Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Often Hitler and Napolean are compared and spoke about in the same light. There are, no doubt, comparisons - both rode a wave of nationalistic pride into becoming an absolute ruler who ran over Europe (that was intentionally over simplified as I am taking the other side)
However, I believe that is where the comparisons end. Napolean to me was an extreme narcissist, but still valued human life. Sure he led countless men into battles at slim odds, but he also was against execution for the most part and was influenced by the revolutions ideas of equiality. Hitler on the other hand while certainly a narcissist - had a level of psychosis that I do not believe Naploean had.
What are your guys thoughts on this? Are the Hitler/Napolean comparisons fair? What do you think was similar or different about them? I personally think Napolean would be insulted that they are compared (then again who wouldn't be)....
Yes I think the comparison is limited. Napoloean, like him or not, was a great military strategist. Hitler was probably his own militaries worst enemy.
The Nazi party was unmatched in it's brutality in history, particularly in it's use of genocide. I see no comparison at all there. That is not to say Napoleon's hands were clean, and the french revolution period immediately preceeding Napolean had it's own form of genocide, using guillotine's instead of gas chambers. Napolean did have a few unforgiving massacres to his credit, where he ordered troops to kill prisoners - Jaffa comes to mind. And, lets face it, the Napoleanic Wars (and the wars during the French revolutionary period proceeding Napolean) caused an almost continous period of warfare on Earth lasting for almost 20 years and costing some 5 million deaths, many of them civilian. The Peninsular campain, in particular, records attrocities commited by the French army against Spanish civilians that rival Germans actions in Russia in WW2.
I have a real problem with these comparisons. Hitler was a unique case in history and cannot really be compared with anyone or anything. Why people keep talking about him, thus keeping him alive in a way? I think he is mentioned more than any other historical figure!
Something many folks don't know (or forgot...): Hitler was a drifter. In the 1920s he was a kind of homeless weirdo, like we see today in many large cities. In those days he was a just a joke. Unlike Napoleon who was a strategic genius, Hitler was nothing.
Napoleon on the whole made a positive influence on Europe he saved France from the worst excesses of the French Revolution. The French legal system is still built on the Code Napoleon. Frances Technolocrats and government specialists graduate from Higher Schools called the Grande Ecoles established by Napoleon. So he is making a contribution to France even now and the French do not have felings of shame when Napoleon is mentioned unlike modern day Germans when Mr Hitler is discussed.
Both are maniacs, well, megalomaniancs, warmongers, mass murderers. But Hitler did something stellar which put him in the dog house. He killed a million Jews. He could have killed ten million Mongols or Madagascarians and could have still earned his place in the pantheon of conquerors abreast of Alexander, Caesar etc.
I think another point of comparison is that both were "outsiders", Napoleon being Corsican and Hitler being Austrian.
But yeah the differences are pretty great. In some respects Napoleon might be more like Lenin or maybe Trotsky. I don't think Napoleon's aims were precisely ethnic-nationalist. And he was a better military guy.
On Hitler I don't think Hitler is more hated than earlier conquerors simply because his victims were Jews. Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain killed Jews, but still don't have the image of Hitler. The Romanovs were maybe not all conquerors, but some of them were highly anti-Jewish and still romanticized a bit. I think a big part of why he's hated more is he tried to wipe out an ethnicity from other nations as well as his own, he lived in an era where film could vividly capture the reality of what he'd done, many of the people he tormented were educated ("victors write the history" is only really true when the losers are all dead or illiterate), and he came in era when it was becoming unacceptable for a developed nation to conquer another. If you look at genocidal dictators after Hitler they never, or almost never, get the romanticized image Julius Caesar or Montezuma get. There are some who romanticize Mao, but doing so is at least extremely controversial.
That being said Hitler killing a Westernized people might be a factor in the interest. Pol Pot might be one of a few where he killed non-Westernized people and people do care. You ask people who Masie Nguema Biyogo, Mengistu Haile Mariam, Rios Montt, or Ne Win were and they'd likely be clueless. However most of those who do know I don't think romanticize them.
Both are maniacs, well, megalomaniancs, warmongers, mass murderers. But Hitler did something stellar which put him in the dog house. He killed a million Jews. He could have killed ten million Mongols or Madagascarians and could have still earned his place in the pantheon of conquerors abreast of Alexander, Caesar etc.
Do you actually have any clue about history? Napoleon can be criticized on many accounts, but he was NOT a " mass murderer".Obviously, the long era of the Napoleonic Wars caused a huge number of deaths, of both soldiers, and civilians alike, but there was no policy of extermination of certain religious or racial groups, as the Hitler government had. Oh, it was 6 million Jews killed, not one million; bit of a difference. You say he did something " stellar"? Atre you referring to the Holocaust as 'stellar"?
Napoleon on the whole made a positive influence on Europe ...
I am not sure I can agree with that first statement, Napolean changed and influenced history for sure, but I am not sure if it was for the better or the worst - It's hard to say a man that caused the deaths of about 5% of Europe's population at that time as "positive influence". After Napolean fell, he was replaced back with the Monarcy in France. Nothing changed, except for a ruined and bankrupt Europe, the French Revolution (a historic lesson on how a revolution can go bad) had gone full circle.
Napoleanic code? True that is someting that survives, but the Magna Carta predated it by 400 years, and the US constitution by 30 years. It was not revolutionary.
Do you actually have any clue about history? Napoleon can be criticized on many accounts, but he was NOT a " mass murderer".Obviously, the long era of the Napoleonic Wars caused a huge number of deaths, of both soldiers, and civilians alike, but there was no policy of extermination of certain religious or racial groups, as the Hitler government had. Oh, it was 6 million Jews killed, not one million; bit of a difference. You say he did something " stellar"? Atre you referring to the Holocaust as 'stellar"?
I don't disagree with the general point, you are making but the concept of Napoleon as mass murderer has been taking a new spin in recent studies and has caused some issues in France as far as honoring the memory of Napoleon as a national hero.
In 1802 Napoleon was faced with massive uprisings in the most important French colonial holding, Haiti. In response Napoleon sent an expedition led by Antoine Richenpanse to put down the revolt in the most expedient method possible. Richenpanse and Lacrosse (the governor of Haiti) acting on Napoleons orders and under his authorization unleashed a campaign of brutality on the revolting slaves in Haiti. Their tactics included killing all males above the age of 12, mining sulphur from the island and using it in special "gas ships" to kill prisoners locked in the holds. They even established "death sqauds" that ransacked the country looking for rebels. Later Napoleon authorized his brother-in-law Leclerc to use similar tactics against a rebellion in Guadeloupe. All told there was a total of over 200,000 black slaves killed with these methods in a span of a couple years.
Now some of these claims, particularly the "gas ships" are disputed greatly in France and the historical community in general. Still though, regardless of the authenticity of all the claims, what is true is that Napoleon supported the slave owners (who had suffered under the Revolutionary government) and reacted with abject brutality to the slave uprisings in the Caribbean. The claims were strong enough that a street named for General Richenpanse was renamed and many French politicians refused to partake in ceremonies marking the bicentennial of Austerlitz.
Even in light of these facts (disputed) I still feel that the comparison of Napoleon to Hitler isn't a good one. Personality wise, both men certainly shared a good amount of megalomania and were able to entrance their peoples to follow them on grand crusades to increase their power. However, that is where it ends.
Military - Napoleon is an undisputed military genius, Hitler is not. When it comes to military affairs Napoleon is everything Hitler wished (thought) he was. Some paint parallels to military atrocities committed by Hitlers and Napoleons troops, but it was a very different age and method for waging wars. Napoleon was cold and calculating, but he was not a sociopath.
Domestically - Napoleon was what most would describe as being progressive in terms of domestic issues and he undid many of the excesses of the revolution while maintaining many of the advances made. Napoleon brought out the best in France. Hitler was regressive and his policies were about division and control. He brought out the worst in the German people.
Reason for military campaigns - I think this is where the difference is most striking. Hitler wanted to annex territory to give birth to a greater German Empire. Napoleons goal was to subdue the enemies of France and to leave them complacent to allow France to be the dominant power in Europe. Napoleon redrew borders, but he also left many defeated nations intact taking no territory.
Genocides - There was also a big difference in the motivations for the genocides that happened under each leader. Even if we believe everything written about Napoleon putting down the slave revolts, there is at least a difference of intent. Napoleon may have been fine with barbarous tactics to suppress a revolt and inserruction (like in Spain), but he did not come to power with the intent to destroy entire "subhuman" peoples like Hitler did. Napoleon did what he did out of necessity to maintain control. Hitler did what he did as it was one of the primary pillars of what he wanted to accomplish. I am NOT justifying the treatment of Haitian slaves by Napoleon, but the difference in intent is clear and what I think sets Hitler apart from many others with blood soaked hands.
Invasion of Russia - I added this because it is the one comparison that always irks me. Talk about invading Russia and it always comes back to Napoleon and Hitler. While it was a disastorous decision for both, the campaigns were embarked upon for very different reasons. Hitler wanted to knock out Russia and annex Eastern Europe as part of his greater Reich. To that end he would also eliminate and/or enslave the people who lived there. Napoleons goal was simply to defeat Russia in battle and force their compliance with the continental system. If the opportunity had arrived he may have hand picked a new Czar for the throne, but his goal was not to conquer Russia. Again an important difference on intent.
Overall, Napoleon certainly had blood on his hands and some of it is certainly what we would consider to be war crimes or to the level of a holocaust. However, when you examine the reasons and intent and the time period there is little to compare. Hitler stands in a very unique place given his reasons for what he did. Napoleon may have committed a holocause against the slaves in the Caribbean, but he didn't set out to exterminate them from the face of the planet simply because they were African slaves, which is very different from Hitler who engineered the Holocaust specifically to eliminate people simply because they existed.
Do you actually have any clue about history? Napoleon can be criticized on many accounts, but he was NOT a " mass murderer".Obviously, the long era of the Napoleonic Wars caused a huge number of deaths, of both soldiers, and civilians alike, but there was no policy of extermination of certain religious or racial groups, as the Hitler government had. Oh, it was 6 million Jews killed, not one million; bit of a difference. You say he did something " stellar"? Atre you referring to the Holocaust as 'stellar"?
Oh, is 'six million' the official number now? It's changed so many times I can't remember.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
