Why do people compare Napoleon to Hitler?

@calvinhobbesliker:

He was a dictator, right? If he didn’t want slavery, why couldn’t he just abolish it?

Napoleon was not a dictator as First Consul. A dictator, in Rome, had both decreed and applied the law; moreoever, he was not elected by the people. In no sense, then, can Napoleon be called a dictator. Actually, on the contrary, if democracy is a system under which the whole people confides the government to magistrates of its choice elected for a limited period, then by the new Constitution France would be entering upon democracy. Although much of the governmental power was on Bonaparte, he did not wield absolute and supreme power, and his actions were very much limited by the Consulate. When he was Emperor this was different, but to call him a “dictator” as Emperor is still pushing it, as a government still existed around the central imperial figure. He held constitutional monarchial power, not absolute monarchial power.

I really don’t think the Brits cared about what happened on the continent UNLESS they felt threatened that France would either try to blockade Britain or try to disrupt its shipping or conquer its colonies

At the Treaty of Amiens, there was free trading between both countries, and no blockades of any sort were threatened by Napoleon. Britain was VERY caring to what happened on the Continent after the French Revolution. Remember that Britain just suffered a humiliating defeat by the American colonists in 1783. The defeat had been a blow to the King personally, to British pride, and to British trade. The defeat hardened political opinion in London of the ruling few, and suddenly this second upstart republic, this time in Europe, had overthrown monarchy. Britain had yielded once, but they were damned if she would yield again!

Britain was very reluctant to be at peace with France for several reasons, event though the French Revolutionary Wars cost it almost 400 million pounds. For one thing, they weren’t prepared to suffer another Yorktown, and they considered peace with a greatly enlarged France would be tantamount to that. Also, they were now closely linked by a network of friendships with French royal families in exile. Windham, British Secretary at War, particularly promised to get them back their estates and privileges. But last but not least was the fact that by bringing order and justice to France Napoleon had rendered the Revolution attractive to people outside the country; if Napoleon was also to give peace to Europe, where might Revolutionary doctrines not spread?

As Edmund Burke wrote to William Greenvile, Pitt’s Foreign Minister: “it is not the enmity but the friendship of France that is truly terrible. Her intercourse, her example, the spread of her doctrines are the most dreadful of her arms.”

@calvinhobbesliker:

Same thing France did. France felt threatened by Austria, Prussia, Russia, and apparently Spain so it invaded them. Britain felt threatened by France’s power and thus sought to stop its conquests.

You are absolutely (almost) correct.

However, this happened while Napoleon was not in power.

After France became a republic it was very much threatened by its neighbors, what with every crowned head threatening to wipe out this foothold of republicanism on their continent and plopping the Bourbons back on the throne. When France, at war with Austria, invaded Belgium, which was an Austrian possession, both the oligarchs and British businessmen became alarmed, for Antwerp were the front door for British trade with Europe. In January 1793 William Pitt announced in the Commons that Britain was at war with France and it would be ‘a war of extermination’.

Plus, Russia did not get involved in Western European politicis until 1798. It was too busy dismantling Poland.

@Octospire:

Indeed. Napoleon and Caesar both were tyrants in their own right, but Caesar was a successful tyrant with the love of the people of Rome and eventually the love of the people of the Roman empire, Napoleon wasnt successful he failed spectacularly and he didnt have the love of the people he conquered or in the end even that of the French people because he failed them.

Are you kidding me? If Napoleon didn’t get the love of the people he conqured why is he still admired by many Italians, Poles, Germans? The Polish especially, as Napoleon liberated them from the Prussian, Russian, and Austrian junkers.

His  might have fell but the Empire still survives in codes of law and national identity. I don’t need to repeat how widespread the Napoleonic Code is. His military tactics are studied around the world over. I wouldn’t say he failed spectacularly.

How differently we would view Napoleon if he defeated the Russians and made peace with the British, he would be viewed like Caesar or Alexander as a great all conquering general who brought new ideas and ways of thinking to the masses?

A better question would be to ask, how differently would we view Napoleon if the British and their warmongering European allies didn’t constantly force him to wage defensive wars?

@Cromwell_Dude:

Napoleon proved more a benign dictator like Ceasar, **merely interesed in fame and glory in conqueirng others.  ** Where are Napoleon’s chopping blocks?   Where are Napoleon’s camps?   Where are Napoleon’s thoughts and actions on government?   Dictator, yes.   Fascist, no.

facepalm

Is that what you call it? That’s all he went for, huh? Just power and glory and fame, nothing else? Sigh…

@Raunchy:

Things not yet mentioned:

They both killed and executed resistors.

They both stole works of art; Napolean had those Etruscan statues from Florence and Goering did his bit for Hitler.

Except Napoleon was perfectly entitled to execute the  Duke of Enghien, who was forming a insurrection against France to overthrow the Republic and re-install the monarchy.

And again, Napoleon “stole” works of art on explicit orders from his government when he was still General Bonaparte; and even while he did he made sure to minimize it to just what was requested. He despised looting and prevented every sign of it.

@Imperious:

They both were despots who usurped power by various means and were involved in many wars in the name of their own causes. In both men Europe considered them tyrants and tried to rid them both.

Yeah, except Napoleon was the only legitimate monarch in Europe. When he was crowned Emperor it was by approval of the people and the Senate, not by divine right (which is why he had it to where he crowned himself, with the Pope presiding, so it did not seem like he was being crowned by divine right).

@Imperious:

Yeah, except Napoleon was the only legitimate monarch in Europe.

How did that concept work out in 1815 when he took power back in france?

How bout his heirs who he planted like flowers with nothing but the same name… Napoleon… to legitimize their control of their offices?

When Napoleon came back into power in 1815, he was welcomed with open arms by both the army and populace. It was very clear that the French people perfered their Emperor over the pitiful Bourbons whom the Allies had plopped back on the throne after Napoleon’s fall in 1814. Napoleon told the other countries that he had no intentions of re-gaining territories and would agree to any proposal on borders, even to that of 1789.

How did the Coalition respond? They mobilized 800,000 men for a hate-filled anti-French crusade to remove the “outlaw” and force the French people to accept a government they clearly did not want. Even in the British government there was much resentment for how this new “Seventh Coalition” was acting against France. It was unprovoked, and Napoleon was forced to go to war for the last time.

Wait, what? Where you are getting he put his “heirs” anywhere? The only “heir” he had was Napoleon II, King of Rome, who was born in 1810, far too young to rule anything of any sort! If you mean his family members, why not? The new nobility Napoleon made was made out of a imperial nobility based on merit, not on royal birth or “divine right”. Monarchs and kings ruled because they were good at it, not because God told them to. Napoleon would not tolerate inefficiency and corruption within his nation, later Empire. Even with the Continental Blockade going on trade improved in the Continent, roads were paved, and while many resented French rule, the majority did not.

Take Joseph Bonaparte for example, who was King of Naples for a while. He introduced the Napoleonic Code (legal rights, freedom of practice of religion, etc.) improved the infrastructure, opened up schools, and was largely admired by the Napalese people. Even when Napoleon made him King of Spain he gave the country its first constitution and did the same thing he did in Naples. The problem was, the Spanish people would not accept a French ruler.

And he did not just plop them on random thrones: they were always put there at the consent of the governed peoples in question. And not all of the leaders he put were from his family.

@Imperious:

Exactly. Napoleon the despot was the determining factor. The Spanish people didn’t accept a French ruler but really had little choice.

You misunderstand why the Peninsular War happened. Even that was not an aggressive move on Napoleon’s part. One has to be cautious when making simplistic judgments of saying he invaded because he wanted to close down Europe to the Continental System.

It started with an appeal for Napoleon’s arbitration by King Charles IV, a degenerate Bourbon dominated by his wife and her lover, Godoy, who was Prime Minister. There was the influence of Talleyrand, Napoleon’s ex-foreign minister, who favored the expulsion of the Bourbons from all thrones and the accession of a prince from the Bonaparte family to the Spanish throne. There was also the irritation of a sovereign (guess who, Napoleon) who was engaged in a struggle to the death for his security and who realized that there was a door on the Iberian Peninsula still open to trade with the British. The only real mistake Napoleon made was misjudging the Spanish people, so proud, so noble, so independent, prepared to make any sacrifice and to rise up as one against any foreign interference. Events moved so quickly that once hostilities had begun it was impossible to change policy.

Madrid revolted (against the government, not against the French, whom they were not yet hostile against), and the people, drunk with fury, seized Godoy, threatening to kill him. Charles IV abdicated in favor of his son, and then retracted his abdication. Napoleon then had to decide between the king and the son as they exchanged insults in front of him at Bayonne. Charles IV named Murat, one of Napoleon’s Marshals, lieutenant general of the kingdom but, learning of a new uprising in Madrid (which Murat brutally took down, a brutality that Napoleon very much disapproved of), abdicated definitely in favor of “the great Napoleon” after a nasty scene with his wife and his son, and received in exchange a civil list and residence in France. Joseph Bonaparte was named king of Spain, but receiving a throne as a promotion and occupying the throne–-when the throne was that of Spain—were two different things!

The Peninsular War was definitely Napoleon’s biggest mistake (not his invasion of Russia), but he, as always, was not the only one responsible for it. The British were responsible for trying to return to the Continent by way of Spain; the Spanish royal family were responsible for being so inefficient and for their inability to run a country properly. Napoleon was responsible for even agreeing to mediate affairs at all.

Napoleon also took advantage of The french economic position which was just as poor as it was before the revolution to take power, not unlike Hitler except Hitler was elected and appointed to his first position.

Hmmm, so now you want to talk politics at that time too eh? Very well!  :-D

Two things:

1)Napoleon did not simply take advantage of the “French economic system”. He never sought to take power in France until he was involved in a conspiracy to overthrow it and he realized that France needed a strong, central leader, not a “government of lawyers” as the Directory was called. Napoleon turned the French economy around in only a year. Even in 1814, when the Coalition was on France’s doorstep, France had little debt.

2)Napoleon was also elected and appointed to his position, but unlike Hitler he did not acquire that position via blackmail, backstabbing, and assassination. When he was First Consul Napoleon was not a dictator. Although that all-powerful position of First Consul had the power to propose legislation, it was the specialized sections of the Council of State that wrote them: finance, legislation, war, navy, interior. There was no secrecy; the ministers attended the meetings and the consuls’ approval was required to enact a law. And what a sense of human relations the First Consul showed as he participated in the meetings of the Council, asking questions and encouraging discussion! In what democracy today do we find the head of state discussing and arguing about the country’s affairs with the citizens’ elite in this way? Where do we find that in Hitler’s tyranny?

Another political necessity was the Constitution of the Year XII, which established the French Empire with Napoleon as Emperor. This was a normal development of a strong regime; as the Emperor became more sure of himself, he showed less and less tolerance towards people who “talk but do not do anything”, and indeed became increasingly authoritarian. The legislative assembly became a mere recording chamber and the Senate was filled with people devoted to the Emperor. This was a logical consequence that the Nation, by a substantial majority, gave the only man who could save it. “The Nation threw itself at my feet when I arrived in government,” Napoleon said. “I took less authority then I was asked to take.”

But before crying dictatorship and condemning out of hand an authoritarianism that partially muzzled the democratic system of universal suffrage (which existed in no European country that that time), it’s important to go back to the role of the important Council of State, the basis of the legislative system. The council members, senior officials, and auditors made up a extraordinary body, surprising its worth and technical skill. It dealt with all bills, gave its opinions, and ruled on appeals addressed to the Emperor. Twice a week the Emperor chaired the meetings. The prescence of the man whose law ruled from the Atlantic to the plains of Poland did not inhibit those attending. On the contrary, the legislative policy of France was enacted there without the least absolutism, and in a way, it was the entire government.

Hitler only gave more and more political power to himself and to himself only. Hitler restricted basic rights and if you practiced a religion that he did not like, you were probably going to die. The Napoleonic Code encouraged the practice of religion and basic rights, which is why it’s the foundations of law for much of Western Europe.

Latter he maintained his hold upon the people with military victories. That is what Hitler did. He made a few victories to keep the people thinking that war could solve the national problems and victory carried his power further.

His position as First Consul certainly was strengthened with his reputation as a victorious general, but the stability of the government did not rest on victories alone. Otherwise, why did his government still function and why was he still popular after the first major French check at Eylau in 1807?

When Napoleon lost his Grande Army his support began to falter, just as the Opposition to Hitler mounted after Stalingrad.

This might be true. But there’s one huge difference between this. Today, Napoleon is seen as a hero and a man of the people in Western Europe. True, there might be people who also hate him for his supposed “tyranny”, but the man is as loved as he is hated. Hitler is, overwhelmingly, hated by the majority of civilization, worshiped only by fringe neo-Nazis groups. It is extremely difficult to form an objective view of Hitler: for Napoleon, as you can see above, is not.

Also, his support might have faltered, but the French people realized just how much their Emperor was a better ruler than the Bourbons who learned nothing from the Revolution.

And by his Heirs that continues far beyond the demise of Napoleon. Napoleon III was also a dictator who used his name to usurp power borrowed from the exploits of Napoleon I. He go the support of the people and threw out the opposition, like Hitler. He also took over Mexico. I don’t remember the Mexicans holding an election for a French ruler?

Napoleon III was an efficient ruler and greatly improved the prestige of France. He was not, however, like Napoleon I. He could indeed be called a dictator, unlike Napoleon I. That does not mean, however, that he was as bad as that monster Hitler.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Also, I LOLed when you said Napoleon III increased French presitige. Franco-Prussian war anyone?

You seem to assume that the Franco-Prussian War happened immediately after Napoleon III took power.  :roll:

You haven’t shown how the Brits were trying to reenter via Spain.

Let’s see. By 1808 Spain was on the brink of civil war, with one side (Charles IV) being nothing but a puppet for the real powers of Spain (Godoy), and with the other one who hated France, Napoleon, and the Revolution (Ferdinand). Do you really think that once Ferdinand was in power the British would not try to get Spain to join the anti-French crusade?

Let me give you an example of the British determination and will to intervene not just in Spanish affairs but in general Iberian affairs. In 1807 Napoleon was determined to close down all trade to Continental Europe from Britain. Since Portugal was still maintaining a lively trade with Britain, Napoleon quite bluntly asked them to join the Continental System or would be considered an enemy of France. Harsh, but remember his iron will to try to destroy Britain economically comes from the fact that Britain rejected multiple offers of peace and negotiation from Napoleon since 1803.

A Franco-Spanish force invaded Portugal once they refused to close down to British trade. When the French were approaching Lisbon the current Portugese regent, John VI, expressed the desire to negotiate with the French commander (Junot), and to possibly negotiate further with Napoleon on the Continental System, but the British commander of the Royal Navy, Admiral Parker, told him that if that was the case, he had orders to seize the Portugese fleet and burn and bombard Lisbon. Basically they had threatened to do the same thing to Lisbon as they did to Cophenhagen, once in 1801 and again in 1807, except on a much larger scale. Thus the Portugese fleet and treasure sailed from Lisbon under Royal Navy escort, with their destination at Brazil.

Clearly the acts of a government that was fighting the “tyranny” of Napoleon and wanting to bring “peace” to Europe: burning or threatning to burn capitals of nations that either would not abide by Britain’s policy or would be willing to abide by Napoleon’s policy. Where do you see Napoleon threatening to burn entire cities? Citing Moscow is a mistake: he never sent the order to burn it, and even if he did that would be completely unlike him: why set fire to a city that could serve as winter quarters for his army?

I don’t deny that the Peninsular War is not Napoleon’s fault. It is, but only partly.

@Octospire:

As far as the British making him fight defensive wars I dont really think that is the case, Napoleon was stirring up trouble all over Britains empire, in India, Canada and the former colony of the United States. Napoleon made the mistake of thinking he could defeat the British in a global war and win the war against the kingdoms of Europe much like Hitler he made the mistake of fighting the war on too many fronts with limited resources.

What? Napoleon never fought Britain in Canada, India, or the United States.