Why do people compare Napoleon to Hitler?

[UN Spacy]

To those who might want to see the other side of the coin of Napoleon, instead of being spoonfed that he “loved war” and was a bloodthirsty tyrant, I invite you to read several books, both by a man named Ben Weider who was legendary in his knowledge of Napoleon. He was also one of the strong advocates that Napoleon died of arsenic poisoning (which is true).

-Napoleon: the Man Who Shaped Europe
-Wars Against Napoleon: Debunking the Myth of the Napoleonic Wars

And also this: CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF NAPOLEON

All of that was written by Ben Weider (or at least most of it) and you’ll find that yes, he is blatantly positively biased of Napoleon. But that’s only because he’s trying to counter the equally blatant negative bias that Napoleon’s name has constantly been getting even while he was alive, to provide a balance and let people see the other side of the story.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@UN:

@Zhukov44:

Hitler probably enjoyed being compared to Napoleon….no reason to hold that against Napoleon…

Both men were short, both men conquered Europe, both men engaged in prolonged war with United Kingdom, and for both men, their greatest error was trying to conquer Russia.

Hitler was 5’9. Napoleon was 5’6. =|

Also, it is very hard to provide any evidence that Hitler was not responsible for WWII, but it can be debated that Napoleon never started any war, even the invasion of Russia. I could debate it here, but that’s not the point; the point is people can argue that Britain started the Napoleonic Wars just as easily as saying Napoleon did (and, to be honest, the evidence is against Britain).

Well, I guess you can argue that Russia started that war since they pulled out from the continental system.

And you can argue that Hitler wasn’t responsible for WW2: someone on here said that Hitler only invaded Poland; the Brits and French made it a world war by declaring war

[Emperor_Taiki]

@UN:

All of that was written by Ben Weider (or at least most of it) and you’ll find that yes, he is blatantly positively biased of Napoleon. But that’s only because he’s trying to counter the equally blatant negative bias that Napoleon’s name has constantly been getting even while he was alive, to provide a balance and let people see the other side of the story.

i dont think biased info+biased info = actual info.

Alot of people say the allies in the first world war planted the seeds for world war 2 with abusive peace treaties. I am not saying I agree with that, but it counters your point that Hitler was the sole cause of WW2.

I mean I think we can leave it at: 1.Napoleon didnt murder millions of people 2. Napoleon’s ideals were at the very least no more absurd than those of his enemies.

Otherwise, like Julius Ceaser and many more before them they were both great conquerors though their ambition and confidence got the better of them.

[UN Spacy]

@Emperor_Taiki:

@UN:

All of that was written by Ben Weider (or at least most of it) and you’ll find that yes, he is blatantly positively biased of Napoleon. But that’s only because he’s trying to counter the equally blatant negative bias that Napoleon’s name has constantly been getting even while he was alive, to provide a balance and let people see the other side of the story.

i dont think biased info+biased info = actual info.

Alot of people say the allies in the first world war planted the seeds for world war 2 with abusive peace treaties. I am not saying I agree with that, but it counters your point that Hitler was the sole cause of WW2.

I mean I think we can leave it at: 1.Napoleon didnt murder millions of people 2. Napoleon’s ideals were at the very least no more absurd than those of his enemies.

Otherwise, like Julius Ceaser and many more before them they were both great conquerors though their ambition and confidence got the better of them.

How is the Napoleonic Code (which had equality of all in the eyes of the law, no recognition of privileges of birth [i.e. noble rights inherited from ancestors], freedom of religion, separation of the church and the state, the freedom to work in an occupation of one’s choice, and other basic legal rights) as absurd as the traditionalist, absolute monarchy ideals that most of Europe still went by at that time?

Well, I guess you can argue that Russia started that war since they pulled out from the continental system.

It’s a little more complicated than Russia simply pulling from the continental system. I could PM you a little more detailed reason if you’d like.

Alot of people say the allies in the first world war planted the seeds for world war 2 with abusive peace treaties. I am not saying I agree with that, but it counters your point that Hitler was the sole cause of WW2.

He was a major reason why it began however. Nazi aggression into Czechoslovakia, Austria and Poland might have been influenced from the harsh Treaty of Versailles, but it is not the same as Napoleon fighting a series of defensive coalitions instigated by Britain.

[calvinhobbesliker]

Umm, the Napoleonic Code didn’t have equality for women. Yes, it was better that other European countries’ though.

Yes, I’d like the PM.

So you agree that the coalitions were DEFENSIVE. What’s wrong with that? Do you prefer them to let their countries get invaded.

[UN Spacy]

@calvinhobbesliker:

Umm, the Napoleonic Code didn’t have equality for women. Yes, it was better that other European countries’ though.

Unfortunately it did not. But Napoleon opened schools for education for girls, whereas in that time they’re usually homeschooled and taught by their mother.

So you agree that the coalitions were DEFENSIVE. What’s wrong with that? Do you prefer them to let their countries get invaded.

What’s wrong with it is that people assume that every war Napoleon fought was sheerly because out of a maniacal lust to conquer and plunder. Napoleon, after the Treaty of Amiens with Britain, never had any intentions of invading any more countries: he was far too pressed to rebuilding France from more than a decade of war, internal strife, and violent Revolution. The British government, unfortunately, had other plans.

[calvinhobbesliker]

Both sided violated that treaty, which led to war(sort of like the Treaty of Versailles)

Here is what wikipedia says: However, many problems persisted between the two sides, making implementation of the treaty increasingly difficult. The British government resented having to turn over all colonial conquests since 1793. Napoleon was angry that British troops had not evacuated the island of Malta.  The tense situation only worsened when Napoleon sent an expeditionary force to crush the Haitian Revolution.  In May 1803, Britain declared war on France.

[UN Spacy]

@calvinhobbesliker:

Both sided violated that treaty, which led to war(sort of like the Treaty of Versailles)

Here is what wikipedia says: However, many problems persisted between the two sides, making implementation of the treaty increasingly difficult. The British government resented having to turn over all colonial conquests since 1793. Napoleon was angry that British troops had not evacuated the island of Malta.  The tense situation only worsened when Napoleon sent an expeditionary force to crush the Haitian Revolution.  In May 1803, Britain declared war on France.

Napoleon did not violate the Treaty of Amiens in any way. Him sending troops to Haiti had nothing to do with the Treaty. One of the major clauses of the treaty was for Britain to evacuate Malta,  while French troops were to be evacuated from Naples, Taranto and the Roman states within three months; they left in under two. Months passed and Britain still had not evacuated Malta.

So excuse after excuse was thrown out by Britain for their justification of violating the Treaty:

-Bonaparte sending troops to Haiti (which I explained above)
-France annexing Piedmont (Piedmont was willingly annexed; Bonaparte invited its king to return to the throne but he declined; fearing a power vacumn being filled by Austria, Napoleon simply annexed it, which satisfied the Piedmontese)
-France having troops in Holland (that was under a separate treaty, the Treaty of Luneville, not Amiens; plus Napoleon had promised to evacuate but as Britain prepared for war he kept them there)
-France having troops in Switzerland (again, not part of the Treaty of Amiens: and how did French troops in Switzerland directly threaten an invasion of Britain?)

Take everything you see on Wikipedia with a grain of salt. Everything I posted above is sourced from books and the online chronological table by Ben Weider.

[calvinhobbesliker]

Hmm, apparently I misunderstood the situation. Brits went to war because they were unhappy with the treaty, for good reasons. You may argue that the harsh treaty of Versailles didn’t justify the German annexation of Czechoslovakia. I agree that Britain and France should’ve gone to war then. Just like the people of Austria wanted to become German, the people of Malta wanted to stay British.

You take Wiki with a grain of salt? Take your own book with the White Cliffs of Dover.

[UN Spacy]

@calvinhobbesliker:

Hmm, apparently I misunderstood the situation. Brits went to war because they were unhappy with the treaty, for good reasons. You may argue that the harsh treaty of Versailles didn’t justify the German annexation of Czechoslovakia. I agree that Britain and France should’ve gone to war then. Just like the people of Austria wanted to become German, the people of Malta wanted to stay British.

You take Wiki with a grain of salt? Take your own book with the White Cliffs of Dover.

I do not, because Ben Weider cannot be edited at will, nor does Vincent Cronin or R.F. Delderfield. Unlike Wikipedia their books are far more well sourced and from people that are experts in the field. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a Napoleonic expert.

Brits went to war because they were unhappy with the treaty**, for good reasons.**

:?

[calvinhobbesliker]

UN, do you agree or disagree that:
1. He wanted to reinstate slavery in Haiti
2. He plundered conquered nations

[Razor]

Similarities between Hitler and Napoleon:

1. They wanted to reinstate slavery
2. They plundered conquered nations
3. They startet wars against England and Russia
4. They were atheists and anti-Christs
5. They were killed by poison, Napoleon by arsenic and Hitler by cyanid.
6. They were born in other countries than they would become rulers. Napoleon in Corsica/France, Hitler in Austria/Germany.
6. They were both evil and murdered millions.
7. They had funny hats
8. They were racists
9. They ruined the old order and shaped Europa
10. They were great architects and build lots of monuments.
11. They were both 5’something tall
12. They were born on mondays, and died on wednesdays

[calvinhobbesliker]

Hitler being an atheist is debatable. I also thought there was only one anti-christ, and that it was Obama.

[special forces]

@Razor:

4. They were atheists and anti-Christs

It’s gonna be hard to be both atheist and anti-christ  :-P

[UN Spacy]

@Razor:

Similarities between Hitler and Napoleon:

1. They wanted to reinstate slavery

Napoleon did not “want” to reinstate slavery in Haiti. It’s important to remember that at that time, France had already been dealing with a slave rebellion in the colony of Saint-Domingue (Haiti) when Napoleon became head of state. Toussaint Louverture had led the island in an uprising and seized power. Bonaparte at first agreed to have Toussaint’s nation a sort of Protectorat, and named him captain general in March 1801. Very quickly, however, Toussaint was very violent and dictatorial, which endangered the colony. A French force landed on the island in January 1802 to stabilize the situation.

So the key here is not to know the outcome of this affair, but the conditions that made the intervention happen. The French navy, which controlled the colonies, recommended the expedition. Sugar and coffee traders pressed Bonaparte to reestablish slavery, abolishing the convention of 1794. He refused.

So in the spring of 1802 the situation shifted to the Antilles. The Treaty of Amiens, signed on March 25, 1802 with Britain, gave back France Martinique and Guadeloupe.

So THAT was the problem. Because the British had occupied it, Martinique had not benefited from the previous abolition measure. The competition between the two islands had been shifted to Guadeloupe’s disadvantage, to the point of provoking a collapse in production and an extremely serious social crisis that was resolved with much difficulty.

Bonaparte’s first thought was to give it in turn the benefits of abolition. The navy and business circles was strongly against this. The neighboring British colonies had remained slave economies, and so the same cause would produce the same ill-fated effects in Martinique. Bonaparte therefore tried to find a solution by maintaining the status quo on Martinique, but the Senate vetoed this in the same of the sacrosanct “republican” equality.

So Napoleon found himself with a terrible dilemma, a choice between cholera and the plague, between misery in economic chaos and a return to some form of slavery. He shouldered his responsibilities as a statesman and chose the 2nd decision advocated by the government.

Can one in good faith criticize Napoleon for having chosen the lesser evil? He is less guilty of slavery than the king of England or the tsar of Russia, who did not abolish slavery in their colonies or serfdom in Europe. Napoleon at least suppressed serfdom in Poland in 1807, and during 1815 he proposed to abolish slavery.

As for Guadeloupe, Bonaparte shared the responsibility for this decision with the representatives of the people who voted without soul-searching to reestablish slavery.

2.

They plundered conquered nations

“Plundered” means two very different things to them. Hitler “plundered” by trying to erase the Polish culture and establish German colonization of Eastern Europe. Napoleon “plundered” in 1796 on the explicit orders of his government, while he was in command of the Army of Italy. Even then, he made sure to take only what he was authorized to. Further, Napoleon sought to minimze the damage of war: during the siege of Mantua he proposed that all artistic monuments in the town, along with the university, should be protected by an agreed flag. (No, he did not do that just to take them for his government when the fortress fell: they were never removed.)

3. They startet wars against England and Russia

Britain violated the Treaty of Amiens while Bonaparte abided by every clause of the treaty. Even within the British government there was opposition to Britain’s war-like intentions.  From 1803 to 1815, every conflict in Europe all stemmed from the war with Britain, which it started alone. As for Russia: Hitler made an alliance with with the Soviets so as not to fight her too early and to give him a free hand in Western Europe. The USSR also got half of Poland in the deal, something the Russians have always wanted. Napoleon, on the other hand, wanted to turn Russia into a staunch ally, and that is something that Tsar Alexander would never be. Hitler abruptly invaded the USSR on June 22, 1941. Napoleon did not. Alexander decided on war with France as early as 1810 and Napoleon’s plans went far beyond a sudden invasion.

4. They were atheists and anti-Christs

Napoleon was not atheist. If that was the case, he would not have completed a Concordat with the Pope and he would not have tried to re-establish religion in France after it was turned on its ear in the Revolution. He was raised Catholic and throughout his life believed in a supreme being. He was not as religious as many heads of state were at that time, but that doesn’t mean he was atheist.

Anti-Christs? I could never take Nostradamus seriously. He was a mad prophet, nothing more. He got just as many things wrong as he got right (and he only got those things right because he was being very broad).

5. They were killed by poison, Napoleon by arsenic and Hitler by cyanid.

This I can agree on. Napoleon was indeed murdered by someone within his own entourage (not the British, despite what already displeased French historians don’t believe)

They were born in other countries than they would become rulers. Napoleon in Corsica/France, Hitler in Austria/Germany.

Napoleon was born a French subject, as Corscia was French at that time. Hitler was born in Austria, in a foreign country, not pat of the German Empire.

6. They were both evil and murdered millions.

If Napoleon was evil, why is the Napoleonic Code considered one of the most widespread legal documents in existance? It’s even in effect to modified forms in the Canadian province of Quebec and the state of Louisiana! It’s the basis of law for much of Western Europe. Why would European governments base their laws based off of an “evil” man? What lasting achievements did Hitler leave behind?

As for him killing millions: I tire of repeating myself. Napoleon was not the sole instigator of the Napoleonic Wars. Britain murdered when it bombarded Copenhagen (twice!) in 1800 and 1807.

7. They had funny hats

Napoleon’s bicorne hat wasn’t considered funny at that time. What funny hat did Hitler have?  :?

8. They were racists

See above on Haiti. Napoleon was not racist: he did not try to prove that the “French race” was superior to all others and deemed worthy of ruling Europe. He liberated the Jews and emancipated the Poles. To whom was he racist towards?

9. They ruined the old order and shaped Europa

Napoleon took no part in the early years of the French Revolution that “ruined the old order”. When he became head of state in 1799 he inherited not only the Revolution, but the wars that followed it. Hitler was a monster and established state sponsored, assembly line murder that destroyed over eleven million innocent souls. When he came to power he also abolished civil rights, destroyed the Weimar Republic, which was a fledgling democracy, and ruled by decree. Napoleon guaranteed the social gains of the Revolution upon assuming power in 1799 (having replaced the unpopular, corrupt, and inefficient Directory). 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.

10. They were great architects and build lots of monuments.

Napoleon built harbors, roads, canals, drained swamps, introduced smallpox vaccine to the continent, built no new palaces, though he did build memorials to the Grande Armee.

11. They were both 5’something tall

Nothing wrong with that. Most people are 5’something tall.

12. They were born on mondays, and died on wednesdays

facepalm

Well, I just hope the mods doesn’t view this as developing into a flame war. I’m just giving my points. No personal insults have flung around, especially not to good ol’ Razor  :-D

[calvinhobbesliker]

Umm, keep in mind that Britain was the 1st country to abolish the slave trade, in 1807.

How was Toussaint a violent dictator?

[UN Spacy]

@calvinhobbesliker:

Umm, keep in mind that Britain was the 1st country to abolish the slave trade, in 1807.

In February 1794 the French Convention formally abolished slavery.

How was Toussaint a violent dictator?

Well, the ‘liberation’ of the slaves is merely a name change. Under Toussaint and his crowd, the same jobs were done by the same people and not much changed overall. Toussaint was a talented individual, but a great ‘liberator’ he was not. He wanted to be in charge and didn’t change the overall situation in Haiti. Again, Bonaparte was perfectly content with having Haiti as a sort of protectorate under France, independent but reliant on her protection, but as I stated above, he was under pressure from the crop and naval circles of re-establishing slavery there.

[Emperor_Taiki]

@UN:

How is the Napoleonic Code (which had equality of all in the eyes of the law, no recognition of privileges of birth [i.e. noble rights inherited from ancestors], freedom of religion, separation of the church and the state, the freedom to work in an occupation of one’s choice, and other basic legal rights) as absurd as the traditionalist, absolute monarchy ideals that most of Europe still went by at that time?

Yah, thats my point.  Napoleon was a much better warlord who embraced the enlightenment, as opposed to Hitler who based his veiws of soceity on myth and racism.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@UN:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Umm, keep in mind that Britain was the 1st country to abolish the slave trade, in 1807.

In February 1794 the French Convention formally abolished slavery.

How was Toussaint a violent dictator?

Well, the ‘liberation’ of the slaves is merely a name change. Under Toussaint and his crowd, the same jobs were done by the same people and not much changed overall. Toussaint was a talented individual, but a great ‘liberator’ he was not. He wanted to be in charge and didn’t change the overall situation in Haiti. Again, Bonaparte was perfectly content with having Haiti as a sort of protectorate under France, independent but reliant on her protection, but as I stated above, he was under pressure from the crop and naval circles of re-establishing slavery there.

In May 1802, that abolition was revoked by Napoleon’s regime. In 1794, he wasn’t in power.

By the way, the British abolition of the slave trade applied to its colonies, since the British Isles had phased out slavery already.

[UN Spacy]

@calvinhobbesliker:

In May 1802, that abolition was revoked by Napoleon’s regime. In 1794, he wasn’t in power.

Yes. But that is because, as I stated above, he was forced to re-introduce some form of slavery to the colonies from the government he lead. He did not support slavery and did not want to see it re-introduced.

By the way, the British abolition of the slave trade applied to its colonies, since the British Isles had phased out slavery already.

Correct. But that is because Britain was an established nation. Its government has been largely unchanged for a long time. The French Republic, and later Empire, were relatively new countries. The fact that Napoleon gave political and religious freedom to Europeans that they hithero had felt should make up for that.

I think having a debate about which nation was more enlightened or nicer to the slaves is a bit moot. Both were the two most civilized countries in Europe, government or no government, and both were perfectly capable of bringing peace and order to the continent. That was certainly on Bonaparte’s mind in 1802. Not so much a certain William Pitt.