Interestingly, when planning the 1812 campaign, Napoleon obsessively scrutinized accounts of Charles XII of Sweden's failed invasion of Russia just over a century earlier. They were all walking into exactly the same trap, over and over again.
Charles XII's General Lewenhaupt lost the supply train at the battle of Lesnaja, forcing the main Army to turn to the breadbasket in the south for food. I don't think Napoleon had any arrangements for the scorched earth tactics, that he was defeated because of a lost supply train. He seems to have missed a lesson there.
Perhaps, he should have studied the invasions of Russia by the Mongols or the Duchy of Poland-Lithuania. Or maybe not. Those invasions worked in part because the King/Tsar was weak at the time, and the Aristocracy was at each others throats. That, and winter in Mongolia is just as harsh as it is in Russia. So it's not like the Russian winter is going to stop a Mongolian army.
@@sebastianwozniak5130 Poland intervened in russian civil war - Time of Troubles. Once russians unified under new elected Tzar poles withdrew. And at that time Commonwealth population was larger than Russia.
On July 8, 1941 the Germans crossed the Berezina. While crossing General Gunther Blumentritt walked along the river bank. One of his staff pointed out something in the water that looked like wooden struts sunk below. After thinking about what they were, a chill ran up all their spines: they were the remnants of Napoleon’s bridges 131 years earlier.
Hastily built pontoon bridges to allow the retreat. There's conflicting claims to the amount of survivors, some say about 2-5 survived and others say none of them lived. Either way, they saved hundreds if not even a few thousand lives. Ney and his corps in the rearguard were decimated to about 700 fighting men yet made a heroic and almost impossible escape and allowed the main army to get out of Russia.
French plans in 1812 were also very similar to the Germans plans for 1941: both countries sought to destroy the Russian armies as fast as possible near the border. Yet, both France and Germany kept pushing even deeper into Russia until Moscow was within reach. Also, the French and Germans never planned to capture the city and yet, Moscow attracted them like a powerful magnet. Last but not least, both Napoleon and Hitler utterly underestimated the Russian resilience and response to their respective invasion. It was Tsar Alexander I who took Paris, and Stalin who conquered Berlin. How ironic.
@@jean-louislalonde6070 Because Moscow was still very important in terms of religious and historical importance to the Russians. There's also the fact that Moscow was where the Russian army was located, the main destruction of which was the main goal of Napoleon, above capturing St Petersburg or Moscow.
It was because of the weather, hitlers decision to divert 2 panzerdivisions and to change the main plan of moscow first to encircle the armies near Kiev. After hitler made that decision, all was lost, guderian tried to change his mind to no avail. It was called the black day of the German army.
Did he even try ? Terrible logistics and erratic decusions based on ideology rather than common sense. Not to mention so many wasted days and tons of fuel at begining of Fall Blau redploying troops all at once creating massive traffic jams... even though there was ZERO need to do any of that. Also, Stalingrad... an incredivle waste of manpower and equipement.
@@tjpassig208 The Russians took huge losses at Borodino and realized they didn't really have the strength to stop Napoleon from capturing Moscow, so they turned it into a useless prize, which was kind of genius.
Churchill, probably. That man was mostly obsessed with himself and no matter how many Gallipoli’s he’d cuase he would continue to believe he is the biggest military mastermind of all time
Surprisingly enough during war games by general Paulus and the German high command before Barbarossa these games already predicted what actually happend in the winter of 1941. That the Wehrmacht simply would run out of reserves, manpower, material and logistics after some weeks in the vast spaces if Russia. And so it did as predicted.
There was also a German general named Georg Thomas who was in charge of their logistics who predicted in either 1938 or 1939 that Germany would inevitably lose any large scale war due to attrition of their supplies. It's amazing how many people in Germany knew war was a dumb idea but they went ahead anyway.
@@awitcher5303 One would think that if I was looking into German logistical planning that I would already be familiar with the character of Adolf Hitler.
@@Some_Average_Joe Stalin did not trust Hitler. Especially after Hitler declined Stalin’s ridiculous request for huge Soviet influence in Europe in the 1940s. Hitler knew he was crashing into a brick wall which he did not know what was on the other side, but he had no choice
@@Some_Average_Joe the german supply chain was a disaster, and even when producing enough stuff it just wouldn't get to the front either in time or enough numbers. Late 1941 there was quite a few panzers sitting in warehouses in Germany.
Interestingly enough, Hitler knew about 2 great military mistakes that applied to his situation, Germany having a war on 2 fronts as it did in WWI, and napoleons failed invasion of Russia. And yet despite having full knowledge of both these historical events and actively taking steps to avoid them, he somehow managed to fully replicate them both. There must be something psychological, or logistically unchangeable that leads to people knowingly repeating history. There is also a phenomenon in human nature I’ve observed that Hitler seemed to not be privy to. And that is the harder you try to avoid a certain fate, the more likely it becomes that you yourself will bring it about.
The first issue - having two fronts - is geopolitical. Germany is poorly positioned to avoid a two-front war because an enemy on one front has every incentive to encourage countries on the other front to go to war. And the countries on the non-active front have a strong incentive to take advantage of a distracted Germany.
Its the curse of being a continental european power who rises too far, England by nature must oppose you and force you into a 2 front war (England supplied Spanish partisans in the penninsular war).
The way hitler appointed Marshal after victory over France in 1940 also was heavily inspired by Napoleon appointment of French marshal after his coronation.
I've spent a lot of time outside in winter. Camped out many times in temps below -20°C.... one thing I can guarantee is that "anti-bolshevism" doesn't keep you warm or fill your belly. Cold wins.
You'd figure that someone who studied Napoleon's russian campaign would figure out at least two things; first , just because you take Moscow that doesn't mean the russians are ready to quit and second, that you need to pack warm winter clothes when you go to Russia.
It wasn't just winter that stopped the Germans what really crippled them in Russia was poor logistics and the winter thaw as the dusty terrain turned into mud in the spring of 1942 trucks and tanks could not move efficiently and on top of that the Germans used horses throughout the whole war.
And they didn't go hard for Moscow, and at least Goebbels begged to be allowed to make a campaign for collecting civilian Winter clothes for the Army, because it would be great for public morale. However the Army refused him that, feeling that it would be humiliating, and claimed to have enough Winter supplies.
What else was he going to do? The only success he could have got, was consolidating the gains he had and doing nothing else. Invading Britain was never going to work, with the Brits Navy around, that has been proven retrospectively. The whole point in his invasion was to clear living space for the Germanic people.Therefore, the battle was lost from the start. Even if the US didn't enter the war, he was going to lose, eventually, it just would have taken many more years, with far more destruction and lives lost, on all sides
@The Trollfather Kaiser never defeated Russia it was Bolshevism, Poland-lithuania eventually got ousted from Moscow and later became part of Russia and Mongols although manage to conquer Russia eventually Russian princes defeated the Mongols the most famous being the Battle of Kulikovo
@@JAGtheTrekkieGEMINI1701 Japan got run over by the Russians to the point they almost lost Hokkaido if it weren't for the Americans crying to Stalin and as for Germany they lucky Bolsheviks pulled Russia out of the war otherwise Russia would occupy Germany in 1918
If you want to conquer Russia, just invade at a time when they're politically disunited. Wait for a succession crisis, or a revolution, or a civil war, or some other time when the Russian people are too busy fighting amongst themselves to adequately resist you. That's how the Mongols conquered them in the 13th Century, that's how the Poles conquered them in 1610, and that's how the Germans conquered them in 1917. Perhaps if Hitler had used King Sigismund III as his role model instead of Napoleon, things would have ended up differently...
Hitler wanted to be Napoleon Napoleon wanted to be Charlemagne Charlemagne wanted to be Constantine Constantine wanted to be Julius Caesar Julius Caesar wanted to be Alexander the Great Alexander the Great wanted to be Achilles And Achilles wasn't real
In many ways, Hitler's invasion of Russia was more similar to Napoleon's than it was different. *Underestimation of logistical difficulties in slowing down the pace of advance, and overestimation in capturing of Russian supplies *Underestimation of Russian political resolve to resist invasion *Inability to create collaboration with locals and inspire revolt among the Russian civilian populace *Assumed army would deal with winter weather by finding shelter in captured cities *Overextended attacks towards objectives much too distant to reliably hold *Allowed flanks to be guarded by unreliable allies, leading to eventual disaster Perhaps instead of studying failed invasions of Russia (which seem to have not yielded any actual insight, just opportunities to pat their own backs) they should have studied successful invasions.
Hitler’s army could whip france and britain any day of the week and Germany had reason to strike them. I just don’t agree with their conquest of Soviet Union.
Tell me, who has ever conquered Russia through land invasion? No one. The closest to it would be Napoleon as they actually did capture Moscow and the Russian monarchy relocated the capital to St. Petersburg. If that doesn't count I don't know what will.
@@Daggz90 Subutai, the Mongols, conquered the whole of medieval Russia. Also I didn't specify conquest of Russia, I specified invasions. Russia has been successfully invaded many times by the Poles, Crimeans, and Swedes.
@@pax6833 Not true. In those times Russia was much smaller and with less population. Territory and human resources in 19th and 20th century gave Russia huge advantage.
The only chance you could have in a war with Russia is to have a groundswell of support from the local populace to help with supplying your army. You can't take it in one season. The Germans needed to have some sort of scenario for the other states' independence from Russia to have any chance of achieving this. Like the USA, they're too big and in the case of the US, too well armed.
Compare the Soviet Patriotic War with the Chinese War of Anti-Japanese Aggression: The collaborators in the USSR never became the major threat (German ethnic cleansing made sure of that), while in China, they always ALWAYS had to deal with the 伪军 Illegitimate (illegitimate as in answering to puppets and collaborators like Wang Jingwei) Troops; ask any Chinese source, be it from the Nationalist Party or the Communist Party, and they’ll show you that in terms of enemies that the proper Chinese had to fight, Illegitimate casualties >> Japanese casualties. Another big reason Japan almost won, cuz for a big part, China wasn’t even fighting Japan proper. 😢
Germany's only single chance at victory was to take the Caucus oil fields. Ukraine and a the Baltic state supported Germany. So it didn't matter if they had local support or not. They had to get the fuel and at the same time starve the Red Army out of fuel.
i love that napoleon also had the largest invasion in history at the time. Also that instead of learning from napoleons logistical failings, that they just shouldn't retreat.
Hilter, Napoleon and Charles XII failed in Invasion of Russia! They should have seen Darius's Scythia campaign. He saw that Scythians were burning the villages so Persian soldiers couldn't get any food. So he ordered a withdrawal of his soldiers. Napoleon and Hitler could have learned so much from him. Mongolians also invaded Russia and conquered parts of Russia
That’s because the Mongols were born and raised on the step which is large part of modern day Russia they were used to the terrain that the Russians had advantage on. That’s why they were successful. The French, the Germans, and the Swedes did not they were taking on a whole completely different enemy, and the Swedes have more of a chance tobe successful after they won the battle of Narva in 1700 but instead they chose to go and fight Poland allowing the Russians to regroup and rebuild their entire army
Every egotistical dictator admires the egotistical dictator that came before. Napoleon admired Frederick the Great and Charles XII, Hitler admired Napoleon.
Neither of the first three that you mention was egotistical, at least we have no sources, which may suggest that. They weren't dictators, the one that comes the closest to the definition of a dictator is Napoleon, although he never was one.
No, his idiocy was. He literally believed that he was superior to slavs and they would just submit, and therefore invaded haphazardly. Even though his generals told him that they didn't have the resources to do it. He paradoxically wanted to go east to get the resources to invade the east
People always refer to Napoleon's 1812 invasion as an absolute failure, but in reality, for those that actually learn history instead of repeating a shallow and hardly accurate statement. Napoleon defeated Russian generals time and again on his campaign, and unlike the Germans, the French DID capture Moscow, and left only after the Russian people burned down their own capital.
@@jessealexander2905 thank you for sharing one singular instance from the campaign. That still does not change the fact that this relatively small tactical victory for the Russians (albeit a geographical defeat), pales is comparison to the French victories at Borodino, Smolensk, and Vitebsk.
@@tbuxt3992 It is three hour documentary on the entire campaign. The battles you list were tactical victories but Napoleon very clearly lost the campaign at a strategic level, as well as some critical battles (e.g. Maloyaroslavets). There is no real historical argument about that.
@@jessealexander2905 for one, the video link sent me to a specific portion of the video, so I am sorry if I naturally assumed that was what you were specifically speaking of. Second, nobody is arguing that Napoleon didn't lose it at a greater strategic level. And lastly, it is a poor example to use Maloyaroslavets as an example when the battle within itself was a French tactical victory, not to mention the fact that the French inflicted just as many if not more casualties on the Russians.
Someone once said that the more you tell yourself not to drop your phone in the toilet, the more likely you are to drop your phone in the toilet because of how much you're thinking about it. Is it possible that the 1812 campaign was so burned into everybody's minds that they repeated it unconsciously?
Hitler may have been aware of Napoleonic history and by 1940 would have been happy to draw comparisons to Napoleon's victories. As with the fall of France in 1940, the Wehrmacht stood as Napoleon had stood around the time of period before the Battle of Trafalgar. But Hitler's policies and motivations were largely focused on economic lines of reasoning that were developed well after the defeat of Napoleon and would also be irrelevant to Napoleonic history.
@@camm8642 - In terms of the existence of Napoleonic France, Trafalgar wasn't important... at least not immediately, but the defeat there assured that Napoleon would never be able to invade Britain, which in turn left a powerful foe that wasn't going to bow to Napoleon... which in turn allowed the Napoleonic Wars to continue and denied Napoleon a final victory. Prior to the Battle of Trafalgar, Napoleon had the hope that he might force a landing in Britain. It's why the victory over France in 1940 puts Hitler in that same position as Napoleon prior to the Battle of Trafalgar. Now, the German Navy at that point wasn't a real threat to Britain after the mauling it took in Norway... BUT 1940 added the presence of airpower which the Germans hoped would make up for their naval weakness... But the needs of the Luftwaffe also played into economic issues that weren't around in 1800 to 1815 and related more to Hitler's grander scheme, which had little to do with Napoleon.
Hitler did try to change targets onto the Caucasus but since Stalingrad became a meat grinder it was extremely difficult for them to take the oilfields down there. Didn't help that America supplied Soviets with lend lease, without it Germany could have broken the USSR eventually.
comparing Hitler to Napoleon is the most stupid and ignorant thing to do. One was a political reformer, inheritor of the revolution, and the most successful general in history. He brough ancient monarchies to their knees, left a lasting mark in European civil societies, high schools, archaeology, culture and the art of warfare. The other was just a mass murderer.
I'm very curious about whether there was any similar thinking when it came to Spain. Spain, of course, was Napoleon's other undoing. And there are some parallels between Spain's status in 1807 and 1941 when it comes to being a Napoleonic/Axis Ally, but also cooperating with the Allies. Did Hitler ever consider invading Spain to coerce Franco into joining the war? Was that conversation also wracked by Napoleonic parallels? I know very little about this topic, but I am curious
No he had already intervened in Spain and they had won, it was an ideological war, with racial issues in the middle for Hitler invading Spain was nonsense, a Fascist man was there. For Napoleon on the other hand the Spanish were not allies, but were forced into an alliance after they defeat in 1795 and they do not seriously cooperate, and their fallout with the clergy and social progress made the French and Spanish system natural enemies one a Bourbon king and the other beheaded a Bourbon king.
Like Napoleon, Hitler too took his opponent likely when he said “we just have to kick in the door and whole rotten structure will fall.” Like the French emperor Hitler army eventually had to flee as well. Hitler learn nothing from Napoleon mistakes just bigger. Enjoy your RUclips videos very educational
@@theawesomeman9821 you must remember it’s Hitler we’re talking about who was the most unrealistic person and by this is why the Russia invasion failed
Not at all he let his famous 6. German army to die in Stalingrad, they wanted to perform a break out but once hitler was told the remaining oil supplies he refused to agree
The reason Hitler think that he will be succeeded while napoleon's not is : 1. Hitler believe, 3 million Wehrmacht soldiers with superior equipment will easily defeat (then) 3 million Red Army soldiers, he didn't calculate that Soviet could easily replace those fallen or captured soldier since Soviet Union have a bigger population than Germany. 2. Hitler believe if Moscow was captured, Russia simply surrender just like France after Germany capture Paris, even if Germany manage to capture Moscow, Stalin easily move Soviet capital towards any cities east of Ural mountain. 3. Hitler believe all of Russian strategic industries are in the western part of Soviet Union, he didn't think Soviet have a capabilities to replace their industries towards eastern Ural Mountain, in fact more than 60% of Russian factories especially in military and strategic industries are moved towards east of Ural Mountain by Stalin in the matter of months after operation Barbarossa started, no wonder Hitler surprised that his army facing "never-ending onslaught of Russian tanks" no matter how much Germany manage to destroy.
@@dinohermann1887 Leipzig was kinda one of the worst battle fought in history where the only move made by their ennemies was to run away when Napoleon came close
Napoleon actually not invade Russia during winter. He plan to “finish” Russia BEFORE winter starts. But he stuck until winter. Hitler also have the same plan. And winter also come to Russian soil as every year and he also was not ready for it, as Napoleon was. :)
You put a lot of effort to make this video for sure and I can't thank enough for full of informative things that I've learnt after watching the whole video about Hitler's obsession with Napeleon's Defeat.
You fit so much information into seven and a half minutes, I have to always stop, go back, and listen again. I ruminate on your statements- keep up the fantastic work.
I've heard that Napoleon's tomb was built with a low ceiling so people would have to bow when entering. Hitler decided to bring along a mirror or two so he could see Napoleon but not have to bow his head.
It would be great if you could do WWI as Germany before the US entered the war. It seemed to be winning despite the blockade damage by the Royal Navy, which was taking its toll on Germany.
The French Army imploded in 1917 after Verdun. British Empire forces were holding the line on the Western Front - just about - and Churchill's Gallipoli disaster lost vital ANZAC troops, while the Germans could bring into play battalions from the Russian front after Czarist Russia collapsed.
Especially notable is the south turn of Army group center and the battle of Kiev which was the greatest German success in the war. It practically annihilated the Russian army that needed to rebuild after this. The aftermath of the battle of Kiev - turning back towards Moscow - was what decided the war in the East.
Amazing video, one the first ones where there was no mainstream propaganda-ing as opposed to other videos made by other youtube channels or even history teachers
When the Mongols and Poles captured Russia, Russia was a far weaker and more divided country. Russia was not as big as the time of Napoleon or Hitler’s invasions. Ironically, the first leader to wage an invasion… and lost in Russia was a Swedish King.
As the French say, "Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose", the more things change, the more they remain the same. Hitler repeated exactly the same mistake because he was driven by his narcissism; the ego makes a poor guide.
Prior to WW1 was living on the streets. He was not well-connected, he might have succumbed like others to TB and be mourned by no-one. 20 years later he is both Chancellor & President of the most technically & scientifically advanced nation in Europe (unlike Britain, not burdened with a useless aristocracy, though they existed). So in that context..umm ...who wouldn't have an ego.
i love how both Hitler and Napoleon studied the cost and defeats that come with invading Russia and the winter, but the proceed to begin to do the very thing they learned that will cost them a defeat. Isn't it just easy to avoid making the same mistake? Why can they just not invade? I don't understand the point of learning from a mistake of you're gonna recreate said mistake.
Invading Russia, was part of Hitlers "Lebensraum" plan. A plan to make living space for the German people, of his beliefs racial mythology of his ideology. Hitler was completely delusional, yet Operation Barbarossa could've have been a success if he hadnt intervened.
I mean Germany was either going to invade the soviet union when they had the upper hand, or the ussr would invade them later on. An impossible task but one that was going to happen either way. If they didn't invade maybe the molotv-ribbentrop pact would have been still intact and the world would be a much darker place. Who knows
Well Hitler saw Russia as a great enemy of Germany not just from both an ideology standpoint but also feared they would eventually invade Germany, it's not like he wanted to invade Russia for the laughs but rather he felt he had to invade Russia.
Dear authors of the channel, the current conflict in Ukraine is indirectly similar to the Eastern (Crimean) War of 1853-56, where Tsarist Nicholas Russia got involved in a war with Turkey, but as a result it had to fight with Great Britain, the French Empire, Turkey and the Kingdom of Sardinia.
Yes Napoleon did take Moscow. But the Czar abandoned Moscow to the French. And Napoleon felt the he was cheated out of his victory over the Russians. In 1941. Stalin refused to abandon Moscow to the Germans. Most of the Siberian Army was brought to defend Moscow. And defend Moscow they did.
@@fatdaddyeddiejr They did try and defend Moscow against Napoléon at Borodino, they lost and retreated. They abandoned it because of the failed defense
@@fatdaddyeddiejr Russians always lost in battle against the French. Their land and winter saved them. Just like England being an island made their nation possible. Otherwise they'd be speaking french, and not just using half of their words from french like they are today.
@@Rocky-rw3ov It was still their most important city that's why they fought the bloodiest battle there, it's like, for decades Jerusalem wasn't Israel's capital and yet taking it was more important than taking Jaffa.
To be fair the germans were winning in russia and probably would have won if the allies didnt supply the soviets and if the allies didnt pressure from the west
Well, at least Napoleon captured Moscow. Though, a similarity perhaps lies in the fact that he should have captures St. Petersburg instead, just as how the Germans should have focused southwards instead, but that is all althis talk.
He should have asked Denmark, Prussia or Mecklenburg, if they could lent Napoleon some war ships to invade Russia (and therefore St. Petersburg) via the Baltic Sea.
Just have to say that he wanted to go south, where the food and oil is to solve their chronic lack of critical resources, but the generals wanted to do the same thing they did in France. I'm not on either side and moustache despite his flawed economic beliefs (and a lot of other ones too) knew that they needed the Caucuses, which is true.
The invasion of Russia was not a defeat for Napoleons army. They successfully invaded but were left with scorched earth. The whole mission was considered a massive failure but not the initial invasion.
Are you kidding? He lost 90% of his half 1 million army that he marched in with to Russia same thing that Adolf did only over a century later both were a disaster because they invaded in the winter and fighting a massive empire in its turf is a disastrous strategy.
Hitler was absolutely unaware that a volcanic eruption is what defeated Napoleon. That is why the rout at Waterloo is so confusing - we were missing a massive key detail. That detail can be seen in the ground and weather conditions that marred troop movements. Couple that with Napoleon's generals not following the correct battle plan = disaster
They will not put their boots on the Russian soil. It’s too expensive for them. Better buy a puppet state for that and say they they are not connected to this if their clown will fail.
So, the National Socialists defeat their own criticism of 1812. They say they have mechanized vehicles now so why wouldnt they do one massive straight charge to Moscow? Its a contradiction, they should have been more certain one massive drive to moscow would have worked now with more power. It would have worked too, they would have at least got Moscow for sure.
Sometimes though you have to be bold and take risks, like he did by pushing through the Ardennes forest & using Fallschirmjaeger to neutralise the Maginot Line at its weakest point. OKW was full of conservative-minded generals so he was compelled to trust instead in Guderian and others with new ideas harnessing the latest technology. As the Royal Navy had trusted in Nelson.
There are so many similarities between Adolf and Napoleon. A lot. They were both born in a country other than the one they would rule. They both failed to conquer England. They both wanted to dominate as many countries. They both invaded Russia and failed with huge massive losses. They both were fighting on so many fronts. They were both born in Chinese year of the OX. Both died around the mid 50s. Both thought of suicide. Both were obsessed with previous great leaders. Both were suffering from health conditions. Both were known to emotional outbursts. Etc etc etc..and these are just a few.
Interestingly, when planning the 1812 campaign, Napoleon obsessively scrutinized accounts of Charles XII of Sweden's failed invasion of Russia just over a century earlier. They were all walking into exactly the same trap, over and over again.
Charles XII's General Lewenhaupt lost the supply train at the battle of Lesnaja, forcing the main Army to turn to the breadbasket in the south for food. I don't think Napoleon had any arrangements for the scorched earth tactics, that he was defeated because of a lost supply train. He seems to have missed a lesson there.
Perhaps, he should have studied the invasions of Russia by the Mongols or the Duchy of Poland-Lithuania.
Or maybe not. Those invasions worked in part because the King/Tsar was weak at the time, and the Aristocracy was at each others throats. That, and winter in Mongolia is just as harsh as it is in Russia. So it's not like the Russian winter is going to stop a Mongolian army.
@@andrewb1921 From What i know while there is cold in Mongolia in the winter there is much less snow.
Not all. Poland managed to defeat Russia and set up a puppet government.
@@sebastianwozniak5130 Poland intervened in russian civil war - Time of Troubles. Once russians unified under new elected Tzar poles withdrew. And at that time Commonwealth population was larger than Russia.
On July 8, 1941 the Germans crossed the Berezina. While crossing General Gunther Blumentritt walked along the river bank. One of his staff pointed out something in the water that looked like wooden struts sunk below. After thinking about what they were, a chill ran up all their spines: they were the remnants of Napoleon’s bridges 131 years earlier.
Where the Swiss engineers and carpenters froze to death
@@miliba Dutch engineers*
@@nikolasnielsen9751 Swiss engineers were notably famous for this incident. Maybe some Dutch were present too
@@miliba ...:notably famous"....oy!
Hastily built pontoon bridges to allow the retreat. There's conflicting claims to the amount of survivors, some say about 2-5 survived and others say none of them lived. Either way, they saved hundreds if not even a few thousand lives. Ney and his corps in the rearguard were decimated to about 700 fighting men yet made a heroic and almost impossible escape and allowed the main army to get out of Russia.
French plans in 1812 were also very similar to the Germans plans for 1941: both countries sought to destroy the Russian armies as fast as possible near the border. Yet, both France and Germany kept pushing even deeper into Russia until Moscow was within reach. Also, the French and Germans never planned to capture the city and yet, Moscow attracted them like a powerful magnet. Last but not least, both Napoleon and Hitler utterly underestimated the Russian resilience and response to their respective invasion. It was Tsar Alexander I who took Paris, and Stalin who conquered Berlin. How ironic.
I always wondered why Napoleon's Grande Armée went to Moscow when St Petersburgh was Russia's capital?
@@jean-louislalonde6070 Because Moscow was still very important in terms of religious and historical importance to the Russians. There's also the fact that Moscow was where the Russian army was located, the main destruction of which was the main goal of Napoleon, above capturing St Petersburg or Moscow.
This fact makes it even sadder that some people in the west think that sanctions will stop todays Russia in their expansionism.
To be fair, Napoleon had to face not only the russians but the rest of Europe aswell. The ones who took Paris was the coalition.
It was because of the weather, hitlers decision to divert 2 panzerdivisions and to change the main plan of moscow first to encircle the armies near Kiev.
After hitler made that decision, all was lost, guderian tried to change his mind to no avail. It was called the black day of the German army.
His fate turned worse than Napoleon's while trying to avoid Napoleon's fate.
Did he even try ? Terrible logistics and erratic decusions based on ideology rather than common sense. Not to mention so many wasted days and tons of fuel at begining of Fall Blau redploying troops all at once creating massive traffic jams... even though there was ZERO need to do any of that. Also, Stalingrad... an incredivle waste of manpower and equipement.
@@Spido68_the_spectator There’s a reason why the USSR didn’t collapse even before the first Lend-Lease from England came in.
@@davidw.2791 commisars
This is the best comment
Self fulfilling prophesy
Biden is next
Goebbels: _"The history of Napoleon will not repeat itself"_ Me: _"Right! Napoleon actually took Moscow, and you never did."_
Because Moscow was abandoned and set ablaze by its mayor, so it was a pyrrhic victory for napoleon.
@@tjpassig208 The Russians lost Moscow at Borodino.
Even if the Germans took Moscow they would still lose.
@@tjpassig208 The Russians took huge losses at Borodino and realized they didn't really have the strength to stop Napoleon from capturing Moscow, so they turned it into a useless prize, which was kind of genius.
@@tjpassig208 Russians put up a fight against Napoleon taking Moscow. They didn't just roast the city and served it in a cold russian platter.
Let's be honest now... anyone who has studied about Napoleon, would be obsessed with him.
Same with Frederick the Great.
Having a literal era named after you would always guarantee a degree of respect
Nope!!!
@@comradekenobi6908 what about AD???? For eternity???
@Dvd Ortiz yeah he's the most known guy in human history aftetall, even I as a non Christian respect him very much
Was there anyone in the 19th and 20th century NOT obsessed with Napoleon?
Their obsession with Napoleon is rather similar to our obsession with Hitler.
Stalin
Churchill, probably. That man was mostly obsessed with himself and no matter how many Gallipoli’s he’d cuase he would continue to believe he is the biggest military mastermind of all time
i'm obsessed with napoleon...but i'm sure in a much different way lol
@Willhelm Buddesweir unpopular opinion tho, Churchill had a great mental health,like imagine being by yourself in a war and still cause a whole fiasco
Napoleon was THERE with his army in Russia.... Hitler was no Napoleon.
He also kinda had to be. given he was the master tactician, and you know, there we no telephones
@@chrism8996 There were however pigeons, that could deliver messages more reliably than early phones.
@@dinohermann1887 False.
@@chrism8996 How?
@@chrism8996 Not all monarchs went to war themselves. But yes, Napoleon was a master tactician and he liked to oversee things.
Surprisingly enough during war games by general Paulus and the German high command before Barbarossa these games already predicted what actually happend in the winter of 1941. That the Wehrmacht simply would run out of reserves, manpower, material and logistics after some weeks in the vast spaces if Russia. And so it did as predicted.
There was also a German general named Georg Thomas who was in charge of their logistics who predicted in either 1938 or 1939 that Germany would inevitably lose any large scale war due to attrition of their supplies. It's amazing how many people in Germany knew war was a dumb idea but they went ahead anyway.
@@Some_Average_Joe hitler was in it to win it regardless how impossible the invasion(tho he considered it would be easy)
@@awitcher5303 One would think that if I was looking into German logistical planning that I would already be familiar with the character of Adolf Hitler.
@@Some_Average_Joe Stalin did not trust Hitler. Especially after Hitler declined Stalin’s ridiculous request for huge Soviet influence in Europe in the 1940s. Hitler knew he was crashing into a brick wall which he did not know what was on the other side, but he had no choice
@@Some_Average_Joe the german supply chain was a disaster, and even when producing enough stuff it just wouldn't get to the front either in time or enough numbers. Late 1941 there was quite a few panzers sitting in warehouses in Germany.
Atleast Napoleon got to Moscow.
You beat me to it! 😄
Napoleon had a better army, but general winter dgaf. Napoleon didn't actually lose any battles like stalingrad or kursk.
@@rustyshackleford3316 he actually lost more men on the way to Moscow, then when leaving.
War goal achieved let's GTFO!!
Yeah but he couldn't get 100% war score
Interestingly enough, Hitler knew about 2 great military mistakes that applied to his situation, Germany having a war on 2 fronts as it did in WWI, and napoleons failed invasion of Russia. And yet despite having full knowledge of both these historical events and actively taking steps to avoid them, he somehow managed to fully replicate them both.
There must be something psychological, or logistically unchangeable that leads to people knowingly repeating history. There is also a phenomenon in human nature I’ve observed that Hitler seemed to not be privy to. And that is the harder you try to avoid a certain fate, the more likely it becomes that you yourself will bring it about.
The first issue - having two fronts - is geopolitical. Germany is poorly positioned to avoid a two-front war because an enemy on one front has every incentive to encourage countries on the other front to go to war. And the countries on the non-active front have a strong incentive to take advantage of a distracted Germany.
The phenomenon you’re talking about is called hyperintention
Its the curse of being a continental european power who rises too far, England by nature must oppose you and force you into a 2 front war (England supplied Spanish partisans in the penninsular war).
Reddit moment
The way hitler appointed Marshal after victory over France in 1940 also was heavily inspired by Napoleon appointment of French marshal after his coronation.
Appointed who?
@@severusfloki5778 Philippe Petain
I've spent a lot of time outside in winter. Camped out many times in temps below -20°C.... one thing I can guarantee is that "anti-bolshevism" doesn't keep you warm or fill your belly. Cold wins.
Lol well said man. Well said, and very funny ✌🏻👍🏻
It helps
Ironically, neither does Bolshevism.
You'd figure that someone who studied Napoleon's russian campaign would figure out at least two things; first , just because you take Moscow that doesn't mean the russians are ready to quit and second, that you need to pack warm winter clothes when you go to Russia.
But since then both Germany and Poland beat Russia, might not be quite a invasion but still fresh in his mind.
It wasn't just winter that stopped the Germans what really crippled them in Russia was poor logistics and the winter thaw as the dusty terrain turned into mud in the spring of 1942 trucks and tanks could not move efficiently and on top of that the Germans used horses throughout the whole war.
And they didn't go hard for Moscow, and at least Goebbels begged to be allowed to make a campaign for collecting civilian Winter clothes for the Army, because it would be great for public morale. However the Army refused him that, feeling that it would be humiliating, and claimed to have enough Winter supplies.
@@planderlinde1969 nah lendlease for ivans
They would have surendered after moscow because stalin said he would comit suicide if germany gets it
For someone that is obsessed with Napoleon he sure didn't learn not to mess with Russia
What else was he going to do? The only success he could have got, was consolidating the gains he had and doing nothing else. Invading Britain was never going to work, with the Brits Navy around, that has been proven retrospectively. The whole point in his invasion was to clear living space for the Germanic people.Therefore, the battle was lost from the start. Even if the US didn't enter the war, he was going to lose, eventually, it just would have taken many more years, with far more destruction and lives lost, on all sides
But you actually CAN mess with Russia, as Japan and the German Empire already Did succesfully
@The Trollfather Kaiser never defeated Russia it was Bolshevism, Poland-lithuania eventually got ousted from Moscow and later became part of Russia and Mongols although manage to conquer Russia eventually Russian princes defeated the Mongols the most famous being the Battle of Kulikovo
@@JAGtheTrekkieGEMINI1701 Japan got run over by the Russians to the point they almost lost Hokkaido if it weren't for the Americans crying to Stalin and as for Germany they lucky Bolsheviks pulled Russia out of the war otherwise Russia would occupy Germany in 1918
@@JDDC-tq7qm Russia had Problems itself, No way they could have overrun Germany with Bolsheviks
If you want to conquer Russia, just invade at a time when they're politically disunited. Wait for a succession crisis, or a revolution, or a civil war, or some other time when the Russian people are too busy fighting amongst themselves to adequately resist you. That's how the Mongols conquered them in the 13th Century, that's how the Poles conquered them in 1610, and that's how the Germans conquered them in 1917. Perhaps if Hitler had used King Sigismund III as his role model instead of Napoleon, things would have ended up differently...
the problem whit propaganda, is the danger of believing in ones own propaganda
Hitler worshipped napoleon, napoleon worshipped Alexander the Great, Alexander the Great worshipped himself
Aslında hitler napolyon a tapmiyordu alakası bile yok ama Fransız lar napolyon u yüceltmek için öyleymiş gibi gösterirler
Hitler wanted to be Napoleon
Napoleon wanted to be Charlemagne
Charlemagne wanted to be Constantine
Constantine wanted to be Julius Caesar
Julius Caesar wanted to be Alexander the Great
Alexander the Great wanted to be Achilles
And Achilles wasn't real
Alexander worshiped cyrus the great
Crazy as it sounds but Napoleon wasnt french, Stalin wasnt russian and Hitler wasnt german
by the time napoleon was born corsica was a french territory so technically he was.
Technically Obama wasnt born in a traditional mainland....
@@CAM8689 when Stalin was born Georgia was Russian territory
He was french, no doubt. Corsica was french at the time and he even said it himself " I feel more Champenois than Corsican "
@@Moroes11 of cors he was and cors he would say that
>Obsesses over his defeat
>repeats same mistake
>meme arrow on youtube
Interesting that again today russia is being denigrated and underestimated. RIP
@@dubya85Never underestimate Russia. A lot of fools today make the same mistake as Napoleon and Hitler
@@uvuvwevwevweonyetenyevweug5884 yes
@@uvuvwevwevweonyetenyevweug5884 Ukraine: Are u sure about that?
In many ways, Hitler's invasion of Russia was more similar to Napoleon's than it was different.
*Underestimation of logistical difficulties in slowing down the pace of advance, and overestimation in capturing of Russian supplies
*Underestimation of Russian political resolve to resist invasion
*Inability to create collaboration with locals and inspire revolt among the Russian civilian populace
*Assumed army would deal with winter weather by finding shelter in captured cities
*Overextended attacks towards objectives much too distant to reliably hold
*Allowed flanks to be guarded by unreliable allies, leading to eventual disaster
Perhaps instead of studying failed invasions of Russia (which seem to have not yielded any actual insight, just opportunities to pat their own backs) they should have studied successful invasions.
Hitler’s army could whip france and britain any day of the week and Germany had reason to strike them. I just don’t agree with their conquest of Soviet Union.
Tell me, who has ever conquered Russia through land invasion? No one. The closest to it would be Napoleon as they actually did capture Moscow and the Russian monarchy relocated the capital to St. Petersburg. If that doesn't count I don't know what will.
@@Daggz90 The Russian Empire's capital was St.Petersburg during the Napoleonic Wars. Moscow was just the "cultural center" city of the Russian people.
@@Daggz90 Subutai, the Mongols, conquered the whole of medieval Russia.
Also I didn't specify conquest of Russia, I specified invasions. Russia has been successfully invaded many times by the Poles, Crimeans, and Swedes.
@@pax6833 Not true. In those times Russia was much smaller and with less population. Territory and human resources in 19th and 20th century gave Russia huge advantage.
The only chance you could have in a war with Russia is to have a groundswell of support from the local populace to help with supplying your army. You can't take it in one season. The Germans needed to have some sort of scenario for the other states' independence from Russia to have any chance of achieving this. Like the USA, they're too big and in the case of the US, too well armed.
Or if they’re invading you. They’re only unbeatable when you’re on their turf.
Compare the Soviet Patriotic War with the Chinese War of Anti-Japanese Aggression: The collaborators in the USSR never became the major threat (German ethnic cleansing made sure of that), while in China, they always ALWAYS had to deal with the 伪军 Illegitimate (illegitimate as in answering to puppets and collaborators like Wang Jingwei) Troops; ask any Chinese source, be it from the Nationalist Party or the Communist Party, and they’ll show you that in terms of enemies that the proper Chinese had to fight, Illegitimate casualties >> Japanese casualties. Another big reason Japan almost won, cuz for a big part, China wasn’t even fighting Japan proper. 😢
@@ddc2957 It's doubtful Russia would have survived if America hadn't sent it massive amounts of supplies.
@@thomasbravado russia would have had a harder time but they would still probably win. Most of russias industry was moved behind the urals anyways
Germany's only single chance at victory was to take the Caucus oil fields. Ukraine and a the Baltic state supported Germany. So it didn't matter if they had local support or not. They had to get the fuel and at the same time starve the Red Army out of fuel.
i love that napoleon also had the largest invasion in history at the time. Also that instead of learning from napoleons logistical failings, that they just shouldn't retreat.
History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes.
Very true
A play of words with the same point.
Hilter, Napoleon and Charles XII failed in Invasion of Russia! They should have seen Darius's Scythia campaign. He saw that Scythians were burning the villages so Persian soldiers couldn't get any food. So he ordered a withdrawal of his soldiers. Napoleon and Hitler could have learned so much from him. Mongolians also invaded Russia and conquered parts of Russia
Mongolns didn't come from Siberia or at least the zones of cold?
That’s because the Mongols were born and raised on the step which is large part of modern day Russia they were used to the terrain that the Russians had advantage on. That’s why they were successful. The French, the Germans, and the Swedes did not they were taking on a whole completely different enemy, and the Swedes have more of a chance tobe successful after they won the battle of Narva in 1700 but instead they chose to go and fight Poland allowing the Russians to regroup and rebuild their entire army
For a minister of propaganda Goebbels doesn't sound too convincing.
Considering it's his own journal/diary...
@@jadapinkett1656 is he trying to propagate to himself? :-D
I guess the public didnt goebble it up
Every egotistical dictator admires the egotistical dictator that came before. Napoleon admired Frederick the Great and Charles XII, Hitler admired Napoleon.
Julius Caesar admired Alexander the Great
Idi Amin admired Hitler
Neither of the first three that you mention was egotistical, at least we have no sources, which may suggest that. They weren't dictators, the one that comes the closest to the definition of a dictator is Napoleon, although he never was one.
@Nikolas Nielsen Thinking Napoelon didn't have an ego or wasn't a dictator, think we've found the fanboy.
@@Wanderer628 Frederick the Great a dictator? 🤣🤣🤣
@@kerim.s8801 Yes. All autocrats are technically dictators. Its simply thst the definition does not apply in a pre-democratic world.
Excellent content as always. I really appreciate you guys.
bro really thought he was Napoléon 💀💀
Same as napoleon wanted to be caesar 😂
@@johnxina4906 napoleon surpassed caesar
It's fascinating how Hitler's obsession with Napoleon is what turned him into another Napoleon. We often become the things we fear the most.
No, his idiocy was. He literally believed that he was superior to slavs and they would just submit, and therefore invaded haphazardly. Even though his generals told him that they didn't have the resources to do it. He paradoxically wanted to go east to get the resources to invade the east
People always refer to Napoleon's 1812 invasion as an absolute failure, but in reality, for those that actually learn history instead of repeating a shallow and hardly accurate statement. Napoleon defeated Russian generals time and again on his campaign, and unlike the Germans, the French DID capture Moscow, and left only after the Russian people burned down their own capital.
ruclips.net/video/liokytT2TSk/видео.html
@@jessealexander2905 thank you for sharing one singular instance from the campaign. That still does not change the fact that this relatively small tactical victory for the Russians (albeit a geographical defeat), pales is comparison to the French victories at Borodino, Smolensk, and Vitebsk.
@@tbuxt3992 It is three hour documentary on the entire campaign. The battles you list were tactical victories but Napoleon very clearly lost the campaign at a strategic level, as well as some critical battles (e.g. Maloyaroslavets). There is no real historical argument about that.
@@jessealexander2905 for one, the video link sent me to a specific portion of the video, so I am sorry if I naturally assumed that was what you were specifically speaking of. Second, nobody is arguing that Napoleon didn't lose it at a greater strategic level. And lastly, it is a poor example to use Maloyaroslavets as an example when the battle within itself was a French tactical victory, not to mention the fact that the French inflicted just as many if not more casualties on the Russians.
@@tbuxt3992 Russia was able no only to defeat Napoleon in Russia but also take Paris
I mean can you blame him for being obsessed? Napoleon is a freaking legend.
Someone once said that the more you tell yourself not to drop your phone in the toilet, the more likely you are to drop your phone in the toilet because of how much you're thinking about it. Is it possible that the 1812 campaign was so burned into everybody's minds that they repeated it unconsciously?
Bro thinks he’s Napoleon💀
Hilter had far more land than Napoleon.
In fact he conquered more of Europe than anyone else in history.
@@WakaWaka2468 Both were clearly "something" else. The difference is France honors and celebrates Napoleon while Germans detest AH.
Failing against Britain, then prematurely turning on Russia. He was already imitating Napoleon before he even started his campaign.
That’s fax
Premature is not right
Third time’s a charm right? Germans failed twice, the 2 most recent invaders to invade Russia failed 😰
Russkies are a outie not an innie
hitler was so obsessed with napoleons defeat he even recreated it as faithful as possible! he would make napoleon so proud
Lmao
Hitler may have been aware of Napoleonic history and by 1940 would have been happy to draw comparisons to Napoleon's victories. As with the fall of France in 1940, the Wehrmacht stood as Napoleon had stood around the time of period before the Battle of Trafalgar. But Hitler's policies and motivations were largely focused on economic lines of reasoning that were developed well after the defeat of Napoleon and would also be irrelevant to Napoleonic history.
the battle of trafalgar wasn't that significant.......wheras 1940 essential removed an entire front from the battle.
@@camm8642 - In terms of the existence of Napoleonic France, Trafalgar wasn't important... at least not immediately, but the defeat there assured that Napoleon would never be able to invade Britain, which in turn left a powerful foe that wasn't going to bow to Napoleon... which in turn allowed the Napoleonic Wars to continue and denied Napoleon a final victory. Prior to the Battle of Trafalgar, Napoleon had the hope that he might force a landing in Britain.
It's why the victory over France in 1940 puts Hitler in that same position as Napoleon prior to the Battle of Trafalgar. Now, the German Navy at that point wasn't a real threat to Britain after the mauling it took in Norway... BUT 1940 added the presence of airpower which the Germans hoped would make up for their naval weakness...
But the needs of the Luftwaffe also played into economic issues that weren't around in 1800 to 1815 and related more to Hitler's grander scheme, which had little to do with Napoleon.
Hitler did try to change targets onto the Caucasus but since Stalingrad became a meat grinder it was extremely difficult for them to take the oilfields down there.
Didn't help that America supplied Soviets with lend lease, without it Germany could have broken the USSR eventually.
The 6th army couldve have possibly escaped the encirclement, if Hitler agreed to Paulus to retreat, regroup and attack again.
Exactly. In 1v1 Germany easily defeat rusaia
comparing Hitler to Napoleon is the most stupid and ignorant thing to do. One was a political reformer, inheritor of the revolution, and the most successful general in history. He brough ancient monarchies to their knees, left a lasting mark in European civil societies, high schools, archaeology, culture and the art of warfare. The other was just a mass murderer.
Hitler was him
Happy new year Real Time History! Can't wait to see what you will be uploading this year.
Happy new year!
I'm very curious about whether there was any similar thinking when it came to Spain. Spain, of course, was Napoleon's other undoing. And there are some parallels between Spain's status in 1807 and 1941 when it comes to being a Napoleonic/Axis Ally, but also cooperating with the Allies. Did Hitler ever consider invading Spain to coerce Franco into joining the war? Was that conversation also wracked by Napoleonic parallels? I know very little about this topic, but I am curious
Fascinating point.
"Did Hitler ever consider invading Spain to coerce Franco into joining the war? "
I dunno let me check with his ghost
No he had already intervened in Spain and they had won, it was an ideological war, with racial issues in the middle for Hitler invading Spain was nonsense, a Fascist man was there. For Napoleon on the other hand the Spanish were not allies, but were forced into an alliance after they defeat in 1795 and they do not seriously cooperate, and their fallout with the clergy and social progress made the French and Spanish system natural enemies one a Bourbon king and the other beheaded a Bourbon king.
@@omarbradley6807 waiting for your video
@@omarbradley6807 You are deluded if you think Franco was a fascist, maybe educate yourself before opening the mouth.
Real Time History, the only youtube history channel that doesn't make the classic blunder of getting involved in a land war in Asia.
Like Napoleon, Hitler too took his opponent likely when he said “we just have to kick in the door and whole rotten structure will fall.” Like the French emperor Hitler army eventually had to flee as well. Hitler learn nothing from Napoleon mistakes just bigger. Enjoy your RUclips videos very educational
some people never learn
@@theawesomeman9821 you must remember it’s Hitler we’re talking about who was the most unrealistic person and by this is why the Russia invasion failed
Not at all he let his famous 6. German army to die in Stalingrad, they wanted to perform a break out but once hitler was told the remaining oil supplies he refused to agree
@@Leo.de99 he should have let Paulus broke out
@@hank964 wtf do you mean by unrealistic. He is extremely realistic person that's why he was loved by millions back then
The reason Hitler think that he will be succeeded while napoleon's not is :
1. Hitler believe, 3 million Wehrmacht soldiers with superior equipment will easily defeat (then) 3 million Red Army soldiers, he didn't calculate that Soviet could easily replace those fallen or captured soldier since Soviet Union have a bigger population than Germany.
2. Hitler believe if Moscow was captured, Russia simply surrender just like France after Germany capture Paris, even if Germany manage to capture Moscow, Stalin easily move Soviet capital towards any cities east of Ural mountain.
3. Hitler believe all of Russian strategic industries are in the western part of Soviet Union, he didn't think Soviet have a capabilities to replace their industries towards eastern Ural Mountain, in fact more than 60% of Russian factories especially in military and strategic industries are moved towards east of Ural Mountain by Stalin in the matter of months after operation Barbarossa started, no wonder Hitler surprised that his army facing "never-ending onslaught of Russian tanks" no matter how much Germany manage to destroy.
I was expecting the continuation of the 1813 German campaign (particularly the battle of Dresden) but still thank you so much for the content.
this is a small pit stop. We will continue in February
@@realtimehistory i am really glad to hear that, thank you so much.
*Battle of Leipzig
@@dinohermann1887 no, i am more interested in the battle of Dresden 1813 than Leipzig.
@@dinohermann1887 Leipzig was kinda one of the worst battle fought in history where the only move made by their ennemies was to run away when Napoleon came close
He was so obsessed with Napoleon that he committed the same mistake of invading Russia during Winter.
Napoleon actually not invade Russia during winter. He plan to “finish” Russia BEFORE winter starts. But he stuck until winter. Hitler also have the same plan. And winter also come to Russian soil as every year and he also was not ready for it, as Napoleon was. :)
You put a lot of effort to make this video for sure and I can't thank enough for full of informative things that I've learnt after watching the whole video about Hitler's obsession with Napeleon's Defeat.
"the example of napoleon will not repeat itself." yeah guys this time use summer clothes to go invade the soviet union during winter
If someone went back in time to tell hitler his fate, it wouldn’t do anything, because napoleon already told him in his grave.
About 100 years before Napoleon, Swedish King Charles also was routed in a failed invasion of Russia. Probably just don't invade Russia.
Hey man, to quote Roger Stirling from Mad Men, "old man starts talking about Napoleon, you know he's about to die..."
You fit so much information into seven and a half minutes, I have to always stop, go back, and listen again. I ruminate on your statements- keep up the fantastic work.
Keep this historic content alive, society & big tech is trying to cancel, hide and twist history. Very interesting I love hearing unbiased facts
Large numbers of horses were in the German army. Something Goebbels should have known.
I've heard that Napoleon's tomb was built with a low ceiling so people would have to bow when entering. Hitler decided to bring along a mirror or two so he could see Napoleon but not have to bow his head.
Hitler was the incarnation of napoleon
It would be great if you could do WWI as Germany before the US entered the war. It seemed to be winning despite the blockade damage by the Royal Navy, which was taking its toll on Germany.
The French Army imploded in 1917 after Verdun. British Empire forces were holding the line on the Western Front - just about - and Churchill's Gallipoli disaster lost vital ANZAC troops, while the Germans could bring into play battalions from the Russian front after Czarist Russia collapsed.
USA enter the ww1 same as 2 when it's about to end
"We have motorized tanks."
--Joseph Goebbels
"So do we, moron."
--Josef Stalin
Especially notable is the south turn of Army group center and the battle of Kiev which was the greatest German success in the war. It practically annihilated the Russian army that needed to rebuild after this. The aftermath of the battle of Kiev - turning back towards Moscow - was what decided the war in the East.
The main difference is that La Grande Armée actually took Moscow. And they never had any tanks or planes, electricity, railroads, radios, etc.
So Phillip II, Phillip III ans Phillip IV ruled the two hemispheres of the world with less than the things you write and no one say nothing...
Amazing video, one the first ones where there was no mainstream propaganda-ing as opposed to other videos made by other youtube channels or even history teachers
When the Mongols and Poles captured Russia, Russia was a far weaker and more divided country. Russia was not as big as the time of Napoleon or Hitler’s invasions.
Ironically, the first leader to wage an invasion… and lost in Russia was a Swedish King.
As the French say, "Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose", the more things change, the more they remain the same. Hitler repeated exactly the same mistake because he was driven by his narcissism; the ego makes a poor guide.
Prior to WW1 was living on the streets. He was not well-connected, he might have succumbed like others to TB and be mourned by no-one. 20 years later he is both Chancellor & President of the most technically & scientifically advanced nation in Europe (unlike Britain, not burdened with a useless aristocracy, though they existed). So in that context..umm ...who wouldn't have an ego.
No chance
Napoleon : Corsican
Hitler : Austrian
Stalin : Georgian
Voldemort : Half muggle
i love how both Hitler and Napoleon studied the cost and defeats that come with invading Russia and the winter, but the proceed to begin to do the very thing they learned that will cost them a defeat.
Isn't it just easy to avoid making the same mistake? Why can they just not invade? I don't understand the point of learning from a mistake of you're gonna recreate said mistake.
Invading Russia, was part of Hitlers "Lebensraum" plan. A plan to make living space for the German people, of his beliefs racial mythology of his ideology. Hitler was completely delusional, yet Operation Barbarossa could've have been a success if he hadnt intervened.
I mean Germany was either going to invade the soviet union when they had the upper hand, or the ussr would invade them later on. An impossible task but one that was going to happen either way. If they didn't invade maybe the molotv-ribbentrop pact would have been still intact and the world would be a much darker place. Who knows
Well Hitler saw Russia as a great enemy of Germany not just from both an ideology standpoint but also feared they would eventually invade Germany, it's not like he wanted to invade Russia for the laughs but rather he felt he had to invade Russia.
If He had not attacked the Soviet Union, he would have won.
Was there really an obsession? he made some comments and that was about it
Dear authors of the channel, the current conflict in Ukraine is indirectly similar to the Eastern (Crimean) War of 1853-56, where Tsarist Nicholas Russia got involved in a war with Turkey, but as a result it had to fight with Great Britain, the French Empire, Turkey and the Kingdom of Sardinia.
It’s crazy, Putin was also obsessing over Napoleon during the beginning of The “special military operation”
Stupid comment
@@dvdortiz9031 what it’s not true? I herd it from the bbc.
Lore of 1812/1941: Hitler's Obsession with Napoleon's Defeat momentum 100
At least Napoleon got Moscow.
Yes Napoleon did take Moscow. But the Czar abandoned Moscow to the French. And Napoleon felt the he was cheated out of his victory over the Russians.
In 1941. Stalin refused to abandon Moscow to the Germans. Most of the Siberian Army was brought to defend Moscow. And defend Moscow they did.
At least HITLER got ukraine belarus baltic country took caucasian much of modern western russia)
@@fatdaddyeddiejr They did try and defend Moscow against Napoléon at Borodino, they lost and retreated. They abandoned it because of the failed defense
@@fatdaddyeddiejr Russians always lost in battle against the French.
Their land and winter saved them.
Just like England being an island made their nation possible. Otherwise they'd be speaking french, and not just using half of their words from french like they are today.
basically when you're beefing with england dont go beating up russia
At least the French took Moscow. 🤷🏻
Moscow even not russian capital that time
Russian capital that time was in sàint petersburg
@@Rocky-rw3ov It was still their most important city that's why they fought the bloodiest battle there, it's like, for decades Jerusalem wasn't Israel's capital and yet taking it was more important than taking Jaffa.
@@tonyhawk94 yet still isn't to important if compared to st petersburg
@@tonyhawk94 And technically Napoleon had no intention of conquering Moscow
@@Rocky-rw3ov it was the most important city for them clearly.
To be fair the germans were winning in russia and probably would have won if the allies didnt supply the soviets and if the allies didnt pressure from the west
Однако оснащение армии США не помогло им во Вьетнаме, которому помогал Советский Союз
Well, at least Napoleon captured Moscow.
Though, a similarity perhaps lies in the fact that he should have captures St. Petersburg instead, just as how the Germans should have focused southwards instead, but that is all althis talk.
He should have asked Denmark, Prussia or Mecklenburg, if they could lent Napoleon some war ships to invade Russia (and therefore St. Petersburg) via the Baltic Sea.
@@dinohermann1887 he could have just marched on land along the Baltic states to reach it as well
@@dinohermann1887 Prussia had no ship. Danemark fleet has been partially destroyed by the Royal Navy raid.
Just have to say that he wanted to go south, where the food and oil is to solve their chronic lack of critical resources, but the generals wanted to do the same thing they did in France. I'm not on either side and moustache despite his flawed economic beliefs (and a lot of other ones too) knew that they needed the Caucuses, which is true.
The invasion of Russia was not a defeat for Napoleons army. They successfully invaded but were left with scorched earth. The whole mission was considered a massive failure but not the initial invasion.
Are you kidding? He lost 90% of his half 1 million army that he marched in with to Russia same thing that Adolf did only over a century later both were a disaster because they invaded in the winter and fighting a massive empire in its turf is a disastrous strategy.
Hitler was absolutely unaware that a volcanic eruption is what defeated Napoleon. That is why the rout at Waterloo is so confusing - we were missing a massive key detail. That detail can be seen in the ground and weather conditions that marred troop movements. Couple that with Napoleon's generals not following the correct battle plan = disaster
Hitler wanted to Repeat Napoleon.
He wanted a tragic masterpiece like Napoleon.
Alexander larped as Achilles, Julius Caesar larped as Alexander, Napoleon larped as Caesar, Hitler larped as Napoleon. Who wanna be Hitler?
zelenski
Didn’t expect this, very interesting!
when you come across an interesting historic article and just know that it would be a cool perspective for a video.
What we learn from history is that no one learns from history.-Otto Von Bismarck
Interesting snippet of knowledge, thank you for bringing it up.
Im glad he didn't learn from napoleon's mistakes
Superb approach, research and execution of this extremely interesting comparison video 👍👍+1.
Thanks!
The Americans should make sure To Study both. especially because thier on the exactly same path.
They will not put their boots on the Russian soil. It’s too expensive for them. Better buy a puppet state for that and say they they are not connected to this if their clown will fail.
So, the National Socialists defeat their own criticism of 1812. They say they have mechanized vehicles now so why wouldnt they do one massive straight charge to Moscow? Its a contradiction, they should have been more certain one massive drive to moscow would have worked now with more power. It would have worked too, they would have at least got Moscow for sure.
There is nothing new under the sun, don't underestimate your opponent and don't overestimate your power
Sometimes though you have to be bold and take risks, like he did by pushing through the Ardennes forest & using Fallschirmjaeger to neutralise the Maginot Line at its weakest point. OKW was full of conservative-minded generals so he was compelled to trust instead in Guderian and others with new ideas harnessing the latest technology. As the Royal Navy had trusted in Nelson.
Bruh im obsessed with napleon
Why hitler tryna be me
Napoleons obsession with Caesar
He didn't learn from it. Ideology over common sense.
Excellent, as usual.
"The example of Napoleon will not repeat itself."
*It's Always Sunny music plays
"The Example of Napolean repeats itself."
ironically, the exact thing they were trying to avoid happened
Napoleon to Hitler: bring Winter clothes!!!
I was expecting this piece to be story telling but you made a great case of history facts. Well done..
There are so many similarities between Adolf and Napoleon. A lot. They were both born in a country other than the one they would rule. They both failed to conquer England. They both wanted to dominate as many countries. They both invaded Russia and failed with huge massive losses. They both were fighting on so many fronts. They were both born in Chinese year of the OX. Both died around the mid 50s. Both thought of suicide. Both were obsessed with previous great leaders. Both were suffering from health conditions. Both were known to emotional outbursts. Etc etc etc..and these are just a few.
Prussia was on the side of Russia in 1813 so it's ironic that they equated themselves to that time.
the parallels are uncanny