Are Napoleon and Hitler the same?

Same: both are conquerors

Different: one is a strategist and the other is a war madman.

Both Napoleon and Hitler had outstanding military talents. He was an ambitious man. But I think Napoleon made more contributions than Hitler. After all, he defeated the countries that invaded France and enabled France to develop and grow. The war he conducted after that was unjust, but from an objective perspective Think about it from another perspective. He also accelerated the disintegration of the feudal systems of the countries he invaded, making these countries develop faster. Hitler, on the other hand, has no redeeming qualities at all. This is the difference between the two.

< p>They did bring what they needed to their citizens at first,

But they were all dictators. Especially Hitler, who was aggressive, while Napoleon started fighting for the French Revolution. , and later turned into a war of aggression.

They also have the most similar thing, that is, attacking Russia led to the annihilation of their own countries. It can be said that their defeat in Russia It was almost controlled by the weather.

They all started attacking in spring and summer, and they advanced all the way. None of them expected that winter would come back so quickly and violently.

In the end, Napoleon captured Moscow, but Hitler did not.

Napoleon fought for the results of the French Revolution

Hitler fought to conquer the world and enslave the people of all countries.

Napoleon was admired by the world, while Hitler was a pathological war maniac. France under Napoleon was not completely wiped out. Napoleon's descendants once again ruled France, and Napoleon III was a descendant of Napoleon.

And Hitler's Third Reich was completely wiped out. Another point is that Hitler's propaganda is very similar to that of the Jews. He believes that they are the only ones who are excellent and have the right to exist, while other nations and races are inferior. This offended the whole world. The Jews were displaced. Hitler was wiped out. If you dare to declare in public that you are the best and others only deserve to be dominated by you, you will suffer the same fate as Hitler.

Napoleon's military career was full of contradictions and unpredictable changes. His tactical commanding genius is amazing. If judged from this aspect alone, he may be regarded as the greatest general beyond time and space. But from a major strategic point of view, he was prone to making eye-popping blind mistakes, such as the invasion of Arab Egypt, the Soviet Union, and Russia. Napoleon's strategic mistakes were so serious that he was not a first-rate general. Is this assessment unfair? I don't think so. There is no doubt that one of the criteria for evaluating a general's greatness is his ability to avoid causing heavy casualties. It is therefore not controversial to judge the greatest generals like Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane because their armies never lost a battle. Napoleon was ultimately defeated, and the territories he conquered abroad were blown away like clouds in the sky. After his final defeat in 1815, the French Republic occupied less territory than when the revolution broke out in 1789.

There is no doubt that Napoleon was an extreme egoist. He is often compared to Hitler, but there are extremely important differences between the two. Hitler was largely a hysterical maniac, while Napoleon was an ambitious opportunist who had no particular interest in sensational massacres. Napoleon's rule cannot be compared with the Nazi concentration camps in any aspect.

Napoleon's reputation is so great that people tend to overestimate his influence. His influence in the short term was indeed great, perhaps greater than Alexander the Great, although far less than Hitler (it is estimated that nearly 500,000 French and French soldiers died in the Napoleonic Wars, and in World War II 8 million Germans died). In any case, Napoleon's activities were far less numerous than Hitler's and had an impact on the lives of his contemporaries.

In terms of long-term impact, Napoleon seems to be more important than Hitler, but not as important as Alexander. Napoleon carried out extensive political reforms in the French Republic, but the population of the French Republic was less than one-seventieth of the world's population, so such political reforms must be viewed truthfully. Judging from the impact on the personal lives of the French Republic, his reforms were far inferior to the unprecedented political reforms that have occurred in the past two centuries.

It is said that the Napoleonic era provided an opportunity to consolidate the achievements of the French Revolution and ensure the vested interests of the French capitalist class. Therefore, when the monarchy of the French Republic was finally restored in 1815, these changes had been so deeply rooted in the hearts of the people that it was simply impossible to restore the social order of the old system. But the most important changes occurred before Napoleon, and by the time Napoleon came to power in 1799 it seemed too late to return to the original state of things. Despite Napoleon's own ambitions to establish a monarchy, he played a role in spreading the ideals of the French Revolution throughout Europe.

Napoleon also had a huge indirect impact on the history of Latin America. His invasion of Spain weakened the Spanish government, preventing it from controlling its colonies in Latin America for several years.

It was during this period of de facto autonomy that Latin American independence movements began.

Napoleon made a deal that seemed to have nothing to do with his main intentions, but it became the one thing that had the most lasting and significant impact in his life. That is, in 1803, Napoleon sold a vast land to the United States. He recognized that it must be very difficult to defend the lands occupied by the French Republic in North America from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and he was short of funds. The Louisiana Compact was perhaps the largest land transfer in all of history, making the United States a country nearly the size of a continent. Without the Louisiana Compact, it is difficult to predict what the United States would have looked like, and it would certainly be very different from the United States today. Indeed, without the Louisiana Compact, it is difficult to say whether the United States could have become a major power.

Of course Napoleon was not the only factor that led to the signing of the Louisiana Compact. The U.S. government obviously also played a certain role. However, the French Republic asked for a very low price. It seemed that no matter which U.S. government was willing to do this business, the decision of the French Republic to sell the Louisiana Territory was only made by Napoleon alone. .

In short, Napoleon had both merits and demerits, but his merits outweighed his faults.