief rivals - Rooney (0.441), Charlton (0.462) Lineker (0.600), Owen (0.580), Kane (0.640) and Shearer (0.476).

Although he did not feature in England’s famed 4–2 World Cup final win in 1966, as a result of injury (else he was virtually certain to start), he did pick up a World Cup winners medal to add to the two FA cup wins and European Cup Winners cup trophies all won during his spell at Spurs. He also won a Serie A title with AC Milan during his unhappy stay at the Italian club.

After retirement Greaves served as a pundit and was co-host along with Ian St John of the popular Saint and Greavsie show that lasted from 1985–1992 and until his death remained a colorful figure on the English football scene with a great sense of humor and witty commentary.

Unfortunately, like the other great football legend of the time, George Best, Greaves struggled with alcoholism which resulted in a four year absence from the game during the tail end of his career.

However such struggles cannot detract from his achievements on the field. He was an immense player whose prolific numbers guarantee him a voice in the debate around England’s GOAT. Opinions will differ but he will surely gain the vote of many an old time football enthusiast. He deserves it.

Rest in Peace Good Sir and thanks so much for your contribution to the game.

Which country hosted the first World Cup?

(My answer on Quora)

It was Uruguay in 1930. The South Americans were awarded the privilege of hosting as it was the centenary of the nation’s independence.

They would pay back FIFA’s generosity by becoming the first ever World Cup Champions defeating Argentina 4–2 in the final. The tournament was somewhat bizarre in that the US (not a traditional football nation) came 3rd.

Only 13 teams competed in Uruguay 1930 and the field included a relatively large South American contingent (7 teams) and a small number of European participants (4 nations).

The groups were somewhat lopsided. Three of the four contained three teams. Group A had four countries. All games were played in Montevideo.

Guillermo Stábile, the brilliant Argentine won the tournament Golden Boot with 8 goals in 5 games.

Why did the West refuse to preach about Democracy in Afica during the Cold War?

(My answer on Quora)

I am not sure what you mean by the phrase ‘preaching democracy’ Talking about democracy is irrelevant if the conditions aren’t right and the local leadership is unwilling to let go of their newly acquired powers.

It was during the Cold War, specifically the time frame from the 1950s to 1975, that the majority of African countries won their independence from the respective European countries that had administrated the various colonial governments.

Ghana (formerly the Gold Coast) was the first African country to gain independence from Great Britain (in 1957). All British colonies - with the temporary exception of Southern Rhodesia - would follow in its path over the next thirteen years in a policy shift outlined by British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in his famous “Winds of Change” speech (Delivered in Cape Town South Africa Feb 1960).

African countries with Independence Dates: Source: Exploring Africa Michigan State University

The former French colonies followed a similar albeit more turbulent march toward independence (with Algeria being exceptionally violent). Belgium and Portugal would withdraw from their respective African holdings as well but not before a significant degree of conflict between the various nationalist movements and the colonial power was realized. In many a case the various nationalist movements battled each other with differences arising over ideology, economics and ethnic identity.

By 1980 the period of European political withdrawal from Africa was largely complete. Rhodesia was now Zimbabwe.

However the situation was far from well. The overriding issue was that the various movements that took control of these post independent fledgling nations came to power under a banner of nationally stoked populism that they would later entrench to thwart opposition. Free Democratic elections for many of these African strongmen was anathema to their own ambitions. Democracy was strangled in its infancy.

It was also of no benefit to the democratic impetus that independence became a reality for most of these countries during the height of the Cold War. Africa as a continent is extremely rich in minerals and both the Soviet Union and the United States needed to secure access to these resources. Former colonial powers Britain and France were also loathe to forgo their economic interests in the region. China itself exploited various opportunities.

Some of Africa’s post Independent dictators. Daily Advent Nigeria

The result was that various strongmen were given their blessing or indeed actively propped up by the external players. The continent provided the framework where a significant amount of Cold war jostling for power would take place.

What no player could afford was a regime change that had the potential to rip the rug from their convenient zone of influence. The strongmen kept that rug in place. Democracy had the potential to flip the order on its side. The Western powers gave lip service to it but in reality there was far too much at stake in the Cold War. The Soviets were aggressive in following all opportunities that were presented to them and would have exploited a weak democracy to entrench its power.

Realpolitik took precedence over idealism.

Did the Soviets wish to Annex Afghanistan?

My answer on Quora.

No, that was not their intention. The Soviets intervened in Afghanistan to prop up the Pro-Soviet government that had held power in the country since 1978. It was facing a guerrilla war against anti-communist mujaheddin forces.

Nur Muhammad Taraki was the first of the pro-Communist stooges who relied on Moscow for help. He was president and prime minister of Afghanistan from 1978–1979. Taraki was one of the founders of the Marxist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) in the 1960s and headed the People’s (Khalq) faction that arose soon after the party split in 1967. Its chief rival on the Left was the Banner (Parcham) faction.

The two factions clashed throughout the 1970s but with Soviet aid Taraki helped oust the government of Mohammad Daud Khan who at one time was backed by the Banner party (although they had since flipped to align themselves with Taraki).

Taraki was not a popular leader and his collectivist land and social reforms were resented in the rural areas. Mujahideen forces with a strong Islamist orientation took up arms against Taraki who himself was replaced as Prime Minister by the US educated fellow traveler Hafizullah Amin.

Amin would later become President but his administration was short lived. His regime could not control the rebellion and from a Soviet perspective the situation looked bleaker by the moment.

On the 24th of December 1979 (yes… Christmas Eve) the Soviets decided to take matters into their own hands. They invaded Afghanistan with a force of about 30,000 troops overthrew Amin’s regime and replaced him as President with another lackey Babrak Kamal of the Banner Party.

However he too was unpopular thereby necessitating a long term Soviet military involvement.

Little did they know at the time of course, how much of a chain of regionally and globally defining events they would be setting in motion by the consequences of their action. A butterfly flapping its wings can indeed cause a hurricane. Although with all fairness it was a pretty large butterfly.

How did the US benefit by remaining neutral during WWI?

 (My Answer in Quora)

The United States wasn’t neutral for all of WWI. They did however have a policy of neutrality that lasted from 1914 to April 1917. This was completely understandable.

The Great War was seen as a war that resulted from the tenuous breakdown in the Balance of Power that defined European politics. At the core of these continental rivalries was the question of colonial territory and First World imperialism. Britain and France were not eager to allow ‘Johnny-come-lately’ Germany to challenge their hegemony in this domain. Add to that French security concerns, the Eastern Question and German militarization and you had the powder keg for WWI.

None of these issues were seen as having any impact on the United States by the vast majority of Americans. They were geographically and strategically beyond the US’s orbit and America appeared as having little to gain by intervening in favor of one side over the other. There was no appetite for lives sacrificed to satiate an imperialism that was seen as disdainful by the American public.

A neutral United States growing without the strain of a war economy and not suffering the ignoble fate of high casualties was the best option for America. In fact the US could profit immensely by supplying goods to either side while furnishing the necessary war loans. They did just that for several years.

However ideal intentions often come unstuck when faced with the grim face of reality. Neutrality is a fine line to walk especially if economic considerations are playing a major role in framing policy.

President Woodrow Wilson’s administration for one had a distinct bias in favour of the British (many believe that he was dead set on backing the British from the get go). The sinking of the Lusitania shipping liner in 1915 by a German submarine that resulted in 128 American lives lost further transformed public opinion in the US against Germany.

In March 1916 the French passenger ship, the Sussex, was sunk with more American lives lost. Although the public was angered it was still not clamoring for war. In fact Wilson, ever the politician, went ahead and won the 1916 election with the slogan “He kept us out of the war”.

Behind the scenes though the situation was shifting significantly. The winds were blowing more strongly in one direction as the US upped their supplies to their Anglophone cousins. Berlin caught on quickly. A side does not take kindly when another country is acting as a supply arsenal for the enemy while hiding behind the cloak of neutrality.

While many in the German war establishment were loathe to encourage U-Boat attacks on American shipping, for fear of drawing the United States into an official war (check out the Sussex Pledge), the Kaiser wasn’t.

His voice carried the day by January 1917. Germany would embark on a policy of naval aggression. This together with the deliberate expose of the Zimmerman Telegram (a secretive 1917 German initiative to draw Mexico into a war against the United States) further sealed America’s position in the War.

It was clear that if a new order were to prevail in Europe in favour of Germany the United States could likely suffer. The US could not remain neutral. Germany had to be defeated and Wilsonian idealism dictated that the US would have to be at the post war negotiation table that followed (this was an opportunity for his League of Nations to come to fruition).

Wilson brought the matter before Congress on the 2nd of April 1917. Four days later the US was officially at war with Germany.

Did Trump abuse his pardoning powers as POTUS?

 (Asked in Quora. My Answer)

Not at all. As per Pew Research:

Trump granted 237 acts of clemency during his four years in the White House, including 143 pardons and 94 commutations. Only two other presidents since 1900 – George W. and George H.W. Bush – granted fewer acts of clemency than Trump.

Source:

Trump used his clemency power sparingly despite a raft of late pardons and commutations

Only two other presidents since 1900 – George W. and George H.W. Bush – granted fewer acts of clemency than Trump.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/22/trump-used-his-clemency-power-sparingly-despite-a-raft-of-late-pardons-and-commutations/

How did John McEnroe lose his edge?

(My answer in Quora)

The common answer is to blame it on 1986. The year that ‘Johnny Mac’ took some time off to recover from the pressure cooker that is the ATP circuit. As a hardcore fan of the Queens native I was guttered to see him do that but in retrospective it was understandable. McEnroe completed at the highest level in both the singles and doubles competitions and remains to this day the only player to hold the #1 ranking for both simultaneously in the Open Era (Stefan Edberg held #1 spot for each but never at the same time). He was arguably the most natural talent of his generation.

John McEnroe source: International Tennis Hall of Fame

However on deeper reflection Mac had probably lost his edge about a year earlier. 1984 was his greatest year as far as his all time performance was concerned. He won both Wimbledon and the US Open in straight sets but also surrendered a two set to love lead in the French Open to hand Ivan Lendl his first Grand Slam title. The defeat hit McEnroe harder than he may have believed at the time.

Lendl was transforming tennis into a game where athleticism was playing a bigger role and McEnroe’s style which relied on as great deal of personal flair and brilliant touches was looking to take more of a back seat. The Czech would hone this style starting in 1985 with McEnroe being pushed to play second fiddle. His loss in the US Open final of that year to Lendl was indicative of the passing of the guard and for the American who was for all intent of purposes the best player of the early 80s that was a tough blow. His enthusiasm waned and this was not helped by the arrival of Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg onto the scene.

Both could rival McEnroe on grass and each provided a new dynamism that was driven by superb conditioning. McEnroe would have to change his style of play.

The period he took off pushed him further behind as his age crept upwards and although he would still see semi-final Grand Slam success here and there, he struggled to adapt to a changing physical game that involved considerable base line running and power serving. The sport had moved on and had changed to favor a specific type of athlete of which Lendl was the prototype.

The reality is that McEnroe never worsened in the short run (in the long run age kicked in). What happened is that the ground chased beneath him and he could never fully adapt.

Why do gases float? Don't they have gravity?

 (Asked in Quora. My answer)

All gases have weight. Weight is the force of gravity acting on an object and is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by the strength of the gravitational field at the specific point in space.

If you created an imaginary open pathway (or vacuum tunnel) a gas on Earth would be pulled towards the center of the Earth and would travel as such. However such an open pathway only exists in theory. In reality there is material in the way of the gas that is usually more dense than the gas. The material exerts a normal force upwards which pushes the gas backward until it reaches a stable balanced position that we call floating.

We also call this force the buoyancy force and it counteracts the downward pull of the gases weight.

Less dense gases are pushed upward by the buoyancy force provided by the more dense gases below them. These lighter gases will eventually settle in an equilibrium position where the weight pulling down is equal to the buoyancy force pushing up.

Balloons filled with the light gas Helium demonstrate this phenomenon clearly by rising to a level in the atmosphere where the density of gas around then is more rarefied and therefore comparable with the density of the Helium gas itself.

Did Biden follow Trump's Afghanistan Plan?

(My answer in Quora)

Trump’s full Afghanistan withdrawal plan and indeed Biden’s theoretical plan are not available in the public domain. Security concerns necessitate the lack of full disclosure. 

Having said that though if Biden’s plan was consistent with the actual events that occurred on the ground then his incompetence represents a new level of national emergency. Good grief…how many rakes can a man step on?

These plans will likely become available to historians later when the documents are declassified in the future. But right now its all a case of best guess.

Having said that the Doha Agreement signed by the United States and representatives of the Taliban in February 2020 can be looked at by accessing the link below. It is an agreement not a detailed plan. Read it yourself.

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Agreement-For-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf

The agreement consists of four interrelated parts that require buy in from both parties. It also sets the stage for negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government. The Deal does stipulate that if the Taliban meet their requirements then the US will withdraw all troops by a date that corresponds to May 31st, 2021. The process of withdrawal was slated to begin in stages contingent on the Taliban meeting their obligations. This was always a big if.

In any case Biden broke with the Agreement by missing the May 31st, 2021 deadline. thereby nullifying the Agreement. The rest of the withdrawal plan subsequent to this date was his own doing.

Why is the loss of the Suez Canal considered to be the "point of decline" for the British Empire?

 (My answer on Quora)

By loss of the Suez Canal I am assuming you are referring to the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 in which case the crisis represents a point of decline for the Empire but not the definitive driver for the Empire’s demise. The latter predates the events of 1956. The granting of Independence to India in 1947 was likely the trendsetter in that respect or indeed World War Two before that.

What the crisis does signify though is the historical starting point where Great Britain’s political clout was clearly playing second fiddle to that of the United States. It was no longer the principal Western power globally.

To understand this distinction one has to look at the nature of the Suez Canal Crisis.

Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Canal on July 26th, 1956 in response to the American decision not to finance the building of Egypt’s Aswan High Dam. The Americans were concerned about Nasser’s close relationship with the USSR and other Warsaw Pact Allies.

At the time the Canal was jointly controlled by British and French holding companies. Diplomatic efforts to avert a crisis had been underway some time before the closing with the canal’s gateway, as a conduit for Petroleum transportation in particular framing the immediate necessity.

However when it became clear that Nasser was unlikely to compromise on his intent (although the Egyptian leader did offer financial compensation for the corporate entity that owned the canal) an alliance was created between Britain, France and Israel.

Why the Suez Canal matters Source: Daily News Egypt

Nasser had effectively declared war against Israel earlier on by his blockage of the Straits of Tiran at the moth of he gulf of Aqaba. He also had for some time spearheaded Egyptian commando raids into Israel proper.

U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles did offer an alternative to likely Anglo-French occupation that involved the establishment of a Suez Canal Users’ Association (SCUA) consisting of 18 countries that would be entrusted with the Administration of the Canal. This notion as well as other efforts at US mediation failed.

On the 19th of October, 1956 several months after the closing Israeli forces moved advanced on the canal in what became known as the Sinai Campaign. They drove back the Egyptians. The United Nations intervened demanding a ceasefire. British and French troops then occupied the canal (following landings at Port Said and Port Faud) on the 5th and 6th of November under the pretext of enforcing the UN ceasefire.

The Eisenhower Administration was angered by the Anglo-French action, in that it opened up the distinct possibility of Soviet intervention in the region. The Americans threatened both countries with economic repercussions and forced through a resolution in the UN demanding immediate withdrawal.

Suez Canal Crisis Map: source: Weapons and warfare

Washington turned the screws on its two allies and the British and French backed down. They did not have the economic clout to match the United States and the Americans knew it. Anthony Eden, the British Minister lost face as a result of the incident and resigned in January 1957.

Anthony Eden. British PM at the time of the Suez Canal Crisis. Source: history.com

From the British perspective it was clear that effective power had definitively crossed the Atlantic and resided now with the Americans. The US would go ahead and initiate the Eisenhower Doctrine which promised aid to any countries in the Middle East that were threatened by aggression. It has served as the basis for US foreign policy in the region ever since.

Source:

A Conflict Analysis of the Suez Canal Invasion of 1956 on JSTOR

William M. Wright, Michael C. Shupe, Niall M. Fraser, Keith W. Hipel, A Conflict Analysis of the Suez Canal Invasion of 1956, Conflict Management and Peace Science, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Fall 1980), pp. 27-40

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26273229

Why did Weimar Germany produce both Marxist and National Socialist radical extremists?

 (My answer on Quora)

The collapse of the old order, the aftershock of a war lost and the natural economic instability that defines a society in transition are breeding grounds for radicalisms. Their appeal is in offering simple fixes to seemingly insurmountable problems while speaking directly to the masses trapped in a chaotic milieu.

This is all heightened when the center collapses or proves weak and unimaginative in governing.

Weimar Germany was the perfect national incubator for this deadly cocktail just as Revolutionary France was in the turmoil following the demise of the Ancien Regime.

Russia c. 1917–1920 witnessed this phenomena as well as the various mutations on the Far Left and the Right wrestled for power. The Bolsheviks of course would ultimately prevail.

Why was Bishop Desmond Tutu awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize?

 (My answer on Quora)

It was part of an international movement to put pressure on the Nationalist government in South Africa to rescind its support for institutionalized racial segregation. Tutu was a well known theologian, writer and speaker who was a strong critic of the government’s Apartheid policies.

He was an integral part of the Anti-Apartheid United Democratic Front (UDF) that was formed in 1983.

Tutu would later become the Anglican Bishop of Johannesburg (1985–1986) and the Archbishop of Cape Town (1986–1996). He had worldwide notoriety and was viewed in some quarters (although by no means all) as South Africa’s version of Martin Luther King Jr.

Ironically in the year that he won the prize there were two other South Africans nominated - the ANC’s Nelson Mandela and Inkatha leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi. Tutu was seen as the least controversial of the three

If something is uncaused, does it mean that it must be created out of nothing?

(My very quick Quora Answer).

No. Created out of nothing implies a cause ie. the creator or a creation process. Uncaused refers to something that has always existed. It essentially transcends time or renders time meaningless. God itself in a theistic sense is uncaused for almost all belief systems.

Are there wars that saw three different groups all fighting one another?

(My answer on Quora)

Yes… there are many.

The classic example in the 20th century was the Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945). Both the Chinese Nationalists and Communists battled the invading Japanese while fighting each other at the same time. Contrary to popular mythology the efficacy of the truce between the two Chinese groups was indeed greatly exaggerated.

Another example was the fighting between the two Palestinian terrorist groups Fatah and the PFLP. Both were at war with Israel while maintaining a state of belligerence toward one another.

Rival Islamist groups often fight each other while having a common enemy in the Great Satan that is the US. Personalities and questions around doctrinal purity often feature here.

Hanoi dominated Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia were also hostile to each other in the 1970s regardless of the fact that they were opposed to the United States.

In the Old Soviet Union Trotskyites and Stalinists loathed one another often engaging in hostility elsewhere despite having an overlapping enemy in the Western capitalist democracies.

Going back to the 19th century, there was no love lost between far left anarchists and their more orthodox Marxist rivals. Each furnished a strong animosity towards the bourgeoisie governments in Europe.

What were the actual political views of Napoleon and the First French Empire?

(My answer on Quora)

There is a strong tendency to mythologize Napoleon Bonaparte and shroud him in tropes that all too often downplay what the man and indeed the First Empire really were. Much of this is a function of pro-French propaganda and a reading of the history that views his legacy through a lavender soaked screen rub (the rose colored glasses are on vacation this week)..

There is no doubt that Napoleon had a pivotal role in France’s development as a nation state, and was in all respect a man of military brilliance, but he was also the forerunner of another legacy: the modern secular dictator.

Portrait of the Emperor source: Napoleon.org

While it is largely correct that Napoleon restructured France along lines that were refreshingly meritocratic and egalitarian - the army and the legal system being the obvious respective examples - it is also true that he was an Authoritarian who often fooled outsiders with his larger than life image.

Ludwig von Beethoven was one such figure who was later transformed by reality. (Check out the story behind his Third Symphony).

Beethoven's Eroica

Beethoven's Eroica Beethoven called his Third Symphony Eroica (“Heroic”). The Eroica is two hundred years old yet still seems modern. In this symphony Beethoven began to use broad strokes of sound to tell us how he felt, and what being alive meant to him. The piece caused a sensation and changed the idea of what a symphony could be. When Beethoven called this piece “heroic,” he wasn’t kidding. It’s bigger, longer than a symphony had ever been. It’s confessional, even confrontational. Just the scale of it was huge, unprecedented—and daunting for its first listeners. It foreshadowed the world that Wagner and, ultimately, Sigmund Freud would explore—the realm of the unconscious. That’s what was so revolutionary. The First Movement When Beethoven first presented himself to Viennese society, he had to make a name for himself. He did this by playing some of his own compositions and, most importantly, by improvising on themes of his own or of his rivals. Nothing like it had been heard before. These improvisations—often lasting an hour—were entire landscapes of emotional extremes. They were tragic, stormy, lyrical, wildly exhilarating. Such exhibitions of power first drew people to Beethoven’s art. And the improvisations that dazzled Vienna were, in a way, rehearsals of the daring musical ideas Beethoven would explore in his symphonies. The first movement of the Eroica was unprecedented in scale, in part because he had so much to say. Beethoven uses a huge spectrum of keys to express different worlds of emotion. Each new experience of the themes gets darker and deeper. He develops the movement as a way of expressing what really happens in life—the wrong turns, the confusion, the sense of helplessness and entrapment. In the first movement of the Eroica , Beethoven takes his listeners on a wild journey through the emotional extremes that can be wrought from a few simple themes. The Second Movement Perhaps the best reflection of these emotional extremes is the Second Movement, which he titled “Funeral March,” a powerful musical evocation of the massive state funerals then taking place in Paris. The music suggests the thunder of drums and the roar of the crowd. In this movement, Beethoven explores grief, its public face and its intimate expression. The oboe solo at the beginning is a personalized and interior expression of grief within a public ceremony. It’s a modern solo in that it has tremendous psychological dimension. The music is evocative—we can almost see the funeral procession pass before us and ask, What really has died here? Perhaps it is part of Beethoven that is being mourned. In the years before he wrote Eroica , Beethoven realized he was going deaf, and his initial reaction was terror and shame. He tried to keep it a secret. He couldn’t bear for anyone to know that he—a musician—was not able to hear. But he came to realize that, as a musician, he could function perfectly well. What really scared him was being cut off from other people, losi

https://www.pbs.org/keepingscore/beethoven-eroica.html

It was Napoleon who established the prototype of the modern police state that has been replicated with various degrees and greater severity in Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Communist China, the USSR and the numerous dictatorships that have dominated most countries outside the geographic framework of the West.

At the head of the Napoleonic police state for the greater part of the Empire was Joseph Fouché, who earned his stature suppressing the Lyon Insurrection in 1793 Revolutionary France.

Joseph Fouché source: Geneanet.org

Fouché held the post of chief of police throughout the Directory, Consulate and the early Empire. After falling from grace in 1810, he was replaced by Anne Jean Marie René Savary who was even more devoted to Napoleon than his predecessor.

What Savary and Fouché had in common was an obsession in snuffing out conspiracies everywhere. Careless words did indeed cost lives and when called on to act each made careful use of a terror apparatus that was far more subtle and focused than that employed during the mass insanity of the dark days of the revolution.

However from the perspective of the transgressor it was equally as deadly. Two enemies were constantly in sight of the Empire’s angers - Royalist sympathizers and left wing radicals.

The Little Corsican was not a Liberal certainly not in the sense conceived during the Scottish Enlightenment. His regime in fact was one that was the antithesis of what the Founding Fathers of the United States wanted. It was Executive driven to the highest order with virtually no checks and balances countering Napoleon and his elite core.

So why then was Napoleon so popular with the French? In short he delivered order from chaos.

Historian Michael Broers had this to say

Napoleon did not make his political reputation as a warmonger, at least not among the French….. He posed, first and foremost, as the man who would restore order to a society plagued by crime, violence and uncertainty…… When this goal was achieved by the Peace of Amiens with Britain in 1801, he set about winning over French society – or at least the propertied sections of it – by a concerted effort to restore civil order ruthlessly, but more effectively, than the unstable regimes of the Revolutionary decade of 1789-99.

Napoleon was a self styled dictator and a strong man but he was also politically savvy and understood both the language of the elites and the masses. He wore French Enlightenment values on his sleeve and so earned the good graces of historians to follow but he was no champion of democracy when it truly countered nor did he aspire to replicate the individualism so valued by thinkers across the English channel.

He did however bring together Nationalism and the Romanticism of Rousseau within a rubric of Cartesian efficiency. At his heart he displayed Jacobin tendencies (he after all a friend of Robespierre) but was also driven by an immense ego that saw himself as the material embodiment of the Will of the People. He was in a sense his own ideology.

Sources:

The Napoleonic Police and their Legacy

Napoleon did not make his political reputation as a warmonger, at least not among the French. Indeed, the reverse was the case, as he smoothed his way to despotism in the first years of his rule after seizing power in 1799. He posed, first and foremost, as the man who would restore order to a society plagued by crime, violence and uncertainty. The first war he fought as First Consul in 1800-01 was intended to bring a quick peace which would enable him to consolidate his grip on France. When this goal was achieved by the Peace of Amiens with Britain in 1801, he set about winning over French society – or at least the propertied sections of it – by a concerted effort to restore civil order ruthlessly, but more effectively, than the unstable regimes of the Revolutionary decade of 1789-99.

https://www.historytoday.com/archive/napoleonic-police-and-their-legacy