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

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

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!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think it is possible that you have somewhat misinterpreted my post.