Parallels between Napoleon and Hitler

[Allasaphore]

Spoiler

If we want a difference, Napoleon I rose to power (1804) during the War of the Third Coalition, which was begun when the British declared war against the French. Comparatively, Hitler rose to power during a time of economic depression (1933), but not when Germany was being hit by war after war. Germany had been at peace since 1918 (though their economy was in shambles), whilst the French had been at peace for only one year (1802-1803). This is a significant difference between the two heads of state.

The way Napoleon managed his client states was in instituting his family members to the thrones of those nations (such as his brother, Joseph, as King of Naples and Sicily and subsequently King of Spain). Hitler relied on the support of parties favorably disposed to the Nazi regime, but did not give the conquered nations full independence. Relying on the local governments was imperative to areas such as the Balkans.

It should also be noted that Napoleon was born in an area controlled by the French at that time (Corsica) whilst Hitler was born in Austria, which never belonged to the German Empire or German Republic. This being said, Napoleon was born in a territory of the French Empire/Republic, whilst Hitler wasn't born in such a region. While he may have been Corsican, he still would have been considered a Frenchman (and many French individuals of the present gladly claim him as their own).

Now we get into the discussion as to whether Napoleon I was a dictator who was against the causes of the revolution or if Napoleon I was a champion of the French Revolution. That's a real discussion.

Uhh the german economy was on the rise from some reforms then hitler got all the credit for the revival. But everything else i agree

[close]

It probably would have been better if I was talking about the 1930's German economy instead of 1919-1920's, wouldn't it. Scratch the economic part as it being poor, but rather look at how Hitler achieved and maintained power through what occurred in the economy (and taking credit for it) as opposed to what Napoleon did (essentially inspiring the French). Sorry about the confusion, it's my fault. :c

[Olafson]

Wow... I never noticed. But did you know how much they looked alike? There really are a lot of parallels between Napoleon and Hitler.

Just look at this:

Hitler:

Spoiler

[close]

Napoleon:

Spoiler

[close]

[Bramif]

Wow... I never noticed. But did you know how much they looked alike? There really are a lot of parallels between Napoleon and Hitler.

Just look at this:

Hitler:

Spoiler

[close]

Napoleon:

Spoiler

[close]

xD

[ClearlyInvsible]

Wow... I never noticed. But did you know how much they looked alike? There really are a lot of parallels between Napoleon and Hitler.

Just look at this:

Hitler:

Spoiler

[close]

Napoleon:

Spoiler

[close]

GG no RE

[Millander]

Acording to the History Chanell they are both the anti christ.

[ClearlyInvsible]

Acording to the History Chanell they are both the anti christ.

According to the History Channel 1812 America could beat France in a war.

[Riddlez]

Acording to the History Chanell they are both the anti christ.

According to the History Channel 1812 America could beat France in a war.

And there I was, thinking that History channel was accurate.
I have seen quite an interesting series about the ACW, with re-enectments as footage.

[Millander]

I have seen some reenactment with really solid reenacters in filming then others with total farbs.

[Noodlenrice]

Spoiler

If we want a difference, Napoleon I rose to power (1804) during the War of the Third Coalition, which was begun when the British declared war against the French. Comparatively, Hitler rose to power during a time of economic depression (1933), but not when Germany was being hit by war after war. Germany had been at peace since 1918 (though their economy was in shambles), whilst the French had been at peace for only one year (1802-1803). This is a significant difference between the two heads of state.

The way Napoleon managed his client states was in instituting his family members to the thrones of those nations (such as his brother, Joseph, as King of Naples and Sicily and subsequently King of Spain). Hitler relied on the support of parties favorably disposed to the Nazi regime, but did not give the conquered nations full independence. Relying on the local governments was imperative to areas such as the Balkans.

It should also be noted that Napoleon was born in an area controlled by the French at that time (Corsica) whilst Hitler was born in Austria, which never belonged to the German Empire or German Republic. This being said, Napoleon was born in a territory of the French Empire/Republic, whilst Hitler wasn't born in such a region. While he may have been Corsican, he still would have been considered a Frenchman (and many French individuals of the present gladly claim him as their own).

Now we get into the discussion as to whether Napoleon I was a dictator who was against the causes of the revolution or if Napoleon I was a champion of the French Revolution. That's a real discussion.

Uhh the german economy was on the rise from some reforms then hitler got all the credit for the revival. But everything else i agree

[close]

It probably would have been better if I was talking about the 1930's German economy instead of 1919-1920's, wouldn't it. Scratch the economic part as it being poor, but rather look at how Hitler achieved and maintained power through what occurred in the economy (and taking credit for it) as opposed to what Napoleon did (essentially inspiring the French). Sorry about the confusion, it's my fault. :c

Agree and yeah the interwar period had its variety of changes

[Nipplestockings]

Acording to the History Chanell they are both the anti christ.

According to the History Channel 1812 America could beat France in a war.

And there I was, thinking that History channel was accurate.
I have seen quite an interesting series about the ACW, with re-enectments as footage.

Lol. The History channel is just about the worst thing to ever plague American television programming besides MTV, The Military Channel, and other shit like that. The History channel is to proper education what American education is to the rest of the civilized world. Any documentary you've seen on the History channel that was good or informative in anyway was probably not produced by History Channel, it was just a featured show or something.

Seriously, look at this:

Spoiler

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpHMPzk6uI4&list=PLAA214591C777FB80[/youtube]

[close]

It's all cinematography and overly dramatic narration - no educational, historical, or even any entertainment value whatsoever.

[Riddlez]

I watched that video for exactly 24 seconds.

WHen they turned to describe the Goths.


Well, you are right. The doc I have seen was a featured program, they just slapped the history channel mark on it.