Is Napoleon comparable to Hitler?

[Julie4]

[nightdrot]

Certainly, superficially, there are similarities. Not least in that both provoked a global war that made havoc in much of Europe.

That said, there is one crucial difference - and I say this as no admirer of Napoleon - that makes Bonaparte a great, if controversial, figure. While Hitler must be judged among one of the most evil men in history.

That difference is the philosophy that each man espoused and spread. Napoleon was spreading the ideas of the French Enlightenment and Revolution. While those ideas were flawed in certain crucial respects - indeed, in certain respects they conduced, unintentionally, to the Communist, Fascist and National Socialist philosophies that followed - they were on the whole noble and beneficial to man.

By contrast, National Socialism (and Communism and Fascism) were a reaction against Napoleon's ideals. Born in the collapse of Western self-confidence at the end of World War I. National Socialism, unlike the Napoleonic ideals, saw man as mere raw material. A product of forces - in the National Socialist case, the war between the races - that essentially de-humanized man.

Napoleonic theory, on the other hand, sought to give expression to the ideal of humanity. Man as a noble and rational being. Its' flaw being that it sought to prefabricate society according to an a priori image of the rational. Thus making the mistake of attributing to man a primacy of human reason over human nature.

To be sure, like Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin, Napoleon's actions resulted in much misery and bloodshed. In my view it is insufficient to dismiss that on the basis of the nobility of his (in my view mistaken) ideals. However, they do make Napoleon distinct from - and a more noble figure than - Hitler.

[Julie4]

Although I don't agree on everything, I really like the opinion you have on this subject.

Honestly, I have a hard time understanding our era which consists in comparing all the people we don't like to Hitler.

I have even seen people who compare Trump to Hitler, I find that really scandalous. Has the ignorance of history become so great that some people can dare to make such a comparison?

I must absolutely make you read a short text that Napoleon made, and another thing on Napoleon as soon as I have found them.

[nightdrot]

Well thank you.

Funny you should mention the Hitler-Trump comparison. Take a look at my response to this question that was posted about 2 weeks ago:

Is trump the new hitler? ↗

Hope all is well.

[Julie4]

Here is a portrait of Napoleon done by a French conservative and great opponent of Napoleon.

"Disproportionate in everything, but even stranger, not only is he out of line, but he is out of frame; in temperament, instincts, faculties, imagination, passions, morals, he seems cast in a mold apart, composed of a different metal from his fellow citizens and contemporaries. Obviously, he is neither a Frenchman, nor a man of the eighteenth century; he belongs to another race and another age."

"Far from reassuring me by seeing Bonaparte more often, he intimidated me more every day. I felt confusedly that no emotion of the heart could act on him. He looks at a human creature as a fact or a thing, and not as a fellow man.

He does not hate any more than he loves, there is only him for him; all the rest of the creatures are figures. The strength of his will consists in the imperturbable calculation of his egoism; he is a skilful gambler, of whom mankind is the opposing side, which he proposes to checkmate... Every time I heard him speak, I was struck by his superiority; it had no relation to that of educated men cultivated by study and society, such as France and England can offer examples. But his speeches indicated the tact of circumstances, as the hunter has that of his prey...

I felt in his soul like a cold and sharp sword that chilled by wounding; I felt in his mind a deep irony from which nothing great or beautiful could escape, not even his own glory, for he despised the nation whose votes he wanted..." - Everything was for him a means or an end; the involuntary was nowhere to be found, neither in the good nor in the bad..." No law for him, no ideal and abstract rule; "he examined the things only under the report of their immediate utility; a general principle displeased him like a nonsense or like an enemy".

This portrait will give you one more reason to dislike this man 🤣

[nightdrot]

Hi - Yeah, you can tell the writer is definitely not in the Napoleon fan club, that's for sure. Kind of reminds me of that George Will column I sent you a while back.

If it helps. the critique here seems to focus more on Napoleon's personal characteristics. That is fair game, but the essence of my critique - as I alluded to above - is more the philosophy that Napoleon was spreading, Grant again while not objectionable in the mode of National Socialism (or Fascism or Communism for that matter,) I do think it was and is profoundly flawed and has had serious implications for Western civilization.

Indeed, in terms of personal characteristics, it is arguable that Hitler and Napoleon, though not exactly alike, were not dissimilar. (See also from above: "... there is only him for him; all the rest of the creatures are figures.") Certainly in the military realm their methods were VERY similar.

That all said, whatever my objections to Napoleon - and they are considerable - he is not Hitlerian. To be sure he is no saint, but whatever else, he did what he did in part out of French nationalism in the classic sense. This differentiating him from Hitler who defined race and nation as the same thing - they are not.

[Julie4]

Yes that it is certain, however Napoleon personally do not adhere to the philosophers of the Enlightenment, moreover he will show himself very critical towards Rousseau, Voltaire etc, he will say on the subject of the revolution "it to see what there is of real and possible in the application of these principles, and not what there is of speculative and hypothetical. "One does not govern with metaphysics but with the results of the experience of centuries." .

But yes for political reasons it will use the ideals of the revolution although during his reign it was very far from having what had dreamed the revolutionaries.

In reality Napoleon will try to reconcile the France of the old regime with the "new France".

However one can indeed make full of criticism towards Napoleon and believe it or not there are full of things that I disapprove in him. But my god if this man was Hitler I would not like him.

Yes I also thought a lot about George Will's criticism haha, however contrary to Mr. Will, Hippolyte Taine recognizes at least one great quality to Napoleon as you could read it, it is the intellectual superiority of Napoleon which impressed him a lot, lol.

[nightdrot]

We'll have to pick this up at another time, but I would argue that whatever his protestations to the contrary, Napoleon was more a prisoner of the ideas and figures he criticized then he seemed to realize. Else he would not have taken the course that he did.

Just one more thing. There is nothing in the Will column that I recall in which he denigrates Napoleon's intellect. Correct me if I am wrong, but I looked at the column again and I don't see anything there that disparages Napoleon's intelligence.

Anyhow, gotta run. Hope all is well.

[Julie4]

Answer this when you can or don't answer at all, I know you are very busy.

In fact you are doubly right. Will does not criticize Napoleon's intelligence, what I meant was that Taine recognizes at least one quality in him lol.

And in fact yes Napoleon will be prisoner of the French revolution, because indirectly it is only thanks to it that he arrived at the power. As the French writer Jacques Bainville (another conservative French author) said, whose books I recommend you will surely become a great fan of him, Napoleon is the heir of the wars of the revolution.

Bainville wrote "he had asked for recruits to "finish the war of the Revolution". It is the wish of the French. It is also their illusion, and their new leader shares it. Peace, but with natural limits, without which it would not be "solid". Bonaparte is a prisoner of this program. "

"The conservation of the conquests, it was there that Bonaparte was expected. That is where we will always wait for him. France will allow him to "postpone" the situation until 1814. It will renew this credit to him in 1815. It is not necessary that he is beaten. Otherwise, he would be "liquidated". These terms from the stock market game apply exactly to his story. As soon as one doubts his success, as soon as his defeat seems possible, the liquidators stir up and come forward. "

To conclude, Bainville writes: "Except for glory, except for "art", it would probably have been better if he had not existed. All things considered, his reign, which, according to Thiers, continued the Revolution, ended in an appalling failure. His genius prolonged, at great expense, a game lost in advance. So many victories, so many conquests (that he had not begun), why? To return below the point from which the warlike Republic had left, where Louis XVI had left France, to abandon the natural borders, filed in the museum of dead doctrines. "

[nightdrot]

Actually, I don't have a lot to add, although Bainville is a bit harsh when he says it would have been better if Napoleon had not existed - after all, maybe we would have gotten worse in that event - I think he is spot on. Yes indeed, I'll have to buy his book.

As to the point about Napoleon's intellect. No disagreement. Say what you will, it is possible to disagree with Napoleon and still recognize his strengths. His military victories, his seizure of power, the Code Napoleon. These were not the product of a third rate intellect. A misdirected one perhaps, but neither I, nor Mr. Will nor Mr. Bainville would question that Napoleon was an intelligent man.

Indeed, in human history, it has not been unknown that superior intellect leads to superior ambition. Hubris - and sometimes therefore disaster - to follow.

One other thing. Read Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" and you will get where I am "comin' from," so to speak. That said, I do not doubt that he is, in many respects, to France what George Washington or Abraham Lincoln was to the USA. So while I disagree with what Napoleon did and wrought, please know that I do not, in the same breath, disrespect France.

Even the greatest heroes have their flaws. Some worse than others, to be sure. Still, there is no doubt the many great things France has done and its contributions to Western civilization - even if sometimes the methods or even the goals were mistaken. It's a funny old world, but sometimes good things follow bad outcomes.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

France is an interesting country. The UK and the USA are creedal states - that is states united by the acceptance, often unconscious as not, by its' citizens of certain ideas. Other states are national states. That is that they are defined by a common national or ethnic - or sometimes even racial - identity.

France is actually a bit of both. Defined first by the French language and culture - a national identity. Then defined by adherence to a set of ideals such as French revolutionary and Napoleonic doctrines. Some of those, in my view, may be mistaken, but on the whole they have built a proud and impressive country.

That is nothing to sneeze at. Especially when compared to similar states - see also the horrors that are Russia/USSR and China. Say what one will, France has been a net plus to the West, and that deserves respect. Thoughtful respect - but respect nonetheless.

[Julie4]

I think we have said everything about Napoleon. For Mr. Bainville I advise you his book that he wrote just after the first world war, "The political consequences of peace".

Just for information I must tell you that I am a big fan of Lincoln who is for me the greatest president in the history of the United States. I think many Americans will disagree with me 😅

For the rest I thank you for these nice thoughts for France , however I concluded that the Anglo-Saxons are much more pragmatic and intelligent than France , that's why France ended up losing and the Anglo-Saxons dominated the world. History is like that, we can't change it lol.

[nightdrot]

Two things. First, you are being too hard on your own country. There are a million variables that brought history and France to where it is. Not all of them - or even most of them - under France's control.

As for Lincoln, funny you should ask:

The Greatest U. S. Presidents of All Time? ↗

See my answer. It got an MHO. You are sooooooo smart!!! Cheers!

[Sixgunsound]

I think that people who take a surface reading of both men, such as that which politically motivated public schools provide, would see only similarities. In the modern era anybody that is disliked by the speaker becomes similar to Hitler, in a reflexive reaction that requires little argumentative ability or intelligent thought. It is the default way of admitting one's argument is worthless or that the speaker has reached the limit of their capacity for intelligent discussion. Looking deeper however, is not something which modern young people with attention spans similar to goldfish are often willing to do. National Socialism seeks destruction in many forms, where Napoleon's ideas actually had some positive aspects. I apologize for not having the ability to properly articulate my thoughts tonight, spending so much time at university has actually made me less able to discuss history and political philosophy. Perhaps after some more time away that situation will improve.

[Julie4]

Yes, this is exactly the problem of our time. Especially Napoleon never made a hierarchy of races, most of the wars were declared by the countries of Europe except the one in Spain or Russia.

As the British historian, Andrew Roberts, writes, "Today, the Napoleonic Code forms the basis of law in Europe and some aspects of it have been adopted by forty countries covering every continent except Antarctica. Napoleon's bridges, reservoirs, canals and sewers are still in use throughout France. The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs sits atop the stone quays he built along the Seine, and the Cour des Comptes still audits public spending more than two centuries after its creation. The Legion of Honor, an honor he introduced to replace feudal privileges, is highly coveted; France's best lycées, many of which were founded by Napoleon, provide an excellent education, and his Council of State still meets every Wednesday to approve laws. Even if Napoleon had not been one of history's great military geniuses, he would still be a giant of the modern era. "

[Sixgunsound]

The modern Era has produced few military geniuses in an Era when the world would end if the great powers all fought the same war.

[Sixgunsound]

Thank you for MHO

[RyanEC]

No.


I consider Napoleon to be the last “Great man of history” despite being an Anglo Saxon American.


Napoleon was a military mastermind who stood up to the great powers of the day and defended his nation.
Hitler lost his war because of his ego and arrogance.


I wish a leader like Napoleon would come to power to save western civilization.

[blissinanarchy1]

Napoleon was smart, but lost due to arrogance and ego too. He lost to the Muslims. The truest great leader I can think of is Alexandre Dumas, AKA the Black Count. Not being biased of his achievement solely since he’s Black. But he became a better French General than Napoleon. Napoleon hated him. Alexandre went from the lowest to highest rank. He defeated the same Muslims Napoleon lost to.

[Julie4]

Well, let's just say that for the moment the US is the savior of the West

[HippieVeganJewslim]

@blissinanarchy1 Muslims? All or just some? How and why did Dumas defeat the some Muslims?

[HippieVeganJewslim]

Ja, natürlich. Both were tyrants. Both were responsible for the murders of many many people (can’t tell how many for Napoléon). Both had some good things in them (Hitler was against smoking tobacco and was a vegetarian). Both declared wars. Both lost.

[Twalli]

Not really. Napoleon did a lot more good than Hitler did. Both did good, but the bad often outweighed it. Hitler raised Germany out of its depression, and his economic advancements are felt today. Napoleon revolutionized strategy, created solely merit-based advancement, and public schooling.

[Andres77]

Everyone is comparable to hitler.

anyone who wants to conquer and dominate is still a tyrant. Emperor is never a good thing to be because you have to kill so many people to attain it…just for the goal of survival personal gain

[Julie4]

Your mistake is this. Before Napoleon came to power there was a civil war and Europe was united against France because of the principles of the French Revolution and the state was economically ruined. Napoleon took power to stop the civil war and restore the country's economy, and his coronation was approved by a majority of French people in a plebiscite.

As for the wars, it was the other nations that declared war on France, Napoleon declared only two wars over a period of 20 years, that of Spain and Russia.

[zagor]

While Napoleon's troops certainly had their share of atrocities, I don't think he ever planned the systematic extermination of peoples like Hitler did.

[Julie4]

Of course they never wanted to exterminate a whole people. Besides, Napoleon integrated the Jews into his empire while in other European countries they were persecuted.

[SlavicThor]

Tricky, I would say no, purely on the basis that Hitler sought to literally erase two races of people. Napoloeon rather sought to conquer and control nations rather than 'people' which is lesser of the evil

[AviatorTom]

Only in that both wanted to create a European empire. Napoleon didn't want to erase any races like Hitler did.

[Dargil]

I don't think he had concentration/death camps. So no.

[Cubus]

Yes.

They both went on a trip to Russia and lost to General Weather.

[Julie4]

Is that your only argument?

[Anonymous]

F*** no. Napoleon was a military commander. Hitler was an incompetent narcissist. If he actually had been as skillful as Napoleon ww2 would have gone very different.

[KostasKouvalis]

I'll be 100% honest, I know NOTHING about his war crimes, but Hitler, I don't think so.

[greenice27]

No, because Napoleon was not the cause of the wars in Europe.

[FunkyMonkee]

I don't see how.

[Iron_Man]

What do you think?

[Julie4]

Of course not, Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews, Napoleon allowed the Jews to live in peace throughout the empire, while they were persecuted in all other countries of Europe

[Iron_Man]

Right

[WhiteBoyChill]

I’m surprised by your question.

[Julie4]

Why?

[WhiteBoyChill]

How could he be

[Julie4]

Of course for me they are not comparable, but I wait for the arguments of the people who think so

[Dinosaursandanime65]

What bad thing did he do?

[msc545]

I think not. Hitler was a monster.

[_Troian_]

I'd say yes

[Julie4]

Why?

[_Troian_]

Not only about Napoleon but for me every Emperor/King was like a dictator, after all they were the most powerful man in the country and they shaped their country based on their personal decisions, I see it in both Hitler and Napoleon.

[_Troian_]

But ofcourse when we compare eachother I'd say Hitler was evil no doubt.

[Julie4]

Oh ok I understand now, but Napoleon was not a dictator lol

[_Troian_]

Nah for me every monarchy in history was kind of dictatorship, I'd say Sultans of Ottoman Empire aswell and yeah Kings, Emperors too.

[driven159]

In some ways yes

[Julie4]

Why?

[Guanfei]

Nope.