[South Korean]

Many people believe that Napoleon is a hero. However, he's considered by historians to be the second most evil person after Hitler. Yet is what Napoleon did a normal thing, considering the foreign maneuvers and wars. Was Napoleon simply trying to put his country on top and ensure its survival? However, then Hitler's madness can be explained by excusing that Hitler too just simply ensure his country's survival. What do you think?

[Smilin' Dave]

However, he's considered by historians to be the second most evil person after Hitler.

Whlie some historians might believe this, I would have thought Napoleon would face some serious opposition for the second place. In fact some historians would dispute Hitler being in first place (Robert Conquest for example).

Yet is what Napoleon did a normal thing, considering the foreign maneuvers and wars.

Seemingly endless wars to subjegate neighbouring countries wasn't really normal for the time. It wasn't particularly normal in 1939 either.

[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

Smilin' Dave wrote:

Seemingly endless wars to subjegate neighbouring countries wasn't really normal for the time. It wasn't particularly normal in 1939 either.

I'll have to disagree with you there. Britain and France were at war for 40 years out of 100 for the 18th Century. That's with Britain opting out of several European conflicts (War of Polish Succession for example).

Napolean simply carried on the policy of the Bourbons, only with a lot more success.


.

[Ombrageux]

Napoleon's "evilness/heroism" is one of these enduring controversies.

We can list any number of specific criminal acts (reimposition of slavery in Haiti, rolling back of Revolutionary gains, recreation of a hereditary monarchy) but none that compare with the Nazi project of the annihilation and enslavement of "Untermenschen". However, Napoleon was, I think, basically personally responsible for the catastrophic wars he led France and Europe into. As much as France was not for the most responsible for the early Revolutionary Wars, one cannot pin the blame on foreigners for the wars of Napoleon. These were on a scale never seen before, with losses proportionally comparable to that of the First World War (over a longer period of time. Given the technological limits of the means of destruction at the time, this is a terrifyingly awesome feat. He was willing to do anything and everything in the pursuit of hegemony in Europe, which ultimately meant doing everything possible to destroy England, including economic strangulation of anything within his reach (Holland, Italy, the Hanseatic cities, even French maritime ports), endless war with Spain, war with Russia...

Any of his other achievements - stability in France, early peacemaking, the Civil Code - pale in the face of these disasters. Had Napoleon been successful in creating his "universal Empire" it would have been a different story. France would have destroyed England - but few would mourn the new Carthage. Instead, all would have praised the new Roman Empire that had finally given peace - a French peace - to Europe, which if it had last would have precluded some of the worst developments in European history. Napoleon failed though, so after "the Ogre" taken so much blood from Europe, he had achieved exactly nothing.

[Suska]

We act like we have proof of evil because of Adolf Hitler, as if people had never died in war before. Really, as if we ourselves had been killed by Nazis.

[pugsville]

I would have thought Pol Pot had Napoleon covered pretty handily. There is a big difference between abitous imperial expansionist leaders, and those determined to engage in wholesale slaughter of non-combatants.

Sure Napoleon was ambitiuos/greedy but was he really all that different from say Alexander (the great macedonian) (other than sucess-wise)

[QatzelOk]

We act like we have proof of evil because of Adolf Hitler, as if people had never died in war before. Really, as if we ourselves had been killed by Nazis.

The Nazis have killed millions upon millions of theater-goers.

The debauchery only ends when the popcorn machine is shut off for the night.

And so it was with Napoleon. He pissed off some powerful hegemons in his time.

[Smilin' Dave]

And so it was with Napoleon. He pissed off some powerful hegemons in his time.

Occupying your neighbours and trying to control their import/exports will do that. Poor old Napoleon's quest for hegemonic power was stopped... by other hegemons. Fortunately we have you to fight for his right to be... exactly like the people you constantly castigate. Makes perfect sense.

[The Clockwork Rat]

What about the instigators of the Great Chinese Famine?

I would disagree that you can call a single person 'evil'. One person can not kill millions, but the command, or groupthink, of a number of people can.

[Figlio di Moros]

It's my misfortune to have not studied the Napoleonic wars; would the general suggestion that it was his forray into Russia that led to his downfall be accurate?

[Smilin' Dave]

I've not read much, but from what I gather between the Russian campaign and Spain (both conflicts related to the same failed policy) Napoleon found himself surrounded by enemies (who relatively speaking were more unified than past efforts) and without any reserves of well trained/veteran troops. The Russian campaign was probably the more serious blunder, because the aftermath of that didn't just destroy his armies but also ended up putting Austria and Prussia back in the war.

[Ombrageux]

FGM - Yes, although there were a number of other necessary factors as well (war in Spain, coherence of Allies for several years after 1812). I would say the war in Russia was somewhat less deterministic for Napoleon's defeat than it was for Hitler's.

[QatzelOk]

Of the two leaders (Hitler and Napoleon), I prefer Napoleon by far.

He not only united most of Europe under a new and better legal system, his administration also modernized the French language, invented the metric system, and demonstrated that laymen could have many of the same characteristics as the best of the monarchs. They could be king-like.

Though to be fair to Hitler, Napoleon had a lot more time in power to introduce social improvements.

[Invictus_88]

What exactly did Napoleon do that was so bad, in the context of the era?

The ideological atrocities came with the French Revolution, and Napoleon was only active from the tail-end of that slaughter, and was active principally in the time subsequent to that.

[Smilin' Dave]

What exactly did Napoleon do that was so bad, in the context of the era?

General European war was pretty unusual for that time period, the closest you can get in the Seven Years War, but in terms of scale it's difficult to compare the two. Comparatively speaking wars in Europe had been on a much smaller scale (in terms of numbers involved and the geographic theatres) prior to Napoleon's little adventures. Add in the subsequent occupations, redrawing of borders to suit Napoleon's power politics etc. and you can see why the opposition to him was so broad.

Though to be fair to Hitler, Napoleon had a lot more time in power to introduce social improvements.

Hitler inherited a country at peace with its neighbours, he had as much time as he was willing to give.

[QatzelOk]

Hitler inherited a country at peace with its neighbours

He inherited a dysfunctional mess that was produced by international capitalism.

He inherited an impoverished citizenry who were dominated by a tiny, non-productive elite.

He inherited a society that had gone mad on industrial damage and propaganda.

And he never really got a chance to change his society for the better.

Napoleon did.

[Smilin' Dave]

He inherited a dysfunctional mess that was produced by international capitalism.

The roots of Germany's entry into the Great Depression also stem from domestic conditions, particularly in agriculture which resulted in various imbalances in the economy. Even if you want to blame the Versailles system (an at of states rather than capital) you would be in error, given the long term negotiable loans made available for that and the early role of German leaders.

He inherited an impoverished citizenry who were dominated by a tiny, non-productive elite.

Prior to the depression, Germany was not a poor country at all and economic statistics show it was starting to recover before Hitler's rise to power. Given the economic troubles Nazi Germany was facing around 1939 I would also have to cast doubt on the idea that Hitler created a productive elite, when in fact the Nazis were just running up debts into non-productive sectors like the military.

Napoleon didn't exact inherit an economic power or popular government either. Perhaps you forgot but Napoleon came to power while shooting protestors.

He inherited a society that had gone mad on industrial damage and propaganda.

Which he reversed by implementing an economic policy that was... in practice heavy on industry, and stayed in power through... propaganda. Napoleon on the other hand inherited a country which had not long prior been invaded by other nations.

Along with your point above about tiny elites it shows that Hitler wasn't a reformer in the same way that Napoleon was. Nazi was a variation on the past trends in German leadership, rather than a change. Napoleon's egalitarian laws and treatment of the Jewish population stand in stark contrast to Nazi Germany's attempts to limit opportunities (see gender equality, Nuremberg Laws) and famously appaling treatment of Jewish minorities.

And he never really got a chance to change his society for the better.

The Nazi party put in place many social policies during its time in power (including such gems as T4 and the Nuremberg Laws... you wish Hitler had a chance to finish that one off...?), there was no apparent issue of time. Unlike Napoleon, there was no pretense at installing these institutions in countries that were defeated.

Also in terms of time period, there isn't that great a disparity. Napoleon had the top job for about 15 years (from 18 Brumarie to the Treaty of Fontainebleau) while Hitler was in power for 12 years (from being appointed Chancellor to blowing his head off). The wartime point I raised is quite relevant if we want to compare relative resource availability and options available. So the idea that Napoleon somehow had decisively more time than than poor old Hitler is an idea that could only be based on a poor understanding of the periods being discussed or fraud.

The only point of accurate comparison between Hitler and Napoleon is their apparent obsessions with, and subsequent actions directed to, European dominance via military force.

[QatzelOk]

The roots of Germany's entry into the Great Depression also stem from domestic conditions

The American dustbowl and run on the stock market aren't really German conditions - even if half the banking establishment in the USA originally comes from there.

Prior to the depression, Germany was not a poor country at all

All the wealth was in the hands of a tiny few. This is why communism was more popular in Germany than any other country in Europe prior to the Bolshevik Revolution (and even then...).

"Rich country" means absolutely nothing if all the wealth is held by 1% of the population (sound familiar?)

the Nazis were just running up debts into non-productive sectors like the military.

All military expenditures are a waste of money unless you win a colony.

Sound familiar?

[Smilin' Dave]

The American dustbowl and run on the stock market aren't really German conditions - even if half the banking establishment in the USA originally comes from there.

You have avoided the point rather than responding to it. Germany's agriculture crisis had nothing to do with what was happening the US, and effectively continued after the Great Depression.

All the wealth was in the hands of a tiny few. This is why communism was more popular in Germany than any other country in Europe prior to the Bolshevik Revolution (and even then...).

Germany had a broad and vibrant middle class, and in comparison to some of its neighbours it was doing quite well. In Germany the more moderate socialist part (SPD) far outmatched the Communist Party (KPD). Before you lump them both in the same basket it was an SPD chancellor who put a stop to the KPD's uprisings. And guess what? The SPD was largely a party of the middle class. I thought France had the largest Communist Party?

All military expenditures are a waste of money unless you win a colony.

Sound familiar?

I remember this thread. You claimed that colonies automatically equal wealth and global power status, even that it was impossible to achieve these things without colonies. In response to the idea that colonies in fact constituted a greater cost than a gain long term, and that indeed some countries were ruined by their colonial schemes (Scotland and the Darien scheme) you had... no response.

You have already had (and lost) this argument, and are now attempting to drag a thread off topic in order to start it again. The primary topic in Napoleon. Stick with it.

[Invictus_88]

"What exactly did Napoleon do that was so bad, in the context of the era?"

General European war was pretty unusual for that time period, the closest you can get in the Seven Years War, but in terms of scale it's difficult to compare the two. Comparatively speaking wars in Europe had been on a much smaller scale (in terms of numbers involved and the geographic theatres) prior to Napoleon's little adventures. Add in the subsequent occupations, redrawing of borders to suit Napoleon's power politics etc. and you can see why the opposition to him was so broad.

Hundred Years' War was a pretty big deal, and in places a lot more 'genocidey' than the Napoleonic Wars.

And none of this even compares to the orchestrated slaughter of Slavs, Jews, Freemasons, homosexuals and the disabled.