Whos a better general, Napoleon or HItler?

[Sneed]

Imma go with Hitler here

[Ian Smithereens]

Well, Hitler wasn’t a general, he was a Gefreiter/LCpl and a politician. Many historians would say Germany’s successes in WW2 were despite Hitler and the NSDAP, not because of them. This is especially supposed to be the case later in the war when he insisted on making his troops fight to the death when they could have been used more efficiently with tactical withdrawals. I believe withdrawals and counter attacks were one of the Wehrmacht’s best tactics but they were forbidden by Hitler and the NSDAP leadership on ideological grounds because they never wanted to relinquish an inch of Lebensraum. Also, Bonaparte took Moscow, smashed the 3rd, 4th and 5th coalitions and on a side note brought in more lasting reforms and would have been a more acceptable political leader. Hitler had some quite impressive achievements but national socialism was probably more alienating to the occupied populations than Bonaparte would have been. Bonaparte represented liberation to people like the Poles and Jews and would have had sympathies from certain reformists across Europe, meanwhile a non-German/Aryan probably had less to gain from the NSDAP’s world view, so Hitler probably would have found Europe harder to hold as well.

[Sneed]

Messaggio originale di Got mittens?:

Well, Hitler wasn’t a general, he was a Gefreiter/LCpl and a politician. Many historians would say Germany’s successes in WW2 were despite Hitler and the NSDAP, not because of them. This is especially supposed to be the case later in the war when he insisted on making his troops fight to the death when they could have been used more efficiently with tactical withdrawals. I believe withdrawals and counter attacks were one of the Wehrmacht’s best tactics but they were forbidden by Hitler and the NSDAP leadership on ideological grounds because they never wanted to relinquish an inch of Lebensraum. Also, Bonaparte took Moscow, smashed the 3rd, 4th and 5th coalitions and on a side note brought in more lasting reforms and would have been a more acceptable political leader. Hitler had some quite impressive achievements but national socialism was probably more alienating to the occupied populations than Bonaparte would have been. Bonaparte represented liberation to people like the Poles and Jews and would have had sympathies from certain reformists across Europe, meanwhile a non-German/Aryan probably had less to gain from the NSDAP’s world view, so Hitler probably would have found Europe harder to hold as well.

Nerd

[Messsucher]

I would agree that Napoleon by far, no contest even. Hitler was good in rallying people.

[pgeerkens]

Germany's fortunes in WW2 started precipitously downhill from the moment Hitler began taking an active role in operational decisions. He's on the short list of most incompetent military commanders in history.

[Sirsucksalot]

Messaggio originale di Sneed:

Nerd

Sorry your trolling didn't work out quite as intended. Hitler wasn't a general, though. He was a Commander in Chief, and a bad one at that. The high command of the entire Wehrmacht was a complete mess of jealousies and competing branches. Napoleon is famous for uplifting some of the most brilliant generals of his period, while Hitler is famous for interfering with them and sacking them and throwing tantrums when they didn't commit suicide like he wanted them to. Guderian, renowned as the father of the Blitzkrieg for writing 'Achtung, Panzer!' was removed from command by Hitler for not doing what Hitler wanted. In fact, much of the Wehrmacht's success can be attributed to the traditions of Prussian leadership and the autonomy of its officers and general staff and the excellent training and experience of the Weimar Reichswehr, which was the remnant of the old Imperial Prussian army. Hitler worked to revoke the autonomy of the General Staff and of commanders when the war stopped going his way. Also despite being the sole absolute authority in the German government and having his great war as his #1 ambition since 1933, his Germany was woefully unprepared for a protracted conflict since his strategic acumen began and ended at 'uhh, just go fast and win lol!' His moment of lucidity came when he realised the importance of the Caucasus oil fields, but it was all downhill from Blau and onwards. Though Napoleon committed many geopolitical blunders, he understood the necessity of actually showing an example of what he's fighting for. The Napoleonic Code and the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine and Republic of Italy show him to be far more forward-thinking than Hitler ever was. Hitler occupied half of France and forced the other half to send him slave labour. Do correct me if I'm wrong on anything.

[srscorpion]

Hitler was an abomination. 🤮

[El Mattador]

Interesting fact, a lot of what most people think they know about Hitler's generalship is sourced from the Nazi Generals who wrote accounts of their wartime experiences. They had a huge incentive to shift blame for bad decisions onto him, and he was dead as ♥♥♥♥, so he couldn't exactly rebut them. His generals made some HUGE mistakes that they blamed "crazy Hitler" for, such as the lack of emphasis on Army Group South, even though that was the decisive Front. Many of Hitler's generals were obessed with taking Moscow and diverted reinforcements and supplies to Army Group Center in a stupid attempt to take it. Hitler (correctly) worked out that Moscow, though not insignificant in terms of politics and central as a hub of the Russian rail system, was NOT as important as taking Ukraine (basically where the Soviets got the vast majority of their food) and taking the Caucasus (where they get their oil). This is still the case. If you cut the Volga and hold Ukraine, you can kill Russia no gas for trains, tanks, or tractors; no food. In the course of a few months, you win by starving and paralyzing them. His generals were hyper-focused on carving their names into the walls of the Kremlin and also myopic in their attention to operations; they neglected strategy. They were also bad at working with allied countries. Recent scholarship has revealed much of this. TIK on youtube has a great series (WITH SOURCES!). Hitler, though absolutely evil, wasn't as stupid as we thought back in the 1950's.

[Messsucher]

Based on what happened in Stalingrad I don't think they could had conquered Moscow. Moscow would had been the worst place because "all roads and railways lead to Moscow", and it is a big city. It is easy to think that Moscow would had been good because it is the hub, I think the opposite, it would had been bad, very bad. Even if capturing Moscow would had been decisive there is that fact that to make that decisive victory you first must actually capture Moscow. Would say that Stalingrad was heaven and Moscow would had been real hell.

[Gambit]

I think Napoleon was just lucky, and Adolf was an idiot

[Anvos]

This isn't even a contest when one of them is the guy who while being in the center of Europe thought he should take on both the east and western half, despite having a nonaggression pact with half of the equation, and then let an ally drag him into war with a near continent spanning nation.

[Nvt]

As first of all hitler wasn't a general napoleon was a way more inteligent compared to him. i also don't think napoleon was the agressor at the time. instead some power hungry Uk king was a bigger villain compared to him

[MolanlabeXM15]

Many things could be said but on the positive (the side I like to look to at btw) he was a man who loved beauty and art, a lowly brave corporal...who like so many young men spent the flower of his youth in bloody muddy murderous hell on earth in pitch battle in the trenches during WW1.

[Hanri]

Napoleon is literally The greatest War General

[owen8964]

Messaggio originale di MolanlabeXM15:

Many things could be said but on the positive (the side I like to look to at btw) he was a man who loved beauty and art, a lowly brave corporal...who like so many young men spent the flower of his youth in bloody muddy murderous hell on earth in pitch battle in the trenches during WW1.

He was a poor artist who tried to impose his personal artistic tastes on the whole world by putting those who opposed him in death camps. I don' think his liking a pretty picture in any way makes up for that, or him plunging the world into a war which cost many, many millions of lives and many more devastated or destroyed.

[srscorpion]

Messaggio originale di owen8964:

Messaggio originale di MolanlabeXM15:

Many things could be said but on the positive (the side I like to look to at btw) he was a man who loved beauty and art, a lowly brave corporal...who like so many young men spent the flower of his youth in bloody muddy murderous hell on earth in pitch battle in the trenches during WW1.

He was a poor artist who tried to impose his personal artistic tastes on the whole world by putting those who opposed him in death camps. I don' think his liking a pretty picture in any way makes up for that, or him plunging the world into a war which cost many, many millions of lives and many more devastated or destroyed.

👈😎