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

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.