Napoleon invaded and occupied his neighbours, and almost every state in Europe. So did Hitler. Both men also sought to gain a foothold in North Africa.
Napoleon usurped the traditional rulers of the states he occupied and put his cronies - or family members - in their place. Hitler used a system of Nazi Party gauletiers and protektors to rule his conquered territories.
Both men looted the art and cultural treasures of the countries they invaded.
Both men sought to impose a 'European system' of trade and government on their conquered territories - a common currency was one of the measures they both sought to impose.
Napoleon renamed as artificial political creations many of the areas he reconquered - e.g. the 'Kingdom of Westphalia', the 'Grand Duchy of Warsaw', the 'Kingdom of Italy'. Hitler renamed Poland the 'General Government', Austria was renamed Ostmark, and Czechoslovakia was split into Bohemia and Moravia. He also sponsored the establishment of a 'Kingdom of Croatia' with a member of the Italian Royal family reigning as King Tomislav III.
Both Napoleon and Hitler used allies and collaborators in the lands they conquered - in Napoleon's time, those seduced by the promises of the French Revolution; in Hitler's time those openly fascist or anti-semitic.
Both Hitler and Napoleon invaded Russia.
Both Hitler and Napoleon surrounded themselves with low-born opportunists who were nothing under the previous regimes in their respective countries.
Both men targeted the native aristocracies and clergy of their countries.
And to be a little parochial for a moment - Irish republicans sided with both dictators.
Quite. Similarly, Hitler was not too worked-up about invading Britain, yet there are no prizes for guessing what would have happened had it not been for the successful evacuation at Dunkirk and 'the Few' of the RAF.
Too true to. His idea of Liebenstraum (spelling please?!) didn't leave him enough time to deal with Britain. Which brings up another interesting point, the European idea of 'Living Space' in the East wasn't new to Hitler, it's quite psosible that Napoleon was quite keen on it too.
Hitler got inspiration from many sources;Wagnarian music for one.Not having to work,due to a large orphans pension(funnily enough,ditto for Mussolini),he used to while away many hours in the theater and opera houses of Vienna.Apparently he watched Wagner at every opportunity,and according to a close friend....one of the very few who survived Hitlers purges,Herrenbloke be warned!.....it was after being mesmerised by the music, decided there and then that he was going to become a great and famous man.
Fantastic,yes,but Hitler was a dreamer,this was a man who would buy a lottery ticket,go to the furniture store,order half the shop,and sink into deep depression when his number didnÂ´t come up..cnut!
He also copied Mussolini,pinching his gestures and faschist salute;Heil Imperator!;Adolfs greeting to el Duce;his response,Heil Impersonator!!!
There are apparently,over 200,000 works,books and other publications on Â´Onkel Adi`.Take your pick,its just a pity that he didnÂ´t copy a suicidal maniac,in the Â´20s,and saved the world the results of his fantasies.
And please,no replies of....at least the trains run on time.
P.S.Hitler firmly believed that Germany lost the war,because of the lack of discipline, that their reluctance to shoot `cowards`lead to their downfall.Hitler was one of a very small group of J.NCOs,to receive the Iron Cross 1st class,though he never explained how or why,it seems Hitler found his niche in warfare.The EK 2nd class was awarded to,I believe, about 5% of the troops.
As a result of this,it is known that during WW2,over 200,000,soldiers,homeguard,sleeping radio operators,basically anybody at anytime could be dragged out and shot or hanged at a whim and with no or very little recourse to law.BNP anybody?
P.S.Hitler firmly believed that Germany lost the war,because of the lack of discipline, that their reluctance to shoot `cowards`lead to their downfall.Hitler was one of a very small group of J.NCOs,to receive the Iron Cross 1st class,though he never explained how or why,it seems Hitler found his niche in warfare.
In the book Trail Sinister by the British journalist Sefton Delmer, there is an account of Hitler explaining how he won his EK1. Delmer got to know Hitler and other leading Nazis personally in the 1930's and accompained Hitler during one of his election campaigns. During that time at dinner Hitler recounted how he won his EK1. His version was something like he was sent to deliver a message and on his way came across a group of French soldiers and single-handed captured them.
Of course this story can be taken with a pinch of salt as Hitler was a bit of a Walt. Appartently when he told the story to French politicians and journos, he says he captured a group of English soldiers.
Too true to. His idea of Lebensraum didn't leave him enough time to deal with Britain. Which brings up another interesting point, the European idea of 'Living Space' in the East wasn't new to Hitler, it's quite psosible that Napoleon was quite keen on it too.
Although revisionists now state;the Germans COULD NOT have invaded Britain,because they didnÂ´t have enough supplies,stating even that they didnÂ´t have enough cigarettes!!!!!!Makes my sh*t itch,had they invaded, IÂ´m sure they would not have stopped for a smoke break .And this drivel from the lips of academia and military,.....scary.
Had the RAF and land defences collapsed,the Hun would have been over the channel,like a soon to be devoloped rocket.They would have taken what they needed.Had Germany invaded the UK the Yanks would have had nowhere to fight from.This was probably Hitlers first really big blunder,the second,turning around ,still badly equipped,and of course still no ciggies in sight,turned like Napoleon before him,towards Russia.
Had Hitler been inspired by a Chinaman called Confuscious,who quite cleary said that you should learn from the mistakes of others,Hitler could have strengthened his defences and blockaded the UK,perhaps into submission.......grim thought.But no, not Adolf,straight to Russia and the consequences,millions of dead and wounded,and the eventual invasion from both sides.
Had Napoleon and Hitler,not invaded Russia,they would have gone from strength to strength.Good Drills......God we were Lucky!
Midnight.......the man with too much time on his hands
Purely focussing on Napoleon and Hitler as military strategists... I think they had almost identical strengths and weaknesses.
1. Boldness. Both successfully defeating continental rivals, invading Russia as far as Moscow.
2. Vision. Bonapartism and National Socialism provided them with coherent expansionist ideologies.
3. Forward, modern thinking. Napoleon's use of light cavalry; Hitler's use of panzers and air power in blitzkrieg.
4. Understanding of the soldier's mentality. Both had been soldiers, Napoleon an artillery officer, Hitler an NCO in the Infantry.
5. Popularity. Energy in cultivating public opinion through propaganda kept many loyal right up to the bitter end.
1. Grandiose ideas. Over-ambition and reluctance to relinquish territory or order retreats until too late.
2. Going it alone. Lack of drive in cultivating useful allies and excessive brutality towards enemies.
3. Ignorance of the importance of naval power and maritime trade.
4. Imbalance. Overemphasis on the power of charismatic leadership in winning wars and under-emphasis on logistical planning and economic strategy.
5. Tendency to channel resources into elites - Napoleon's Imperial Guard and Hitler's SS - to the detriment of other forces.
Both Napoleon and Hitler had good records as soldiers, perhaps blinding their adherents to their shortcomings as strategists.