Should Napoleon’s and Hitler’s invasions of Russia really be considered similar
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:48:19 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Should Napoleon’s and Hitler’s invasions of Russia really be considered similar
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Should Napoleon’s and Hitler’s invasions of Russia really be considered similar  (Read 895 times)
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 23, 2021, 06:18:40 PM »

Like people say all the time that both Napoleon and Hitler made the same mistake to invade Russia and lost the war because of that but I’d say other than the fact they invaded the same nation and both were enemies of the British , there are pretty large differences


1. Napoleon’s main enemy was the British while Hitler’s was the Soviets  so Napoleon’s invasion of Russia was a distraction while for Hitler the war with the Soviets was the entire part of the war in the first place .

2. Napolean’s invasion of Russia was repelled in a little more than 5 months while the eastern front of WW2 lasted 4 long years .

3. A reason the French lost that battle so quickly was the weather played a huge part in forcing them to retreat while in 1941 it just stopped the German advance . It wasn’t until a year later at Stalingrad that the Soviets were able to really turn things around in the war

Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2021, 06:59:15 PM »

Similar doesn't mean exactly the same.
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,591


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2021, 07:29:16 PM »
« Edited: December 23, 2021, 07:41:43 PM by Cassius »

I’d certainly agree that the comparison can be overplayed, not least given the massive changes in military technology, tactics and logistics that occurred between 1812 and 1941-45. I would say though, to counter your first point, that one of the principle justifications for Napoleon’s invasion of Russia was the fact that Russia was not keeping to the terms of the ‘continental system’ (by which Napoleon sought to block the import of British goods to Europe), so it’s arguable that the war in Russia formed a part of his overall strategy to defeat the British.

I’d also argue that one of the key mistakes often made about the campaign of 1812 is that it’s often assumed that it was an unwinnable campaign. It wasn’t and this sets it apart, in my view, from the German war on the Eastern Front, which I think could only have been winnable had the Germans gone into that war with a rather different and more limited set of objectives, as opposed to a war of conquest designed to set the stage for mass colonisation and ethnic cleansing, which would have required there to be a very different leadership in charge of the Third Reich.

The German war aims of 1941-1945, of course, were not the aims of Napoleon; his goal was simply to assert French pre-eminence over the Russians, something that he could have done had he been able to defeat the Russian army and render it an ineffective fighting force (as he had been able to do against the Austrians and the Prussians in previous wars). This was possible, although thanks to the overall soundness of the Russian strategy during the campaign (avoiding major set piece engagements prior to Borodino, dispersing troops and focusing on grinding down the French), Napoleon was unable to make it happen. Of course, unlike in, say, the campaigns of 1805-1807 or 1809 (in the case of the Austrians), the Russians had the advantage of a vast interior into which they could retreat and thus make this strategy work, in a similar manner to the Second World War (although I’d say that advantage was even more pertinent in 1812). Nonetheless, had they not adopted this strategy and had, instead, attempted confront Napoleon in a pitched battle early on, there’s every chance that there could have been a repeat of the earlier campaigns.

On the topic of retreat, another difference that should be noted is that whilst, for most of the 1812 campaign, the Russian high command made a virtue of retreat (despite the heated debate within the high command over this strategy), Stalin took the opposite approach of ‘no step back’ during the first two years of Barbarossa, which ultimately proved very costly (although, in fairness to Stalin, he was operating in an era of much more fast paced warfare, so retreat was more of a luxury than for the Emperor Alexander).

Really there are sundry similarities and differences between the two campaigns. In 1812 the French army was ultimately destroyed by a combination of terrible weather, logistical problems and repeated harrying during their retreat by the Russian cavalry. Although all of these things presented problems for the Germans a century later, the Wehrmacht ultimately lost because it was battered to bits in battle by a Red Army that was both quantitatively and, ultimately, qualitatively superior in terms of its fighting capacity. On the other hand, both the French and the Germans severely underestimated the fighting ability of the Russian and Soviet armies as well as the ability of the Russian and Soviet governments to endure setbacks, which meant that neither were able to achieve the expected quick victory, leaving them in a very poor position indeed after just a few months.

I do think it’s reasonable to compare the two campaigns and draw out the parallels that exist between them, whilst also acknowledging that, given the time that elapsed between the two, treating them like two peas in a pod or as part of some facile nostrum like ‘never start a land war in Asia’ is not a particularly illuminating way of looking at things.

Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2021, 01:41:09 AM »

Tsar Alexander I was by no means a genius, but he WAS someone who was able to learn lessons from past mistakes, and one of the big lessons he learned from Austerlitz etc was "whatever you do, don't let Napoleon destroy your entire army in one of his big flashy setpiece battle victories." The Russian Army getting away at Borodino rather than obligingly staying put to get demolished is basically the moment Napoleon lost the campaign. I agree with Cassius on that point: Napoleon had been counting on a decisive victory in which he utterly demolishes an enemy's main fighting force and forces them to the bargaining table to be wrecked prior to repeating the same thing two years later in another Coalition war, which was basically his MO up until this point. Alexander's stubborn knowledge that as long as a Russian army was in the field, Napoleon would have to account for it and could never really achieve victory is the biggest reason why Napoleon doesn't win the Russian campaign by simply destroying the Russian armed resistance, which he had every reason to expect he could do. It's what he did at Austerlitz, it's what he did at Jena.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2021, 02:26:47 PM »

Hitler literally had to invade Russia, Napoleon didn’t.  They have similarities in the middle and end, but they’re fundamentally different in that first aspect.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2021, 09:52:05 AM »

1. Napoleon’s main enemy was the British while Hitler’s was the Soviets  so Napoleon’s invasion of Russia was a distraction while for Hitler the war with the Soviets was the entire part of the war in the first place.
Hitler literally had to invade Russia, Napoleon didn’t.  They have similarities in the middle and end, but they’re fundamentally different in that first aspect.

Uh, Hitler and Stalin were allies up until Operation Barbarossa. Stalin was happy to have his own sphere of influence and probably wouldn't have bothered Hitler as long as he didn't threaten him. There was no reason for Nazi Germany and the USSR to fight except Hitler's anticommunism and his delusions of grandeur.

Anyway, the main differences between the two invasions is the nature of military technology, which, yes, made a prolonged campaign in Russia far more sustainable in 1941 than it was in 1812.
Logged
Alcibiades
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,851
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -6.96

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2021, 10:19:24 AM »

1. Napoleon’s main enemy was the British while Hitler’s was the Soviets  so Napoleon’s invasion of Russia was a distraction while for Hitler the war with the Soviets was the entire part of the war in the first place.
Hitler literally had to invade Russia, Napoleon didn’t.  They have similarities in the middle and end, but they’re fundamentally different in that first aspect.

Uh, Hitler and Stalin were allies up until Operation Barbarossa. Stalin was happy to have his own sphere of influence and probably wouldn't have bothered Hitler as long as he didn't threaten him. There was no reason for Nazi Germany and the USSR to fight except Hitler's anticommunism and his delusions of grandeur.

Anyway, the main differences between the two invasions is the nature of military technology, which, yes, made a prolonged campaign in Russia far more sustainable in 1941 than it was in 1812.

Both Hitler and Stalin understood that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was only a very temporary alliance and that armed confrontation between Germany and the USSR was inevitable at some point in the reasonably near future, but for Hitler to launch his attack in the summer of 1941 was ridiculously premature and a massive strategic own goal precipitated on ideology and paranoia, yeah. It’s absurd to say that he “had” to invade Russia at that point.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2021, 12:16:04 PM »

1. Napoleon’s main enemy was the British while Hitler’s was the Soviets  so Napoleon’s invasion of Russia was a distraction while for Hitler the war with the Soviets was the entire part of the war in the first place.
Hitler literally had to invade Russia, Napoleon didn’t.  They have similarities in the middle and end, but they’re fundamentally different in that first aspect.

Uh, Hitler and Stalin were allies up until Operation Barbarossa. Stalin was happy to have his own sphere of influence and probably wouldn't have bothered Hitler as long as he didn't threaten him. There was no reason for Nazi Germany and the USSR to fight except Hitler's anticommunism and his delusions of grandeur.

Anyway, the main differences between the two invasions is the nature of military technology, which, yes, made a prolonged campaign in Russia far more sustainable in 1941 than it was in 1812.


The reason they were Allies was literally because Hitler didn’t want to fight a two front war in 1939 when he invaded Poland as while he didn’t think the British and French would declare war over invading Poland he didn’t want to risk it so he signed that pact with Stalin . Basically once the western front was completed and it was clear the British weren’t gonna be intimidated into surrendering, he basically decided to invade what he viewed as his main enemy from the start and that was the USSR.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2021, 12:25:28 PM »

1. Napoleon’s main enemy was the British while Hitler’s was the Soviets  so Napoleon’s invasion of Russia was a distraction while for Hitler the war with the Soviets was the entire part of the war in the first place.
Hitler literally had to invade Russia, Napoleon didn’t.  They have similarities in the middle and end, but they’re fundamentally different in that first aspect.

Uh, Hitler and Stalin were allies up until Operation Barbarossa. Stalin was happy to have his own sphere of influence and probably wouldn't have bothered Hitler as long as he didn't threaten him. There was no reason for Nazi Germany and the USSR to fight except Hitler's anticommunism and his delusions of grandeur.

Anyway, the main differences between the two invasions is the nature of military technology, which, yes, made a prolonged campaign in Russia far more sustainable in 1941 than it was in 1812.

Both Hitler and Stalin understood that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was only a very temporary alliance and that armed confrontation between Germany and the USSR was inevitable at some point in the reasonably near future, but for Hitler to launch his attack in the summer of 1941 was ridiculously premature and a massive strategic own goal precipitated on ideology and paranoia, yeah. It’s absurd to say that he “had” to invade Russia at that point.

I don’t think the Nazis really ever had any chance of winning that war as Stalin was willing to fight to every last person to win it and Stalingrad really shows that . 
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2021, 01:36:26 PM »
« Edited: December 29, 2021, 01:44:26 PM by Filuwaúrdjan »

It is a bit of a myth that the weather was a decisive factor in the defeat of the Grande Armée: it was actually a mild winter by Russian standards and the bulk of the disastrous retreat from Moscow happened in October and November and absolutely none of it in January and February. The fact that the army was poorly equipped and provisioned for the winter - or even for a Russian autumn! - was a factor, but whose fault was that, one might ask? Most of the attrition had already occurred before the army reached Moscow (!), and the retreat itself was not strictly necessary: wintering in Moscow would not have been a risk-free option, but it was less obviously suicidal than what was actually done. The reality is that the invasion was very poorly planned and that, once operations began, Napoleon was strategically outthought by Kutusov who understood that if Napoleon could be denied a quick military victory then he would likely act in an irrational and erratic manner and in so doing defeat himself. People really are far too willing to give Napoleon the benefit of the doubt and to make excuses for his failings and failures.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2021, 01:46:45 PM »

Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2022, 12:01:37 AM »

1. Napoleon’s main enemy was the British while Hitler’s was the Soviets  so Napoleon’s invasion of Russia was a distraction while for Hitler the war with the Soviets was the entire part of the war in the first place.
Hitler literally had to invade Russia, Napoleon didn’t.  They have similarities in the middle and end, but they’re fundamentally different in that first aspect.

Uh, Hitler and Stalin were allies up until Operation Barbarossa. Stalin was happy to have his own sphere of influence and probably wouldn't have bothered Hitler as long as he didn't threaten him. There was no reason for Nazi Germany and the USSR to fight except Hitler's anticommunism and his delusions of grandeur.

Anyway, the main differences between the two invasions is the nature of military technology, which, yes, made a prolonged campaign in Russia far more sustainable in 1941 than it was in 1812.

Both Hitler and Stalin understood that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was only a very temporary alliance and that armed confrontation between Germany and the USSR was inevitable at some point in the reasonably near future, but for Hitler to launch his attack in the summer of 1941 was ridiculously premature and a massive strategic own goal precipitated on ideology and paranoia, yeah. It’s absurd to say that he “had” to invade Russia at that point.

Most historians agree that the “peace” between the two was a joke, and that Germany knew it’d be at war with the Soviets within the decade.  From what I have read, Germany was reliant on its (not-quite-) partner, the USSR, for oil … and it was currently stretched much too thin.  If Germany made it to the oil fields, and got all of that for free now while knocking out its ideological arch rival, that’s a massive win.  I think people underestimate how the Nazis VERY realistically could have forced a humiliating armistice with another stroke of luck or two or their generals having more autonomy (i.e., Hitler not vetoing their militarily sound ideas).  “Had to” is hyperbole, but if you’re Germany and you accept the inevitability of war with the USSR, I don’t think it was as bad of a time to strike as people think.  Hindsight is 20/20.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2022, 05:25:54 AM »

1. Napoleon’s main enemy was the British while Hitler’s was the Soviets  so Napoleon’s invasion of Russia was a distraction while for Hitler the war with the Soviets was the entire part of the war in the first place.
Hitler literally had to invade Russia, Napoleon didn’t.  They have similarities in the middle and end, but they’re fundamentally different in that first aspect.

Uh, Hitler and Stalin were allies up until Operation Barbarossa. Stalin was happy to have his own sphere of influence and probably wouldn't have bothered Hitler as long as he didn't threaten him. There was no reason for Nazi Germany and the USSR to fight except Hitler's anticommunism and his delusions of grandeur.

Anyway, the main differences between the two invasions is the nature of military technology, which, yes, made a prolonged campaign in Russia far more sustainable in 1941 than it was in 1812.

Both Hitler and Stalin understood that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was only a very temporary alliance and that armed confrontation between Germany and the USSR was inevitable at some point in the reasonably near future, but for Hitler to launch his attack in the summer of 1941 was ridiculously premature and a massive strategic own goal precipitated on ideology and paranoia, yeah. It’s absurd to say that he “had” to invade Russia at that point.

Most historians agree that the “peace” between the two was a joke, and that Germany knew it’d be at war with the Soviets within the decade.  From what I have read, Germany was reliant on its (not-quite-) partner, the USSR, for oil … and it was currently stretched much too thin.  If Germany made it to the oil fields, and got all of that for free now while knocking out its ideological arch rival, that’s a massive win.  I think people underestimate how the Nazis VERY realistically could have forced a humiliating armistice with another stroke of luck or two or their generals having more autonomy (i.e., Hitler not vetoing their militarily sound ideas).  “Had to” is hyperbole, but if you’re Germany and you accept the inevitability of war with the USSR, I don’t think it was as bad of a time to strike as people think.  Hindsight is 20/20.

I'd argue there's a pretty big difference between "had to" and "wanted to" in terms of evaluating the soundness of a particular course of action. You make good points about why the situation made Operation Barbarossa not as bad an idea as it sounds in hindsight, but that's not the same as saying Hitler had no choice when he very obviously did.

Also, as far as I understand, while Hitler never thought the alliance would last, it seems like Stalin fully bought into it, to the point of dismissing the obvious signs that Germany was getting ready to attack.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 01, 2022, 10:11:34 AM »

but that's not the same as saying Hitler had no choice when he very obviously did.

Yes, 'attempting to conquer the World' is never actually something that any government has to do and serious questions are raised immediately about anyone who assumes otherwise.

Quote
Also, as far as I understand, while Hitler never thought the alliance would last, it seems like Stalin fully bought into it, to the point of dismissing the obvious signs that Germany was getting ready to attack.

Even had intelligence officers who suggested otherwise shot!
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 01, 2022, 02:56:25 PM »

I think it is possible that you have somewhat misinterpreted my post.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2022, 12:38:32 AM »

Also, as far as I understand, while Hitler never thought the alliance would last, it seems like Stalin fully bought into it, to the point of dismissing the obvious signs that Germany was getting ready to attack.

Specifically, Stalin never thought Hitler would attack while Germany was still at war with Britain.

The fact that tiny Finland had fought the Soviet Union to a standstill the year before also did wonders in making the Germans think that the USSR was a paper tiger militarily, notwithstanding the VAST differences in types of war.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 11 queries.