Why do peple compare Napoleon to Hitler?

[Verbose]

Thousands of inocent people died in the French Revolution, not just the nobility, and even that was not justified

Yes well, the same can be said about the English civil war, or the British Empire, or anyone elses, for that matter.

 

[Luckymoose]

They both lost. USA #1.

 

[LiquidCommander]

They both lost. USA #1.

wat

LiquidCommander, while I'm a fan of Napoleon myself, you're a pretty big fanboy for the guy, and don't seem very objective.

So having a positive view of Napoleon means I'm a "fanboy"? No, the reason why I have blatantly positive bias of the guy is because there's far more widespread blatant negative bias against him. I've read books written by his detractors as well. Actually, I go by the philosophy of always looking at the other side of the coin, which is why I turned out to be a admirer of him in the first place: Initially, as I studied the period, I read sources that assumed that he suffered from the same megalomania as the likes of Stalin and Hitler, but I also wanted to see what other people like Vincent Cronin and Ben Weider thought, both known admirers of Napoleon. But I still read excellent books written by people who could also be considered detractors (David G. Chandler in his excellent book The Campaigns of Napoleon and Charles Esdaile's Napoleon's Wars: An International History).

Plus, I don't think I've ever seen an objective (or more specifically, neutral) opinion of such a dominating personality like Napoleon. He's regarded as either a visionary or a tyrant.

You also don't really seem that knowledgeable about WWII and the events leading up to it.

I actually have a large knowledge of World War II, although it's specialized in the Resistance across Europe, and the history of France during that time. But I still have much more education and knowledge on it than merely a high school education.

Hitler was never elected; he was appointed. Also, the Weimar Republic was not a fledgling democracy; it was a broken one.

This was indeed an error on my part, but that doesn't mean you can claim that I don't know a whole lot about WWII. Perhaps I should have noted that it could be debated that Napoleon was justified in taking control of France, while there isn't a whole lot of agreement that Hitler did.

 

[GinandTonic]

Plus, I don't think I've ever seen an objective (or more specifically, neutral) opinion of such a dominating personality like Napoleon. He's regarded as either a visionary or a tyrant.

Clearly he was both.

 

[LiquidCommander]

Clearly he was both.

Could you elaboate?

 

[GinandTonic]

Clearly he was both a visionary and a tyrant.

 

[storealex]

Clearly he was both a visionary and a tyrant.

Again, that's the English propaganda perception. Seriously, look at a map from that time and try to find countries that wasn't led by tyrants. There's not many. Then remember that Napoleon gave more civil rights to the people, than most other rulers and I think it's not fair to call him a tyrant.

He is only a tyrant for modern standards, but you have to judge him acording to the time he was in.

 

[sophie]

Well, for starters, if he wanted to merely conquer the world, he wouldn't have brought Europe to the peace table when he came to power, he wouldn't have been so lenient on the countries he conquered, and if he wanted world domination he would have been much less of a realist than he was.

I don't understand how this is proof that he didn't want world domination, or at least European domination. Puppeting nations can still be counted as domination, ESPECIALLY considering he used those puppeted nations for recruiting in his armies as well.

A good example of how realistic he was occurred when in 1798 the Directory told him to invade Britain. He saw that as suicide, instead opting to invade Egypt, which would disrupt British routes to India (and also to discover a country largely unknown to Europeans).

This point is completely irrelevant, especially considering he ended up coming back to Britain several years later. Just because Hitler decided not to attack Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, Austria, and France all simultaneously doesn't mean he didn't have a penchant for World (or at least European) domination. Moreover, Hitler puppeted nations as well, just look at Vichy France.

If he was in any way similar to Hitler, he would have dismantled and destroyed countries that defied him, like what happened to Yugoslavia and Poland. At Tilsit in 1807, for example, after Napoleon crushed the Russian Army at Friedland, Alexander could have denied nothing to Napoleon. Instead, the tsar got conditions surprisingly favorable to his country, being allowed to annex the Danube provinces and Finland, two areas the Romanov family had always dreamed of having.

Because he was trying to cow Russia until he could deal with his other enemies. Divide and conquer is a popular maxim, and one which Hitler utilized as well.

Napoleon could have easily created a strong Poland that would have represented the ideas of the Revolution and served the strategic interests of France. In attempting to forge a lasting friendship Napoleon made with the rump state of the Duchy of Warsaw, consisting of the Austrian and Prussian parts of Poland, while Russia kept its part.

1.) A small weak Poland keeps the Poles on his side, while also keeping them under his control. Again, the Duchy of Warsaw was created as a Puppet/Satellite to ensure his army is supplied when he comes back later on.

Also, if he was so bent on world domination, why would he have so casually sold the Louisiana Territory to the United States? If he was anywhere near the war-loving megalomaniac some people make him out to be he would have kept it at any cost to re-create a new French empire in North America. Instead, again, as the realist, he wished to avoid conflict with the United States, and also wished to help the fledgling republic.

He wanted to hold onto Louisiana, he had plans for rebuilding the French empire in America as well. However, this quickly fell apart when he realized the British were being more stubborn than he had anticipated. It was, once again, a pragmatic play. If he had succeeded in Europe, who knows whether or not he would have returned to the Americas. Just because he was shrewd, does not discount the fact that Napoleon was neurotic, and a nutcase, and had a penchant for world domination.

 

[Dachs]

Ideology: Promoted the idea of a federal Europe with a common currency, language (while still preserving local European cultures), essentially a early European Union;

Really? You're referring to a colonial system wherein all of Europe was geared to provide warm bodies and raw materials for Napoleon's wars an "early European Union"?

hated religious intolerance and made Jews full citizens in France (in Napoleon's time, Jews were severely discriminated against);

Ease of taxation for efficiency's sake. Sure, he may have had some noble motive here or other, but that doesn't mean he would have made Jews full citizens if it didn't benefit his war machine in some way. But yes, this is a point of contrast with Hitler. One of many. Gold star.

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.

With Napoleon, it is not useful to speak of "peace" and "war" as separate stages. During "peaces" and "truces", he would engage in actions, both prohibited by treaty and technically permissible, that undermined the states with whom he had just made peace. For instance, look at his actions between the truce with the Habsburgs in 1797 and the final peace at Campo Formio: he used the truce to destroy the Venetian Republic and totally alter the settlement between truce and treaty, while the Habsburgs, bound by their silly observance of international treaties, could do nothing.

However, Britain broke the Treaty by refusing to evacuate from Malta, and thus Napoleon's wars with Europe stemmed from his war with Britain.

So the UK refusing to evacuate Malta is a casus belli, but Napoleon failing to abide by his responsibilities in the treaty - most saliently, Switzerland, where despite the nonintervention stipulated in the Treaty of Amiens, he engaged in a territorial and political revolution that made him, as the Mediator, the supreme power in the cantons - is not? What wonderful cognitive dissonance we have here!

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.

No, there was no equality before the law, and there was feudalism. Napoleon instituted a new class of military nobility, for instance. And he divided conquered Europe into feudal plots of land, assigned to his lackeys. At best, the social "gains" of the Civil Code are iffy; women, for instance, certainly saw their legal status decline from periods during the Revolution. Furthermore, the codes were not implemented equally everywhere, especially outside France, where only partial observance (if that) was mandated.

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.

You consider an efficient police state to be superior to an inefficient oligarchy. Suit yourself.

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.

Never mind, of course, that it was a military coup that created the government, which was run by a general.

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;

STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM

"Normal development of a strong regime"? First off, what the hell is "normal development" of anything? I had thought that history and historiography had advanced beyond that tripe, and that Sonderweg-like thinking was dead. What the hell? Secondly, even if it is "normal" - and again, there's no such thing as "normal development of a strong regime" - does that make it "good"? This basically looks to me like apologism. Your hero was a dictator, and you're trying to handwave away his police state by saying that it was "normal" for that to happen. Look, people blithely saying "Napoleon = Hitler" are stupid, yes, but do you really have to resort to stupidity to argue against them?

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.

So, basically, you are defending a police state that replaced an inefficient oligarchy by saying that "at least he created an oligarchy"! Excellent work!

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.

I am impressed that you seem to acknowledge that the Continental System was not, in fact, directed against the United Kingdom, but rather (rightly) that it was directed at Europe. I am unsure how you reconcile this internally, but however it's done, it must be impressive.

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.

You are absolutely correct: the majority of conquered Europe did not resent Napoleon's colonial exactions. The majority of any conquered people don't tend to do much of anything against their oppressors. Call them sheeple or whatever - it's a truism. Revolutions are made by the few, not the many. That doesn't say much about Napoleon's rule compared to Hitler's. Nazi Europe was full of collaborators who changed their colors after the fact. To judge from postwar memoirs, the Résistance included the entire population of France.

It also must be re-iterated that Napoleon's wars were arguably defensive in nature, forcing him to demand more out of client states.

"Arguably". Outside of popular history, you will find scanty attempts to refer to Napoleon's wars as "defensive", just like you won't find many people trying to justify Hitler's wars as "defensive" because the UK and France technically declared war on Nazi Germany.

Because they were both neurotic nutcases that had a penchant for world domination. Does that answer your question?

No, because Napoleon never had any penchant for world domination.

This is technically true; Napoleon never evinced a desire for world domination. What he did do was acknowledge no limitations on his actions. He was not bound by any laws or treaties, or by the force of his word of honor; he was not bound by the limitations of military theory; he was not bound by the nature of economics; he was most certainly not bound by the actions of others. He was a law unto himself, guided by his "star". In practice, this amounted to a drive for world domination, but I doubt even Napoleon considered it to be such; he never tended to think things through all that well. It was this refusal to acknowledge any limitations that helped to make him the leader of the most powerful state in Europe, and which helped him to win the wars he won; it was also this refusal that made him one of the most odious characters in European history.

At Tilsit in 1807, for example, after Napoleon crushed the Russian Army at Friedland, Alexander could have denied nothing to Napoleon. Instead, the tsar got conditions surprisingly favorable to his country, being allowed to annex the Danube provinces and Finland, two areas the Romanov family had always dreamed of having.

Please try to read diplomatic histories of the period. The Russians were not particularly interested in having Finland in and of itself; they had had the opportunity several times during the 18th century, but in general considered the Finns to be unreliable subjects and the territory to be basically useless geopolitically and economically. Napoleon's "generous" secret agreement to "allow" the Russians into Finland merely amounted to him using the Russians to punish the Swedes for opposing him in the War of the Third Coalition.

Something similar happened with regard to the Danubian Principalities. True, Aleksandr was more interested in these, but Napoleon's chief goal in "giving Russia a free hand" in the Principalities was not to actually let the Russians conquer them - heaven forbid - but actually to enmesh the Russians in a costly and useless war, to force them to threaten Austria (as any actions in the Danubian Principalities must inevitably do, as was made clear in the 1850s) and in general to divide his enemies so he could act as he wanted in Spain and Portugal. It was classic Napoleonic "peace"-making, just like what he did at Amiens and Lunéville: he treated other states as enemies even during the peace, unless they were his lackeys (like Bavaria or Italy), and pit them against each other, if they were not to be pitted against him.

Napoleon could have easily created a strong Poland that would have represented the ideas of the Revolution and served the strategic interests of France. In attempting to forge a lasting friendship Napoleon made with the rump state of the Duchy of Warsaw, consisting of the Austrian and Prussian parts of Poland, while Russia kept its part.

Alternative interpretation: Napoleon created the Duchy of Warsaw to weaken Prussia for having the gall to oppose him in 1806, and to create essentially a satellite state that could yield him warm bodies, raw materials, and cash out of misplaced gratitude. Napoleon had more Poles killed than any other figure in history save Hitler to fight his wars, but the Poles loved him for "setting them free" from Prussia, Russia, and Austria - when "being set free" basically meant "free to do what Napoleon wants you to do".

Instead, again, as the realist, he wished to avoid conflict with the United States, and also wished to help the fledgling republic.

Alternative explanation: Napoleon sought short-term advantages over long-term advantages. With the loss of Haiti, a French North American empire was impractical, whereas the cash he could get from the United States would let him finance massive recruitment drives and armaments against the states with which he had just signed "peace" treaties in Europe. Furthermore, by appearing friendly to the United States, he could work to pit the Americans against the United Kingdom. In the end, he had to resort to more direct measures - the Trianon decrees and the response to Macon's Bill #2 - to push the Americans into the War of 1812, but the ultimate desire to foment opposition between the US and UK is obvious even as early as 1804.

They were part of the European alliance that fought against the revolution before it had turned sour many just opposing the ideal of mass rule over rule of the privileged (or maybe they just weren't a fan of any European state being powerful, so they wanted to sow discord in the continent, who knows).

No state fought against Revolutionary France for ideological reasons.

Plus, I don't think I've ever seen an objective (or more specifically, neutral) opinion of such a dominating personality like Napoleon. He's regarded as either a visionary or a tyrant.

Objectivity and neutrality in history are overrated. Different perspectives highlight things that might not be noticed any other way.

My take on Napoleon: no, he was not Hitler. But he was more similar to Hitler than any other European ruler before or since. Another comparison that might work is with Alexander the Great, another conqueror who recognized no limitations on his power and who has been romanticized by later historians (see: Tarn...****ing Tarn). It is true that he instituted some reforms in parts of Europe. But I think that the "good" of these reforms as opposed to the "bad" has been overstated. The Napoleonic system in Europe ended up having a "good" legacy chiefly because the bad stuff didn't survive for long. His protectionist schemes, his colonial redirections of cash and raw materials to the French war machine, his wars that killed over a million European men - these all ended in 1814-1815. The Vienna powers had the foresight to keep what worked and abolish what didn't. Over time, those states have been transformed into "reactionaries" - as though nobody can tell the difference between Troppau and Vienna - who instituted a period of "repression" throughout Europe. The roll-back of French colonialism in Europe has been treated as an attack on liberty, equality, and fraternity. Sigh.

So, no, in terms of domestic policy, Napoleon was no Hitler. He had a police state, but he did not arbitrarily condemn millions to the gas chambers, furnaces, firing squads, and slave labor camps. True enough. But in terms of international policy, Napoleon and Hitler were birds of a feather. In terms of the way Napoleon treated Europe, they were similar, but not exactly the same. Few today will deny that Nazi Europe was a "Bad Thing". Napoleon's colonial system was somewhat more equivocal; it introduced some measures that were of benefit along with its objectively bad influences and institutions.

 

[LiquidCommander]

I don't understand how this is proof that he didn't want world domination, or at least European domination. Puppeting nations can still be counted as domination, ESPECIALLY considering he used those puppeted nations for recruiting in his armies as well.

When I meant him being lenient towards the countries he defeated, I meant Prussia and Austria. They were not puppet states, but they were still dominated by a French presence, which they had brought on themselves: Prussia in 1806 and Austria in 1805 and 1809.

Client states were created not merely for troops but for buffer against states like Austria and Prussia. Napoleon was too realistic to entrust the security of France merely to treaties of alliance. Useful, for sure, but still too subject to changing spirits and fluctuating interests, as he would learn with Russia. Thus adding vast territorial buffers were necessary for two reasons: to dissuade aggression, and if that failed to allow a greater strategic depth to defeat such aggression.

Hitler's reasons for invasion were not merely out of "security", but for ideological reasons (Lebensraum in Eastern Europe). Napoleon never had any ideological reasons for creating the Confederation of the Rhine, the Swiss Confederation, Kingdom of Italy, etc. except for determent against overly-aggressive monarchs.

This point is completely irrelevant, especially considering he ended up coming back to Britain several years later.

It's not irrelevant if it's an example of how much of a realist Napoleon was. He did ended up coming back to Britain, after the British government violated the Treaty of Amiens.

Just because Hitler decided not to attack Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, Austria, and France all simultaneously doesn't mean he didn't have a penchant for World (or at least European) domination.

No, but unlike Napoleon, Hitler's wars were not of defensive nature. He annexed, by political force, Austria, Sudetenland, and the Czech part of Czechoslovakia, and aggressively attacked Poland and Yugoslavia when they defied him.

Napoleon's annexations were usually out of the consent of the people in question (and it wasn't very often that he directly brought countries into France proper), with the exception of Piedmont, although that annexation was not out of ambition. Having defeated that country a second time in 1800, Napoleon invited King Charles Emmanuel, who had fled to Rome, to return to his throne. Emmanuel, exceedingly weak and ruled by priests, declined. Napoleon had considered it dangerous to leave a political vacuum between France and the Cisalpine Republic which the Austrians could fill at any notice.

So he simply annexed (since nothing had been said about Piedmont at Amiens or Luneville), a move the Piedmontese welcomed, since it gave them democratic government and religious tolerance.

The irony of this is that Britain denounced France's annexation of Piedmont, when two years earlier Britain united Ireland to the crown against the wishes of the Irish people, and there, as in England and Scotland, excluded Catholics not only from office but from voting.

Because he was trying to cow Russia until he could deal with his other enemies. Divide and conquer is a popular maxim, and one which Hitler utilized as well.

I'm not sure where you get that he was trying to cow anyone. At Tilsit he was not trying to intimate anyone or force Alexander to do anything against his wishes, and truly believed that he had forged a friendship with Alexander, who thought the same.

However, ever since after Tilsit, Alexander had been under pressure from family, his anti-French court, nobles, and of course the British to abandon his alliance with Napoleon. Remember what happened to the last tsar, Alexander's own father, when he became too friendly with Napoleon in 1800? He was eventually strangled in his sleep. It was either death by his own people, or bow to the anti-French forces in his court, to which he eventually did. If anyone cowed anyone, it was the Francophobe courts and Britain cowing Alexander to make war.

There's an interesting essay on Napoleon and Russiahere.

A small weak Poland keeps the Poles on his side, while also keeping them under his control. Again, the Duchy of Warsaw was created as a Puppet/Satellite to ensure his army is supplied when he comes back later on.

No, it was created as a buffer state against Russia, and of course the influence of a certain Countess Marie Walewska, not merely to "keep the Poles on his side". Napoleon was eventually to re-constitute an independent Kingdom of Poland with Poniatowski as its king had he succeeded in Russia.

He wanted to hold onto Louisiana, he had plans for rebuilding the French empire in America as well.

What plans, exactly?

However, this quickly fell apart when he realized the British were being more stubborn than he had anticipated.

You're right; they were violating the Peace of Amiens by refusing to evacuate from Malta.

Just because he was shrewd, does not discount the fact that Napoleon was neurotic, and a nutcase, and had a penchant for world domination.

 

[Ajidica]

Napoleon: Siezed power from a (somewhat) republican government, tried to conquer Europe, got defeated by the Brits and Russians.
Hitler: Siezed power from a (somewhat) republican government, tried to conquer Europe, got defeated by the Brits and Russians.

For the average idiot, they are the same basic person.
Plus Nappy had the whole dictator/cult of personality thing.
Napoleon was less nutty than Hitler, but he was still plenty nutty. IIRC, he spent his entire time on St. Helena basicaly rewriting history to make himself look good.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Yes well, the same can be said about the English civil war, or the British Empire, or anyone elses, for that matter.

Are you referring to the rise of the Empire as a single event? To be clear, it was a series of events that culminated in the formation of Britain's Empire, to which the fall of Napoleon contributed. Regardless of the numerous atrocities committed by those who helped to build the Empire, referring to its creation as a single bloody event is a historical fallacy, and also misrepresents the concept of creating such a thing as an empire; empires are not won through a single war, they are the collaborative result of hundreds of years of scientific progress and geopolitical change.

 

[Dachs]

Are you referring to the rise of the Empire as a single event? To be clear, it was a series of events that culminated in the formation of Britain's Empire, to which the fall of Napoleon contributed. Regardless of the numerous atrocities committed by those who helped to build the Empire, referring to its creation as a single bloody event is a historical fallacy, and also misrepresents the concept of creating such a thing as an empire; empires are not won through a single war, they are the collaborative result of hundreds of years of scientific progress and geopolitical change.

I don't think you're arguing against any points that Verbose has made. He said that the creation of the Empire involved the deaths of thousands of people. No need to tack on implications and so forth; it's pretty indisputable, which you rightly acknowledged.

 

[Domen]

I think most of you see Napoleon only from the biased, in this case, very Anglo-centric perspective.

Indeed he did nothing good for the Anglo-Saxon world and cultural circles. He had no real influence on English social-political system, for example. But for other parts of Europe and not only Europe, he did many good things and accelerated the fall of last remains of Feudal relations and social-political arrangement there.

Napoleon is a rather positive person in European history at least from the historical point of view of many nations. His biggest achievement was preserving the main and most positive achievements of the French Revolution (I'm mainly talking about the rules of 1789) as well as spreading his progressive Codex all around Central and Eastern Europe. While at the same time I cannot see any positive aspect of Adolf Hitler's existence.

If not Napoleon, the revolution might have been crushed and Europe might have fully returned to the Feudal pre-1789 arrangement.

Of course he wasn't perfect and he had imperial ambitions, but he did more good than bad from historical perspective, in my opinion.

Clearly he was both a visionary and a tyrant.

Again, that's the English propaganda perception. Seriously, look at a map from that time and try to find countries that wasn't led by tyrants. There's not many. Then remember that Napoleon gave more civil rights to the people, than most other rulers and I think it's not fair to call him a tyrant.

I fully agree.

Most of European states, French main enemies included, were ruled by far more of tyrants and far less of visionaries than Napoleon was.

Britain is not among them, but on the other hand it was very conservative at that time and also had imperial ambitions so it wasn't better than France.

 

[Verbose]

Clearly he was both a visionary and a tyrant.

Thereabouts, you're right. I'd rate him as arguably the world's first liberal dictator. There are definitive drawbacks to those, but by virtue of being first, it's still progress.

As for the French Revolution, it's probably one of these historical events so stupendous they kind of break the mold for conventional good-bad and/or evil. Already the people who lived through it afterwards divided the world in a before and after, and the world wasn't the same ever again, for better or for worse.

It actually takes some work to explain to modern westerners exactly how the society the French Rev overturned operated. It was pretty alien.

 

[Domen]

The French revolution is also not a consistent period. It can't be rated in "bad" / "good" categories.

There were both good aspects (like for example the Rules of 1789) and bad aspects (like the terror of Jacobins).

Napoleon continued and spread mainly those positive achievements of the revolution, but not all of them.

 

[LiquidCommander]

Really? You're referring to a colonial system wherein all of Europe was geared to provide warm bodies and raw materials for Napoleon's wars an "early European Union"?

There was nothing "colonial" about it. It was a policy founded on the prevention of conflicts, not in igniting them.

Ease of taxation for efficiency's sake. Sure, he may have had some noble motive here or other, but that doesn't mean he would have made Jews full citizens if it didn't benefit his war machine in some way. But yes, this is a point of contrast with Hitler. One of many. Gold star.

How would it had benefited his war machine in any way at all? Within a year of coming to power in France Napoleon turned around the French economy in a year. When he came to power, there was exactly 167,000 francs in cash, and debts amounting to 474 million. Inflation was enormous. Civil serveants were unpaid, the army was unpaid, and starvation was at an all-time high.

Napoleon thus raised two million francs in Genoa, three million from French bankers, and nine million from a lottery. However, that only staved off bankruptcy for his first months in office, so he got about making regular funds. One would think income tax would be enough for his needs, but the problem was the tax collectors did it as a part time job.

So he made a special body of 840 officials, eight to a department, whose sole job was the levying and collecting of tax. Of each official he demanded 5% of the expected annual revenue.

The new system worked; annually, Napoleon could now draw 660 million from income tax and public property, 185 million more than the old regime had. So, I'd say he didn't need Jews merely for efficency's sake on taxation.

With Napoleon, it is not useful to speak of "peace" and "war" as separate stages. During "peaces" and "truces", he would engage in actions, both prohibited by treaty and technically permissible, that undermined the states with whom he had just made peace. For instance, look at his actions between the truce with the Habsburgs in 1797 and the final peace at Campo Formio: he used the truce to destroy the Venetian Republic and totally alter the settlement between truce and treaty, while the Habsburgs, bound by their silly observance of international treaties, could do nothing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Could you explain a bit more?

So the UK refusing to evacuate Malta is a casus belli, but Napoleon failing to abide by his responsibilities in the treaty - most saliently, Switzerland, where despite the nonintervention stipulated in the Treaty of Amiens, he engaged in a territorial and political revolution that made him, as the Mediator, the supreme power in the cantons - is not? What wonderful cognitive dissonance we have here!

Ah yes, Switzerland. One of the many excuses the British forged. Well first off, I don't see anything in the Treaty pertaining to Switzerland at all. And to go into a little history of Switzerland...

Before 1798 the 13 cantons were ruled by a rich privileged class which kept their money in British banks, but that year the Directory sent in troops to help a popular movement and to establish the Helvetic Republic. A year later, Britain, Austria and Russia sought to restore aristocratic government, Britain by sending a certain Wickham with plenty of money, and the other two countries with actual soldiers.

Wickham foudn it difficult; he wrote from Schweitz: "The magistrates and ancient families...have not only entirely lost the public confidence and esteem, but they are become so much the object of hatred to the peasants that were it not for the prescense of the Austrians I am persuaded that many of them would be made an immediate sacrifice to the popular fury." As for the people of Zurich: "They will be contended with nothing but a republic formed after the example of France."

The Austro-Russians were defated and in May 1801 Napoleon confirmed the Helvetic Republic, though in a new form, as a federation of cantons. That didn't work out too well, for the big rich cantons battened on the small. In 1802 Napoleon replaced his original constitution with a new one, more centralized and with safeguards for the small cantons. At that time he also withdrew French troops.

Britain sent Wickham to Constance with more money and orders to stir up aristocrats against Napoleon's constitution. Handing out more guineas, the Swiss were now at each other's throats. For Napoleon and France this was intolerable, since Britain had long used Switzerland, in Napoleon's words, "as a second Jersey from which to encourage agitation." Napoleon sent in troops to end the civil war, also summoning to Paris leading Swiss citizens and with them evolved yet another constitution.

This newer constitution gave a larger measure of self-government to each canton than the previous constitution, and retained the traditional Landsgemeinden, or executive councils. But the cantons had a common currency and internal free trade. Traditional Swiss neutrality was to be maintained, but a 50-year defensive treaty was signed with France.

So the Swiss welcomed the Act of Mediation, as it was called, but it didn't suit Britain one bit. While Europe accepted Napoleon's act for what it was (being a amicable democratic settlement of a dangerous situation), the British government and banking circles criticized it. That, along with the annexation of Piedmont (which I had explained above) were useless arguments to justify Britain's intentions.

And if you ask where these letters and info on Switzerland come from:

Source: documents in Bonaparte, Talleyrand, et Stapfer 1800-3 (Zurich 1869); British moves to support the Swiss aristocracy: P.R.O., F.O. 74, vols. 24, 36 and 38.

No, there was no equality before the law, and there was feudalism.

While the Napoleonic Code was not infinitely progressive, it was a huge improvement.
-Equality of all in the eyes of the law
-No recognition of privileges of birth (i.e. noble rights inherited from ancestors.)
-Freedom of religion
-Separation of the church and the state
-Freedom to work in an occupation of one's choice
-Strengthening the family by:
*Placing emphasis on the husband and father as the head of the family
*Restricting grounds for divorce to three reasons: adultery, conviction of a serious crime, and grave insults, excesses or cruelty; however divorce could be granted by mutual agreement, as long as the grounds were kept private.
*Defining who could inherit the family property

But on the other hand, yes, there were several things that we as 21st century people see as not progressive. For example, women could not vote, minors had few rights, and illegit children had no right of inheritance. But on the whole it was progressive, which is why it survives to this day, albeit in modified forms.

You consider an efficient police state to be superior to an inefficient oligarchy. Suit yourself.

I consider an efficient, strong, central government to be superior to a inefficient, corrupt, and unpopular oligarchy. As I said, the Consulate was not a democracy, but what we call "democracy" was not in existence in 1799 anywhere.

Never mind, of course, that it was a military coup that created the government, which was run by a general.

Why would it matter if it was run by a general? Eisenhower was a general, and he became President of the United States.

"Normal development of a strong regime"? First off, what the hell is "normal development" of anything?

Normal as in, the constant threats that the First Consul faced the moment he stepped into office resulting in a hereditary title.

Secondly, even if it is "normal" - and again, there's no such thing as "normal development of a strong regime" - does that make it "good"?

Does that necessarily make it "bad" either?

Look, people blithely saying "Napoleon = Hitler" are stupid, yes, but do you really have to resort to stupidity to argue against them?

Look, I enjoy having this debate with you, but insults won't get anyone anywhere.

So, basically, you are defending a police state that replaced an inefficient oligarchy by saying that "at least he created an oligarchy"! Excellent work!

Since when was the legislative Council of State an oligarchy? I don't quite get what you're saying here.

I am impressed that you seem to acknowledge that the Continental System was not, in fact, directed against the United Kingdom, but rather (rightly) that it was directed at Europe.

Why would it be directed at Europe? What motive would Napoleon have had towards intentionally crippling the European economy? No good reason. It was directed at the British, nothing more.

You are absolutely correct: the majority of conquered Europe did not resent Napoleon's colonial exactions. The majority of any conquered people don't tend to do much of anything against their oppressors.

This is entirely a matter of perception (just like this entire debate has been). I don't believe that there was no resentment out of merely fear of their "oppressors". The thinking minority as well welcomed the order and justice and improvements. It was symbolic of a whole attitude when on July 23, 1808, the professors at the University of Leipzig decided that in future, within the university, the stars of Orion's belt and sword would be known as Napoleon's stars. Unless the French possessed a mind control device, this was a genuine move on their own part.

But that is just one example. Let me ask, if the Empire system was so oppressive, why do the ideas behind it survive to the present day? The Napoleonic Code and the principle of self-government became part of the fabric of Continental Europe and, except in Spain, no king was ever to dare restore the feudal privileges which Napoleon had abolished. The Portuguese liberal constitution of 1821 was due to Napoleon paving the way. Eventually in Spain the principle of religious freedom was to act as a liberal leaven, being introduced in 1869 during the regency of Francisco Serrano, and somewhat modified, became law in 1966.

Outside of popular history, you will find scanty attempts to refer to Napoleon's wars as "defensive"

I wouldn't exactly call them scanty; they have just as much evidence to back up their statements as those who argue Napoleon being the instigator. Vincent Cronin, Ben Weider, John R. Elting, R.F. Delderfield,Gregory Fremont-Barnes, and many others have argued that the wars were defensive.

This is technically true; Napoleon never evinced a desire for world domination. What he did do was acknowledge no limitations on his actions. He was not bound by any laws or treaties, or by the force of his word of honor; he was not bound by the limitations of military theory; he was not bound by the nature of economics; he was most certainly not bound by the actions of others. He was a law unto himself, guided by his "star". In practice, this amounted to a drive for world domination, but I doubt even Napoleon considered it to be such; he never tended to think things through all that well. It was this refusal to acknowledge any limitations that helped to make him the leader of the most powerful state in Europe, and which helped him to win the wars he won; it was also this refusal that made him one of the most odious characters in European history.

Again, this is a matter of perception. I won't touch on this; if that is how you perceive Napoleon's actions, and view him as "odious", well, then so be it.

Please try to read diplomatic histories of the period. The Russians were not particularly interested in having Finland in and of itself; they had had the opportunity several times during the 18th century, but in general considered the Finns to be unreliable subjects and the territory to be basically useless geopolitically and economically.

Which is why they fought Sweden for it in 1808. If they were truly uninterested in Finland Alexander would have ignored Napoleon and instead focused on the Danube provinces, Wallachia, etc.

It was classic Napoleonic "peace"-making, just like what he did at Amiens and Lunéville: he treated other states as enemies even during the peace

I'd treat Britain as an enemy too when it blatantly violates the Treaty of Amiens first.

Actually, that reminds me of classic British "peace"-making---namely, bombarding the capital cities of countries that did not comply with their demands (Copenhagen in 1802 and 1807, and threatening to burn Lisbon in 1808), and spending millions to let foreign troops die for British ambition.

Alternative interpretation: Napoleon created the Duchy of Warsaw to weaken Prussia for having the gall to oppose him in 1806, and to create essentially a satellite state that could yield him warm bodies, raw materials, and cash out of misplaced gratitude. Napoleon had more Poles killed than any other figure in history save Hitler to fight his wars, but the Poles loved him for "setting them free" from Prussia, Russia, and Austria - when "being set free" basically meant "free to do what Napoleon wants you to do".

This is, as you said, an "alternate interpretation". How you and I view the Duchy of Warsaw and its creation by Napoleon are two completely different spectrums of thinking.

Alternative explanation: Napoleon sought short-term advantages over long-term advantages. With the loss of Haiti, a French North American empire was impractical, whereas the cash he could get from the United States would let him finance massive recruitment drives and armaments against the states with which he had just signed "peace" treaties in Europe.

The loss of an island in the Antilles means the loss of the entire French colonial prescense in the Americas? I don't think so. Plus, in Napoleon supposedly selling it only for cash: I refer to what I had said above in Napoleon reviving the economy. The money from the Louisiana Purchase didn't finance him any more than the money he currently had was financing his rebuilding of France.

But it is, as you said, an "alternate explanation". It's up to the individual to decide which explanation is true.

Furthermore, by appearing friendly to the United States, he could work to pit the Americans against the United Kingdom.

Not much different than Britain appearing friendly to its Continental thugs to pit them against Napoleonic France.

As Domen said, Napoleon was not perfect, not by any means.

However, I refer to you this: http://www.napoleon-series.org/faq/c_leader.html in lieu of my own words, of the last two paragraphs of your post.

 

[Cull]

Honest, why are you worshiping NAPOLEON? You can't even admit to his flaws, of which he has some, if not many.

 

[aukrest]

Thousands of inocent people died in the French Revolution, not just the nobility, and even that was not justified

This has happened in practically all revolutions.

 

[Communisto]

If Boney wasn't a warmonger then explain the hundred days.