LiquidCommander
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 50
This seriously makes my blood boil everytime someone tells me that Napoleon and Hitler were alike in many, many ways. I think this is a steaming load.
I made this little comparison, to show the glaring differences between two very different leaders.
NOTE: There is reason why there is much more detail on Napoleon than Hitler: a lot more people have already been well-informed about Hitler's rise to power and political career than Napoleon's rise to power and political career. Too often I always hear that people don't know a whole lot about the Napoleonic Era, so that's why I put more emphasis on Napoleon.
And plus, I've been studying Revolutionary and Napoleonic France for over three years.
Really now. One is seen as the father of modern Europe. One is seen as the scourge of modern Europe. One is admired by many, one is hated and feared by the majority. Any similarities between them is pure coincidence.
So I ask; why do people make such odious comparisons between a visionary and a monster?
I made this little comparison, to show the glaring differences between two very different leaders.
NOTE: There is reason why there is much more detail on Napoleon than Hitler: a lot more people have already been well-informed about Hitler's rise to power and political career than Napoleon's rise to power and political career. Too often I always hear that people don't know a whole lot about the Napoleonic Era, so that's why I put more emphasis on Napoleon.
And plus, I've been studying Revolutionary and Napoleonic France for over three years.

Adolf Hitler
Ideology: Promoted racial hatred towards minorities (Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals); called for colonization of Eastern Europe, and to enslave and eventually extermination of the Slavs, to be replaced by ethnic Germans.
Level of Responsibility for World War II: Although the Nazis gained power through the hatred of the Treaty of Versailles imposed by the Allies in World War I, Hitler was the first to attack Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union for blatantly obvious reasons (despite signing non-aggression pacts with the USSR, Poland, and Denmark).
Amount of political power: There is no doubt that Hitler was a bigoted tyrant. Although initially voted into power, he gained that position via backstabbing, blackmail, and murder. He deliberately turned Germany into his own personal dictatorship. Civil rights were abolished, destroyed the Weimar Republic, which was a fledgling democracy, and ruled by decree.
Treatment of Conquered Peoples: Brutal repression of the Poles; total eradication of Polish culture, language, and the people themselves. Concentration camps set up all over occupied Europe responsible for the murder of millions of people; the Holocaust stemmed from these centers of death.
Primary Contribution to World History: Genocide, war, destruction, permanent mark of shame on German people
Amount of popularity: Only fringe Nazi groups still support Hitler; he is viewed by the majority of the world cultures as a evil man. Hitler's time in power is viewed by Germans as a dark time and a unerasable stain in their history.
Napoleon I
Ideology: Promoted the idea of a federal Europe with a common currency, language (while still preserving local European cultures), essentially a early European Union; hated religious intolerance and made Jews full citizens in France (in Napoleon's time, Jews were severely discriminated against); promoted self-government.
Level of Responsibility for Napoleonic Wars: Unlike Hitler, there are legitimate points of support of Napoleon fighting wars of defense, about as much as there is Napoleon starting them. When Napoleon came to power in 1799 he brought all of France's enemies to the peace table, ending with the Treaty of Amiens with Britain in 1802. However, Britain broke the Treaty by refusing to evacuate from Malta, and thus Napoleon's wars with Europe stemmed from his war with Britain. However, it must be stated that despite one's point of view, there is roughly equal amounts of arguments for Napoleon starting and not starting the so-called "Napoleonic Wars".
Amount of political power: Napoleon guaranteed the social gains of the Revolution upon assuming power in 1799. Wherever French rule ran, there was basic civil rights, freedom of religion, an end to serfdom and feudalism, and equality before the law. The French republic was not a democracy, and the modern idea of democracy was not in existence in 1799, not in the United States or Great Britain either. And unlike Hitler, who replaced a fledgling democracy, Napoleon replaced the Directory, a unpopular, corrupt, and generally inefficient government.
When he came to power in 1799 as First Consul, the new government was frequently called a "military dictatorship", which makes no sense. The military had no part in politics, and although that all-powerful position of First Consul had the power to propose legislation, it was the specialized sections of the Council of State that wrote them: finance, legislation, war, navy, interior. There was no secrecy; the ministers attended the meetings and the consuls' approval was required to enact a law. And what a sense of human relations the First Consul showed as he participated in the meetings of the Council, asking questions and encouraging discussion! In what democracy today do we find the head of state discussing and arguing about the country's affairs with the citizens' elite in this way? Where do we find that in Hitler's tyranny?
Another political necessity was the Constitution of the Year XII, which established the French Empire with Napoleon as Emperor. This was a normal development of a strong regime; as the Emperor became more sure of himself, he showed less and less tolerance towards people who "talk but do not do anything", and indeed became increasingly authoritarian. The legislative assembly became a mere recording chamber and the Senate was filled with people devoted to the Emperor. This was a logical consequence that the Nation, by a substantial majority, gave the only man who could save it. "The Nation threw itself at my feet when I arrived in government," Napoleon said. "I took less authority then I was asked to take."
But before crying dictatorship and condemning out of hand an authoritarianism that partially muzzled the democratic system of universal suffrage (which existed in no European country that that time), it's important to go back to the role of the important Council of State, the basis of the legislative system. The council members, senior officials, and auditors made up a extraordinary body, surprising its worth and technical skill. It dealt with all bills, gave its opinions, and ruled on appeals addressed to the Emperor. Twice a week the Emperor chaired the meetings. The presence of the man whose law ruled from the Atlantic to the plains of Poland did not inhibit those attending. On the contrary, the legislative policy of France was enacted there without the least absolutism, and in a way, it was the entire government.
Hitler only gave more and more political power to himself and to himself only. Hitler restricted basic rights and if you practiced a religion that he did not like, you were probably going to die. The Napoleonic Code encouraged the practice of religion and basic rights, which is why it's the foundations of law for much of Western Europe.
Treatment of Conquered Peoples: As the military situation worsened for Napoleon, he was forced to tighten the Continental Blockade on Europe, and introduced conscription, especially in Germany. After the disastrous invasion of Russia, Napoleon's support in Europe gradually waned, with the Dutch, Germans, and Italians eventually joining the Coalition, state by state.
However, the Napoleonic Code was gradually introduced (civil rights, liberty, religious equality, abolishment of feudalism), and while many Europeans resented Napoleonic rule, the majority did not, at least before 1812. It also must be re-iterated that Napoleon's wars were arguably defensive in nature, forcing him to demand more out of client states.
Primary Contribution to World History: Civil Code one of the world's most widespread legal documents, being the foundation of law for much of Western Europe, West and North Africa, Louisiana, and Quebec. Ideals of Revolution spurned German and Italian nationalism. Military tactics still studied by major military academies.
Amount of popularity: Poles see Napoleon as a hero for his liberation of the Poles, and Jews view him with reverence. Many Italians, Germans, Dutch, Frenchman, Russians, and even Britons view him with varying degrees of respect and awe. French, for the most part, view him as a national hero. He is also, however, viewed with contempt and holds about as many detractors as he does admirers.
Really now. One is seen as the father of modern Europe. One is seen as the scourge of modern Europe. One is admired by many, one is hated and feared by the majority. Any similarities between them is pure coincidence.
So I ask; why do people make such odious comparisons between a visionary and a monster?