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

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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 .