Napoleon or Hitler?

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,523
Japan
Well both are Unlikeable, dictators and egotistical.
But there is little else.

Napoleon was an aristocrat, trained to be an officer, clearly understood battlefield tactics though mediocre at best at diplomacy.

Hitler, might have been slightly better at diplomacy, but was essentially a jumped up corporal... never commanded more than a section?
 

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,523
Japan
Well. Arguably if you were a 1920s -30s German you’d say Hitler was inspirational.

There is a lot of viable comparisons between the two. Though as military commanders Napoleon is EPL while Hitler is Vauxhall Conference.
 
Nov 2017
2
Paris
I took the number from a French writer Claude Ribb who wrote Napoleon's Crimes: A Blueprint for Hitler (the number maybe wrong so corrects me please) but yeah anyway Napoleon was a mass murderer, I don't condemn him though, only the powerful are right.

But yeah he re-established slavery (for pragmatic reason ) but went too far I think .He is a great leader like Hitler, just had the wrong Goals in my humble opinion and shouldn't have tried to invade Russia.
 
Jan 2017
1,309
Durham
Hitler had no formal schooling in war. His experience was that of a corporal in WW1. He may have had some understanding of squad and platoon level tactics but nothing higher. He was widely read in history, but off the top of my head I don't recall reading that he was especially interested in military history (I could be wrong). He may have had some amateur level understanding of wartime economy and how raw materials are turned into weapons. In this regard he may have been a little smarter than his generals who rarely thought about crippling the enemy economy. His generals mostly only wanted to win on the battlefield. Hitler placed far too much hope in wonder weapons like the Tiger Tank, V-1, V-2, advanced U-boats, jet fighters, etc. He would have been better off producing more weapons of less complexity and greater reliability.

Napoleon was a far greater tactician and strategist. He was also a more inspiring leader. (Hitler's response to opposition was to throw a temper tantrum.) Napoleon was in many ways at his best when things were going wrong. He was back in old form for his campaign of 1814, right before his first abdication. Hitler was at his best only when things were already going well.
Hitler was not in any way, shape or form a military man. He was a political man who was a servant to dogma. Upon reading an idea, such as 'the will', he stuck to that rigidly and to his cost. It meant the Germans couldn't retreat, regroup and start again. According to Hitler, 'the will' would be enough to win through, which it never is.

'Long story short, he was a fool. Napoloen wasn't a fool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nina Beria
May 2019
14
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
There is no comparison in my view, between Adolf Hitler and Napoleon. Hitler had no military skill whatsoever, and was really only good at remembering facts and figures.

Napoleon was a good strategist, but sometimes his plans did not work out in the way he intended. Both of these men had a contempt for human life, and there, the comparison ends In my opinion.:)
Hello everyone! I totally agree. In addition to that, Hitler was one of the most successful charismatic leaders in history (for example, Stalin wasn't). Of course, we can talk like that about Bonaparte too, but I think he's more about being a military leader, as it's said in message I replied.
 
Mar 2016
1,222
Australia
Hello everyone! I totally agree. In addition to that, Hitler was one of the most successful charismatic leaders in history (for example, Stalin wasn't). Of course, we can talk like that about Bonaparte too, but I think he's more about being a military leader, as it's said in message I replied.
Well, Stalin's lack of charisma still saw him ruling for 30 years while Hitler ruled for only 12. I'd say that means charisma is a bit overrated in the long run.