Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Was Napoleon same as Hitler?

  1. #1 Was Napoleon same as Hitler? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    62
    Hello,

    I'm wondering, would you say that Napoleon was just like Hitler? Or was he actually a hero? What were his beliefs?

    Thanks!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Was Napoleon same as Hitler? 
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Faron
    Hello,

    I'm wondering, would you say that Napoleon was just like Hitler? Or was he actually a hero? What were his beliefs?

    Thanks!
    1. No they were not the same.

    2. They were both slightly short egomaniacs, but there the similarity ends.

    3. At least Napoleon had some style (albeit occasionally scatological). Allegedly, looking for some comfort after the disastrous Winter in Russia, Napoleon had a messenger run to Paris with a missive for Josephine. It said just: "Back in three days. Don't wash!" Respect!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    just think : would you rather be called a little napoleon or a little hitler ?
    neither are very flattering, but if forced to choose, i'd go for the first one
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Until World War 1 Napoleon had the same kind of reputation as Hitler in many parts of Europe. People who had collaborated with the French during the Napoleontic Wars carried a strong stigma for a long time, comparable with WW2 collaborators (but not that strong). Don't forget that Napoleon caused death and destruction all over Europe, setting back the economic development of many European countries by decades.

    But ideologically I think it's a totally different picture. I think nobody will claim that Hitler's ideology was in any way noble or moral: even if you look beyond his racism, he was also a very egoistic, aggressive nationalist.
    For Napoleon you could still make a pretty strong argument: he was nationalistic but not racist; autocratic but still a believer in the fundamental equality of human beings. The French swept over Europe with a genuine wish to take down feudal inequality, and in many places they brought positive change. After the French were pushed out of the Netherlands we largely kept their system of law, because it was simply far superior to anything we ever had before. It's a pity we got our monarchy back, a real French-style republic would've been a lot better (we had neither during the French occupation, a kind of semi-monarchical republic).

    Hitler only brought misery, there's no other way to say it. Napoleon brought some good and some bad, maybe 50-50. But in the 19th century, at least in Northern and Western-Europe (including Britain), Napoleon was certainly percieved as a person just like Hitler.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    62
    I see.

    Thank you very much for your replies. I guess what I'm thinking is, since Napoleon at that time probably would be looked upon as a hitler, right? And today, people or most people are interested in him and look up to him, but not Hitler. Then in that case, would you say in the next 100 years people will take interest in Hitler and look up to him as well? Don't know.

    But I agree, Hitler was much darker than Napoleon. He wanted to expand French empire. Hitler wanted to wipe off humans who were outside of his race, right? Like a one world race and all.

    Hmm. Definitely little napoleon, marnixR lol.

    Again, thanks for the replies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    also, there's a french brandy called Napoleon (or was that after his 1860s successor ?) - i don't see anything named after Hitler
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Faron
    Then in that case, would you say in the next 100 years people will take interest in Hitler and look up to him as well? Don't know.
    I don't think this will ever happen. As you say Hitler was much 'darker', his ideas can still inspire hatred (as they do in some people, neonazi's). The ideals Napoleon fought for are mostly mainstream now, it's not offensive or extremist to call for non-feudal, non-monarchical states as most states have ofcourse achieved this already. Another difference is that WW2 is just too well documented for people to forget what it was like, while we mostly hear about Napoleon in stories and 'adventure movies'.

    At some point artifacts from the Nazi era may become funny rarities. For example last year or so there was an exposition of Hitlers paintings, and I've seen pictures of cheap 'fan articles' from the Nazi time being showed in an exposition (like a clock with Hitler's face on it or so, really cheap stuff). But I think Hitler as a person will always stay a symbol of 'evil', which I guess is a good thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    also, there's a french brandy called Napoleon (or was that after his 1860s successor ?) - i don't see anything named after Hitler
    Yea good point. Well a couple years ago someone opened a restaurant in India or so named after Hitler (or something related), the owner thought it was just a 'funny' publicity stunt. Well he got the publicity he wanted, but a lot more than that :wink: I don't remember how the story ended, but I think they changed it very quickly after they found out that people in the west were not amused.

    edit: I just remembered this story, last year.. http://abcnews.go.com/International/...2889568&page=1

    Some Croatian sugar company put Hitler's face on their wrappers :? Again the reactions to this show that it's clearly not accepted behaviour, but for some reason it still happens..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    62
    I see. I agree with you there.

    You know what I also thought? I don't understand why country "Germany" still exists after what all happened back in those years ago. Yes, I know it was tore in 4 pieces but united later. I mean, whenever I hear a word, "German people" or "Germany", I sometimes see them as "nazis people", or "defeated nazi germany". :? I've never been to Germany, but I may feel scared inside of myself if I go there, lol.

    I mean, those who live in Germany, could they not have changed the name of the country, or whatever that's for the better, after all what happened? What do you think about that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Faron
    You know what I also thought? I don't understand why country "Germany" still exists after what all happened back in those years ago. Yes, I know it was tore in 4 pieces but united later. I mean, whenever I hear a word, "German people" or "Germany", I sometimes see them as "nazis people", or "defeated nazi germany". :? I've never been to Germany, but I may feel scared inside of myself if I go there, lol.

    I mean, those who live in Germany, could they not have changed the name of the country, or whatever that's for the better, after all what happened? What do you think about that?
    After WW2 there was a plan to dismantle Germany, by chopping it up in several smaller countries and turning each of them into completely agricultural societies (without the necessary industry to wage a war). In the end they did divide Germany in East and West, but that wasn't really the plan. And with the wartime alliance gone and the Cold War beginning, neither Nato nor the USSR was willing to dismantle and deindustrialize their part of Germany. Actually they rearmed their parts of Germany as a buffer zone against eachother.
    But I guess it's a good thing that Germany wasn't dismantled as planned, as it would've been an economic disaster for Europe. A strong German economy is a crucial part of Europe's economy, without it we'd be set back many decades of economic development.

    About the name of Germany, well they did change it from "German Empire" (Deutches Reich) to "Federal Republic of Germany" (Bundesrepublik Deutschland), which sounds a lot less threatening and expansive. And some parts of the national anthem were changed, like "Germany above everything in the world" into something like "Germany for freedom in the world". Maybe 'Germany' still sounds threatening to you because it's almost identical to 'Germania', the capital Hitler planned for his third reich. And in Nazi rhetoric the Germans as a pre-medieval people played a central role. In the German language such names don't exist, the language is Deutsch, the country is Deutschland, and not a single German would call himself Ein Germane (spelling could be wrong). So in a way the English name is simply weird. If a German would say "Ich bin ein Germane" then this would have racist connotations, it would remind people of WW2.

    I live next to Germany and I've been there many times. To me Germany is a normal European country, but with a very dark history. The present generation of Germans inherited that past from their grandparents, and they're working hard to restore their country's image. They're not personally responsable for what happened in WW2, but they are doing every thing they can to compensate for it. That's all they can do, and I respect it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    The men were quite different and even more so when you place them in their respective historical context.

    Unlike Hitler, Napoleon was a tactician that gained rank with his own military victories

    Napoleon was a statesman instrumental with respect to several achievements such as the Civil Code, which is almost the opposite of Nazi legislature and was exceptional in its time.

    Napoleon made people of diverse background (including jews) full citizens of the republic, where as Hitler put people of diverse origins (gypsies, jews, etc) in concentration camps.

    There are many negative aspects to Napoleon specialy when viewed through the prism of modern times, but taken in context you see some of theses negatives were also shared to various degrees by various Kings Emperors and Monarchs of the general era who are seldom blamed to the same extent for being autocratic despots waging imperial wars(british empire, russian empire, austrian empire, ottoman empire).

    In both cases however, Napoleon and Hitler lost, and we all know that it is the victors that write(and distort) history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    62
    Thanks to both of you.

    Well then, I guess that every emperors or dictators rise and fall, including the empires.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6
    neopolean will never be the same as hiter was .neopolean didn't try to wipe out a whole ethnicity like hiter tried to do to the jews
    infoaddict.com is THE source for strange, weird, or just plain wacky web news.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    people are always wanted to group these two men together as like minded midgets because we want to make sense of them, belittle them and then opack them away neatly under a label...all wrong, just bad history
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    saw some dvds on nap about him going to russia -what a fool he was
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore Skiyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    176
    Well Hitler was a complete and utter nut while I believe Napoleon had been driven mad by power but overstepped the mark in a sense.
    A biophysicist talks physics to the biologists and biology to the physicists, but then he meets another biophysicist, they just discuss women.
    http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Scie...inking_eye.gif
    E-Mail - skiyk@hotmail.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore GrowlingDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    At the gates of Sto-vo-kor
    Posts
    181
    Napoleon was a brilliant military strategist, Hitler at times was completely naive in his thinking, both were incredibly charismatic, competitive, intelligent and megalomaniacs but Hitler was far more "evil" if you like. His systematic eradication of millions of innocent civilians sets him apart from pretty much every other conquerer. Even Genghis Kahn didnt try and wipe out an entire race of people. Sure he was ruthless and killed whole towns in a brutal fashion but he nearly always tried to work diplomatically first. Saddam Hussein wiped out 5000 Kurds in one day when testing out his new WMD's in 1988 but he didnt try and wipe out the entire race. No, in my opinion if you had to pick the most delusional, evil conquerer in history, Hitler would have to be at number 1. He certainly affected more peoples lives than anyone in history. In fact i would not be writing this from Perth, Australia if it wasnt for Hitler. I guess i should be grateful for his existence.
    Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    ofcourse stalin killed more people, many of his own, and was smart enough to stay in the game longer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    .....................

    Hitler only brought misery, there's no other way to say it. Napoleon brought some good and some bad, maybe 50-50. But in the 19th century, at least in Northern and Western-Europe (including Britain), Napoleon was certainly percieved as a person just like Hitler.
    Yeah, i agree with you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    16
    AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGG !!!!!

    Napoleon 1° is not a Hitler, Napoleon did not commit a Holocaust !!!!

    « SOLDATS !!!
    je vous ramènerais en France; là , vous serez l'objet de mes plus tendres sollicitudes. Mon peuple vous reverra avec joie, et il vous suffira de dire, "J'étais à la bataille d'Austerlitz", pour que l'on réponde, « Voilà un brave» Napoléon 1°
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    also, there's a french brandy called Napoleon (or was that after his 1860s successor ?) - i don't see anything named after Hitler
    Lol..that's a good point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •