No.

But it isn't a silly question. 7 years ago Belgium wanted to make a new 2 euro coin in commemoration of Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo. The French objected and wrote a letter about how it "had a deep and damaging resonance in the collective French consciousness", and Belgium decided to get around the problem by making a 2.5 euro coin only usable in Belgium (via a rule that said currency only usable in the country of origin didn't need EU-wide approval). The Belgian Minister of Finance later said:

And I think that everyone needs to respect history, which is what it is. It’s not about creating antagonisms, no, we want to foster Europe’s unity, as it appeared afterwards in Europe.

Despite it being even closer in time to the "damaging resonance" event in question, the song Waterloo spent 12 weeks as a hit on the French music charts. Due to the very particular historiography on Waterloo via the French (which sometimes borders on conspiracy theory) there is reason beyond "it's just a song they're willing to let it slide" why this might have happened. To explain why, I need to go back 200 or so years.

...

The year, 1812. Napoleon, having a kerfuffle with the Czar, decides to invade Russia, with something on the scale of half a million troops (opposed by a Russian force of 400,000).

The gigantic army had 30,000 carts of supplies, but nonetheless, Napoleon's attempt at a speedy entry and surrender of his opposition failed, and the combined army began to starve. The Russians had, for the most part, avoided direct confrontation (except a major battle at Borodino) and when Napoleon's army arrived at a town the Russian tactic was for food to be removed and the town burned. Hence: no ability for the French to pick up supplies along the way. Napoleon nevertheless made it to Moscow expecting a surrender from the Czar, but Moscow too was set on fire, as Napoleon himself said: "mountains of swirling red flames, like huge ocean waves".

The strategy of ruining any possible shelter for the French forced them to turn around. Napoleon insisted he had been "victorious" -- so not a "retreat" per se -- but the retreating (I mean, tactically repositioning) army was still ripe for attacks, and of course winter was setting in, and hunger was even worse, so there was additional support from General Frost. Even the Russians were suffering greatly.

Many officers and soldiers became seriously ill or had their limbs frostbitten from this strenuous life: almost everyone had some part of the body exposed to the frost and I personally had my heels frostbitten.

From the 25th to the 27th of November the desperate last shreds of the army made it over the River Berezina. Only about thirty thousand made it back to France.

Surely ... surely ... this was a failure? Yes?

As assessed by the historians Franceschi and Weider in The Wars Against Napoleon: "the crossing operation over the Berezina must be considered as a masterwork of genius." (They also assert Napoleon was a pacifist, but let's not get into that.)

Yes, tactically one can consider the fact Napoleon escaped to be a victory of sorts, and he managed to save enough of his officer corps to muster more troops, but the fact remains a large part of the army was pulverized, and there was enough death at the river that the historian Edward Foord writing a century later noted "Perhaps no other event in history has so completely embodied every element of misery." He also gets far more credit than perhaps he should; the choice of crossing-point was Oudinot's, for instance.

What really interests here is the French apologists on Waterloo, 1815. Surely, given the exile shortly after, this was a defeat?

There's a couple ways to go with this. One way is simply "it wasn't Napoleon's fault, it was thing X". Like an act of God, for instance; some unfortunately timed rain made it so the cannonballs which would normally bounce into British lines simply got stuck in the mud.

Or blame the British for "cheating". Wellington had the foresight to consider various places a battle with Napoleon might take place many months before it happened, and managed to pick an appropriate site for his army. Apparently, long term planning is not le fair-play.

Or blame his generals, like Napoleon's brother, who was assigned to a diversionary feint, but decided a full-on attack even though the position he was attacking was well-fortified. (...never mind the choice of who to put as general was Napoleon's).

Or supposing that Wellington should have lost, like Napoleon himself did in 1816:

Wellington ought to have retreated, and not fought that battle, for had he lost it, I should have established myself in France. Wellington risked too much, for by the rules of war I should have gained the battle.

Or supposing that losing was really winning.

This defeat shines with the aura of victory.

-- Dominique de Villepin, later Prime Minister of France, in Les Cent-Jours ou l'esprit de sacrifice for which he won the Grand Prix d'Histoire of the Fondation Napoléon

Essentially, the claim being, the French were noble and patriotic, the English (and they'll often call them "English") were droll and unheroic. That the French may have lost, but they lost defiantly, meaning they actually won.

Napoleon's reputation remained supreme; all future generals compared themselves to him; the Code Napoléon laws are still largely in effect, and even influenced law throughout the entire EU.

...

But enough distraction. What about the song? Other than it wasn't at Waterloo where Napoleon surrendered (he went back to Paris before abdicating):

My, my

At Waterloo, Napoleon did surrender

Oh, yeah

And I have met my destiny in quite a similar way

The history book on the shelf

Is always repeating itself

The French didn't vote for the song, but that's because they missed that particular Eurovision altogether; French President Georges Pompidou had just died so the French withdrew their entry (a memorial service happened the same day of the contest).

Even if they had failed to vote for the song it wouldn't have meant much; neither did the UK, Greece, Monaco, Belgium, Belgium, or Italy. This is partly due to their ruleset that year (the last year Eurovision would do things this way) where each of the 10 people representing the country got to pick one, and only one song to put their vote towards; this kind of arrangement means even if there's a strong second choice to a particular voter it'll appear to be nil.

The actual name Waterloo was chosen, essentially, as evocative vocabulary. Stig Anderson (manager of ABBA, and co-writer of many of their lyrics) took "a week" to figure out a title, at one point considering "Honey Pie". Browsing through quotations, he eventually landed on Waterloo.

"This is a great title," I thought, "a generally accepted term, even internationally."

Despite Waterloo being just a historical symbol for much of the world, as noted earlier, it can still be a sore spot for the French. However, the lyrics jive with the "Napoleon lost, but he won" interpretation made by apologists.

And now it seems my only chance is giving up the fight

And how could I ever refuse

I feel like I win when I lose

Waterloo

I was defeated, you won the war

Waterloo

Promise to love you for ever more

Waterloo

Couldn't escape if I wanted to

Waterloo

Knowing my fate is to be with you

Essentially, rather than song being about the abysmal humiliation of Waterloo, it involves a surrender to unity. By the contortions of apologists this essentially means victory through defeat.

When Queen Victoria visited France in 1855 she made sure to make a pilgrimage to Napoleon's tomb:

I stood on the arm of Napoleon IIIrd, before the coffin of his Uncle, our bitterest foe! I, the granddaughter of that King, who hated Napoleon most ... and this very nephew, bearing his name now my nearest and dearest ally!

...

Bilefsky, D. (2015 9 June). Belgium Commemorates Waterloo With a Coin, and France Is Not Pleased. The New York Times.

Cole, I. (2020) ABBA: Song by Song. Fonthill Media.

Mikaberidze, A. (2010). The Battle of the Berezina: Napoleon's Great Escape. United Kingdom: Pen & Sword Books.