Napoleon and Hitler

by Desmond Seward

Book Overview

A study of the lives of two of history's greatest dictators, Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler, which examines the parallels between their roles and shows how Carl von Clausewitz's treatise ON WAR,... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0670814806
• ISBN13: 9780670814800
• Release Date: May 1989
• Publisher: Viking
• Length: 320 Pages
• Weight: 1.30 lbs.

Customer Reviews

Interesting comparison

Desmond Seward manages to present a research based history book that is readable. Historical figures are often compared, and it's easy to find similarities, but Seward makes a credible presentation. Of particular interest was that Hitler studied Napoleon's campaigns and seemed to give them status as a military education. We are all taught that history will repeat itself if we don't learn from it. In this case, history repeated itself because one man did learn from it.

Only thing missing is Stalin

Well written and organized through extensive research, Seward provides the first scholarly comparison between Hitler and Napoleon. Each section of similarity is extensively described and well researched. A worthy companion to Alan Bullock's Hitler and Stalin which illustrates the comparison between Hitler and Stalin, though not as in-depth or detailed.

It may impossible to find two men with such lasting impact

...on modern history as Napoleon & Adolf Hitler. Unfortunately their hands are soaked in blood. Desmond Steward endeavors to compare & contrast the two dictators. This is done alternating back & forth telling their stories from the beginning. He succeeds in this. Hitler may have been loathe to admit it but it appears he took cues from Napoleon although his hero worship of Fredrick the Great of Prussia & admiration of Clauswitz is evident. Perhaps he had a desire to succeed where Napoleon failed. This in turn hastened his own departure from the world stage faster in fact than Napoleon. Emotionally, they were bound by their common meglomania & absolute belief that providence had decreed that it was their destiny to rule Europe-and beyond. England tormented them both. Each had elaborate plans for the invasion of Britain. Both had moments of clarity when even they realized that an invasion would not succeed. However, Napoleon warred constantly with England with a few years of suspicious peace. Hitler did not wish to fight England at all & tried more than once to make peace. Neither could match England's navy. They were essentially land-lubbers. Their ruin, of course lay in their invasions of Russia. The Russians played the same game twice. Fall-back, fall-back & then let the famous Russian winter finish them off. Both could have succeeded. After conquering vast areas of Europeon Russia they could have both sought a favorable peace. It would have brought all parties the time they needed. The Czar wanted peace. Likewise, Napoleon was bleeding France white. Stalin wanted time for the allies to establish a second front in western Europe. Hitler needed time-off from fighting on two fronts. It could have happened except Napoleon's ego and Hitler hatred of bolshiveikism & the Russian people in general prevented that. They departed on their views of race. Napoleon felt the Jews an asset to France. We know Hitler's views. Napoleon died a slow death on the island of St. Helena in virtual seclusion & thus was able to nurture a heroic legend through his writings. History has treated him more kindly as a result. Hitler had no such luxury. He committed suicide in his bunker while Berlin crumbled above him. As for the narration, Fredrick Davidson's use of French & German pharases sounded arrogant and was off-putting. His impersonations of Hitler & Napoleon sounded like Beldar Conehead.

Excellent anlaysis

The great and prolific people of the world are always defined by the times in which they live, a fact which we cannot escape. To understand Hitler one must understand what came before, especially the legacy that Napoleon left upon the European continent. While a straight comparison/contrast of the two leaders is a core theme in this analysis, Desmond Seward transcends that, attacking the interrelational cause-and-effect relationship between the two conquerors. The enormous complexity of these two personalities, of which numerous, exhaustive studies have been made, preclude Seward from exploring each too deeply in one text. His exploration, as with most works of this nature, raises more questions than it solves, but he, quite thoroughly, includes direct references to his sources and admirably provides the reader directions for further study. While his comparison could use more focus on the thematic analysis rather than simply event-related parallels, it was well composed and quite interesting with solidly founded conclusions.