Hitler left behind him nothing but an immense “moral trauma” (Kershaw's words) which could only ever inspire condemnation.Analysing in turn each detail of the comparison would be effectively acquiescing to an impossible discussion. All the biographies of the Führer underline these aspects of his character; anyone still sceptical should read the section dedicated to this topic in Ian Kershaw's monumental work on Hitler.10Even attempted in the right direction chronologically-speaking, the comparison is hardly convincing. And although he himself admits that his hypothesis may appear at times slightly exaggerated, it is justified by his own primary research, his life's work, the study of political megalomania.What follow are the central elements for his comparison:– Poor background and youthful ambition;– Continued thirst for power;– A coup d'état to achieve power;– The goal of, in the one case, creating a new France and, in the other, a new Germany;– The use of war to expand their influence;– A desire to conquer Europe;– A shared failure to conquer Russia;– Attempts to defeat Britain with a continental blockade;– Resistance to the regime: in Spain for Napoleon, in all the occupied territories for Hitler;– Downfall follows defeat by a coalition of countries;– The story comes to an end with their respective countries in ruins.Any normally constituted historian would, upon reading this book, be shocked at the shortcuts taken, the absence of discussion, and the author's lack of objectivity. You would be wrong.These works from Seward and Ribbe frequently crop up in the bibliographies of otherwise well established authors with a healthy respect for an academic approach to history. Their political agendas share nothing in common. Moreover, such comparison could only be made in specific and extremely localised circumstances, circumstances quite unlike those at the beginning of the 19th century.If we attempt to analyse Seward's hypothesis – something we accept to do only with great reluctance – we come to realise that he has quite deliberately fiddled with the historical facts.The two men's origins, both social and – I would argue – sociological, are fundamentally different.
Hitler did it for the sake of an unbelievably horrible ideal; Napoleon for no underlying purpose at all.”7With this short extract, Schroeder kills two birds with one stone, if you will pardon the expression. The authoritarian imperial regime became the father of totalitarianism, Fouché's police force the inspiration for the Gestapo, Napoleon's policy of Jewish integration the template for the holocaust. Vader and Hitler face off for the first time in the classic episode of Epic Rap Battles Of History. They subsequently find themselves occupying a place within the historiography of the Napoleonic period they in no way deserve. Even during World War Two, British authorities were already comparing Operation Sea Lion to the Boulogne camps. Check out this video: ► http://bit.ly/vaderbts ◄See all the recent videos from ERB at: https://bit.ly/2Uud3dwBuy ERB Season 5 Autographed CD's: https://erbmerch.comAnd don't forget to subscribe to our channel: https://bit.ly/2zBQU53Thank you!np \u0026 eL#erb #epicrapbattles #EpicRapBattlesOfHistory #starwars #vader▼ CAST ▼=========Darth Vader: Nice Peterhttp://www.nicepeter.comhttp://www.youtube.com/NicePeterAdolf Hitler: EpicLLOYDhttp://www.epiclloyd.comhttp://www.youtube.com/EpicLLOYD▼ CREW ▼=========Executive Producers: Peter Shukoff \u0026 Lloyd AhlquistDirecting/Editing: Dave McCaryhttp://www.youtube.com/goodneighborstuffBeat By:VandalizedProd [Title: Tides of War]http://www.beatswagger.comCamera: Jonathan NaCostumes: Nikki FancyOn Everything Helper: Mike SchroederCarbonite Special Effects: Geoff Yano▼ LINKS ▼=========http://erbofhistory.comhttp://erbmerch.comhttp://twitter.com/ERBofHistoryhttp://instagram.com/erbhttp://facebook.com/erbhttp://nicepeter.comhttp://epiclloyd.com Who won?
Napoleon created the French Empire and conquered a large part of Europe before being defeated.
And even there, although he initially reminds the reader that Churchill (in his memoirs) and Pieter Geyl (in Napoleon: for and against) dismissed any possible comparisons between the emperor and the Führer, it is only to make brushing aside their reluctance that much easier later on. And in the 15th May 1942 issue of La France libre – published in London since November 1940 – we even find an article comparing the Russian campaigns of Napoleon and Hitler, concluding that Hitler's army would get its comeuppance just as the Grande Armée did.2Up to this point, however, such comparisons had been carefully judged, used for illustrative – and not comparative – purposes. The Napoleonic episode offers a case study.
I hardly need point out that, by definition, an individual cannot be inspired by someone whose rise to power came one hundred and twenty years later.And as far as Napoleon as a source of reference for Hitler goes, an argument often used by certain historiographical schools to reduce the French emperor to little more than a murdering autocrat and annihilator of so-called European liberties, this can also be challenged.It is true that, in addition to Bismarck, Hitler admired Napoleon. No moral stain could ever make him as abject, scorned or diabolical a figure as Hitler. Any reference to what he considered to be the decadent ideas of the Enlightenment was to be rejected; France, in his eyes, was the arch enemy of the German nation. The pages of Mein Kampf are littered with such references: the war of 1806 forms the basis for the two countries' rivalry, the war of 1870 the first taste of revenge. You decide. Their ideas certainly have a habit of reappearing where you least expect them.Although unreferenced, Seward's hypothesis can be found between the lines of a book many historians across the globe – myself included – consider to be a masterpiece, the magnificent The Transformation of European Politics 1763-1848 by Paul W. Schroeder.6 In it, this great historian writes:“In the history of international politics, Napoleon does not really resemble Charles V, Philip II, Louis XIV, William II, Stalin, or other real or supposed aspirants to European empire or hegemony. All you need do is examine the chronology in order to dismiss this fallacious enigma: you cannot compare two individuals, let alone two phenomena, whose histories are located two centuries apart. His legacy was subsequently celebrated, embraced and expanded on.
But we know all too well that when it comes to this sort of book, a point by point dissection means nothing.
Stalin called on his fellow citizens to withstand the invasion in 1941 just as their ancestors had done in 1812.
A comparative biography,3 well-known amongst Anglophone historians.In this little book slickly produced and written with enough references to appear serious at first glance, the author shows no caution beyond the introduction.
Napoleon – Hitler, the improbable comparison A purely ideological interpretation of history can impel historians to form erroneous conclusions on the nature of regimes and historical fact. This is without even taking into account the complete lack of understanding of the nature of the two periods being studied.You too would probably be shocked if you read this shrewdly written text with its combination of Manichaean themes, penchant for the spectacular, and abundance of smoke and mirrors.As much can be said for a more recent work published in France: Le crime de Napoléon.4The murky hypothesis, in basic terms, is as follows: during the Saint-Domingue expedition, Napoleon attempted to organise the mass-genocide of the island's black population and even put in place the first gas chambers in his bid to carry out this extermination. The headquarters of Wellington and Napoleon and the farms of the Battle of Waterloo His life's work continued after his exile and death: administration, education, legal codes and institutions left by him still abide in form. It's not hard to understand why. © Fondation Napoléon 2020 ISSN 2272-1800. Whether you are a private individual or a company, if you are a tax payer in France, you get tax benefits on donations to the Fondation Napoléon. Two sides – those “against” and those “for” Napoleon – clashed on a sterile battlefield where ideological monocausality defined the wars fought by the various European powers. Not only does he compare Napoleon to the most hated of all conquerors, but he also denies him any sort of vision or affiliation to the Revolution.
It can be summarised in a single phrase: just like Hitler, Napoleon was defeated by the true defenders of common freedom.This startling approach went on to find its methodological footing at the heart of one of the 1980s' burgeoning trends, the comparative biography. You can now support ERB on Patreon over at http://www.patreon.com/erbDownload this song ► http://hyperurl.co/Vader-vs-Hitler ◄Want to go behind the scenes and see how we made this ERB video?
Vader and Hitler face off for the first time in the classic episode of Epic Rap Battles Of History.
The Napoleonic episode offers a case study.
All new…. This vogue enjoyed enormous success, notably with the monumental comparison of Hitler and Stalin, by Alan Bullock. Napoleon – Hitler, the improbable comparison, "Une thèse montée de toutes pièces : Le crime de Napoléon de Claude Ribbe". Their education and upbringing were not the same.
Epic Rap Battles of History - YouTube And in his diary, Goebbels often compares Hitler to Napoleon… although only to rank him above the French emperor. Far easier to amass counter-truth upon counter-truth, offering the faintest of ideas but nevertheless leaving the reader with a vague conviction that soon becomes very hard to shake.
Arguments to the contrary, such as those presented by Steven Englund in his article for the Revue des Deux Mondes, or the few pages I have written refuting the opinions held by Seward and Schroeder, count for little, particularly in the Anglophone world.9Just as it would never cross the mind of a musicologist to suggest Beethoven was inspired by The Rolling Stones, any historian or normal reader knows that it would be impossible to attribute any sort of “Hitlerism” to Napoleon, and with just cause. However, this comparative trend opened the door – initially in the English-speaking world and subsequently in continental European historiography – to unrestrained comparison between Napoleon and Hitler.This time, any basis for such an approach was found in alleged similarities, coincidental evidence and strained connections pushed to breaking point. Quite an achievement. There is no shared historical basis for it. One such example, presented with no small verve it must be said (although not enough to excuse it its faults), is David Bell's The First Total War.8With such godfathers, the equation Napoleon equals Hitler still has room to run. This comparison had previously been made on occasions but, it should be said, in more circumspect and homeopathic doses. In this case, the historian was comparing the biographies of two individuals who had lived and come up against each other at the same time and in the same context.Whilst nevertheless requiring a sensitive touch, this new craze had a chronological and factual basis that could be, at a push, built on the idea of a shared time-period and the fact that the protagonists were involved in the same events. Vader and Hitler face off for the first time in the classic episode of Epic Rap Battles Of History. Nor did he destroy Europe. You decide. For a long time, historians were unable or unwilling to avoid simplification.