Why do peple compare Napoleon to Hitler?

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. ;)


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?
 
Well, they were both authoritarian leaders who always wanted to invade England but never could, invaded Russia (and failed spectacularly)... Also, I heard they both lost their left nut (kidding).

I agree. The similarities are superficial at best, and there really isn't any legitimate reason to compare the two. I'm not sure I've actually ever seen someone compare them IRL, though.
 
Because they were both neurotic nutcases that had a penchant for world domination. Does that answer your question?
 
i dont know much about Napoleon but comparing him to Hitler is unreasonable , BUT he was an imperialist dictator and the French Revolution was evil

OK, let's say that's true. How exactly was he a "imperialist dictator"? And how was the French Revolution "evil"?

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

orly? What makes you say that?

to add on to my initially wry post: they both also seemed obsessed with micromanagement, and had trouble letting others do work for them, which would come to be a fault for both of them.
 
People compare Napoleon to Hitler? Granted, both were somewhat destabilized, but those are two entirely different levels.
 
orly? What makes you say that?


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.

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).

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.

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.

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.
 
to add on to my initially wry post: they both also seemed obsessed with micromanagement, and had trouble letting others do work for them, which would come to be a fault for both of them.

That was a undeniable fault of Napoleon, although there are again differences. Napoleon let the Marshals do the fighting in the Peninsular War, which was actually a big mistake. The marshals frequently feuded; there was no proper chain of command, personal rivalries got in the way, and of course there was the hostile population, and a looming British menace. They fought admirably, but Napoleon should have been there. The one time he did go to Spain he won every battle, drove the British out of Iberia, and left, never to return thanks to a resurgent Austria.

Napoleon did allow flexibility for his marshals though, most evidently seen in the early campaigns of 1805-1807 and the invasion of Russia. He would give them an overarching order, and they would thus have operational freedom of how to carry out that order, as long as it did not directly contradict what he wished.
 
That was a undeniable fault of Napoleon, although there are again differences. Napoleon let the Marshals do the fighting in the Peninsular War, which was actually a big mistake. The marshals frequently feuded; there was no proper chain of command, personal rivalries got in the way, and of course there was the hostile population, and a looming British menace. They fought admirably, but Napoleon should have been there. The one time he did go to Spain he won every battle, drove the British out of Iberia, and left, never to return thanks to a resurgent Austria.

Napoleon did allow flexibility for his marshals though, most evidently seen in the early campaigns of 1805-1807 and the invasion of Russia. He would give them an overarching order, and they would thus have operational freedom of how to carry out that order, as long as it did not directly contradict what he wished.

That's not what I'm talking about. He couldn't be everywhere at once, it was impossible because he was also trying to do everything on the home front as well. His problem was that he so often did everything himself, that there was no one else that could really do things the way he did them, so when he was forced to rely on someone else, it often ended disastrously, as at Waterloo.
 
Please do not forget Napoleon's role in the Haitian Revolution.
 
Wasn't the revolution the transition from Empire to Republic?
Transition from Monarchy to Republic, then to an Empire under Napoleon.

Napoleon and Hitler are compared in one very specific manner; they were both autocrats who dominated Europe, failed to bring Britain to heel and invaded Russia with disastrous results leading to their own downfall. Nothing else.

LiquidCommander, while I'm a fan of Napoleon myself, you're a pretty big fanboy for the guy, and don't seem very objective. You also don't really seem that knowledgeable about WWII and the events leading up to it. Hitler was never elected; he was appointed. Also, the Weimar Republic was not a fledgling democracy; it was a broken one. If not Hitler, someone would have turned that nation into a dictatorship. It's just unfortunate it was the Nazis and not, say, the Conservatives or Social Democrats who came to power.
 
Thousands of inocent people died in the French Revolution, not just the nobility, and even that was not justified
The revolution began when Napoleon was a young nobody. He didn't really have any part in the terror regime that was indeed, quite evil. Actually, he abhored the chaos and mob rule that had taken hold in France, and he was even concerned that he might be a victim himself, as he was also of nobility.
Sure, he did save the revolution, much much later. But that was a after the rule of terror had already been abolished.

Typical English bias towards Napoleon... amazing it still exists. You probably think he was really short too?

Sure, England was democratic, but in a way that made it elect warmongering politicians (Pitt) and conquer the world (The third world) Not much different than Napoleonic France, Britain just fought the blacks, so they weren't evil but Napoleon was...

Lord Baal said:
Napoleon and Hitler are compared in one very specific manner; they were both autocrats who dominated Europe
To be fair, who wasn't autocrats at that time? Who didn't dream of dominating Europe? Napoleon was more democratic in nature that 90% of the rulers at his time.
 
I'd argue Napoleon was populist more than democratic, but there weren't many democratic people around. Even England wasn't entirely sure how where representative thing was going. They more or less added democracy ad hoc by including more people in the decision making as those people got upset at the status quo. 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).
 
Most people probably only look at a map of the two empires and say "Oh hey they both conquered a lot of Europe, they must be exactly the same". Quite untrue obviously, but most people wouldn't bother to read any further on the matter.
 
To be fair, who wasn't autocrats at that time? Who didn't dream of dominating Europe? Napoleon was more democratic in nature that 90% of the rulers at his time.
The comparison comes from the fact that both were actually somewhat successful for a time, whereas most of the other autocrats who dreamed of dominating Europe failed quite miserably. Even Louis XIV, probably the monarch most comparable to Napoleon, never came close to achieving the proximate goal of dominating Western Europe, whereas Napoleon was dominant on the Continent.
 
Their pure success, combined with their quick fall of their land before/after death IMO.
 
Back
Top Bottom