Napoleon or Hitler?

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,237
#81
Hitler had no formal schooling in war. His experience was that of a corporal in WW1
Not even that according to recent research. He was never promoted beyond Private nor won a medal - the action for which apparently was conducted by his Jewish C/O. The 'Corporal' idea appears to have been invented by Nazi propaganda to avoid a completely belittling image of him - or possibly to equate him with Napoleon?
 
Jun 2019
40
St.Petersburg
#82
Both leaders had talented generals and highly motivated soldiers, both lost due to lack of resources and political miscalculations. But they had complely different ideology and domestic policy.
 
Mar 2016
1,116
Australia
#85
During invasion of Russia - definitely yes.
That's his own fault for thinking you can march an army of 700,000 men into Russia in the pre-industrial age. It was simply impossible and entirely of his own doing. Had he invaded with a much smaller army, like 100,000 or even 150,000 thousand, he would not have suffered from the same resource shortage (at least not to the extreme he did).
 
Likes: Gvelion

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,093
#86
That's his own fault for thinking you can march an army of 700,000 men into Russia in the pre-industrial age. It was simply impossible and entirely of his own doing. Had he invaded with a much smaller army, like 100,000 or even 150,000 thousand, he would not have suffered from the same resource shortage (at least not to the extreme he did).
And been quickly betaen by the Russian 1st and 2nd armies of the west with some 300,000 troops.

A better thoery woudl have been an army of some 300,000 and the Russians would have given him a battle without the who advancing deep into Russia. Napoloen WANTED a battel on the fornteirs, but brought such a large armythe only logical response by the Russian was withdrawal, which they did. He did not plan for the logical outcome of his actions.
 

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,538
#88
Napoleon was a deeply flawed man, but judged purely on his military accomplishments he is rightly ranked as one of the great captains of history.

Hitler on the other hand was bumbling buffoon on most matters pertaining to strategy. He wasn't without some success, but his record had far many more disastrous failures. His policies, both political and military, also left his country a conquered ruin, split in two by the powers that vanquished it. That is quite literally the worst possible state for any world leader to leave his country, and it was entirely his doing.

The only area where Hitler surpassed Napoleon was in being a genocidal maniac.
 

Similar History Discussions