1812/1941: Hitler's Obsession with Napoleon's Defeat
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 05. 2024
- When Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, Napoleon's failed campaign was on many minds. Hitler specifically wanted to avoid a repetition of 1812 and even when his luck ran out was adamant to avoid any comparisons.
» SUPPORT US
/ realtimehistory
watchnebula.tv/realtimehistory
» THANK YOU TO OUR CO-PRODUCERS
John Ozment, Stephen Parker, Mavrides, Kristina Colburn, Stefan Jackowski, Cardboard, William Kincade, William Wallace, Daniel L Garza, Chris Daley, Malcolm Swan, Christoph Wolf, Simen Røste, Jim F Barlow, Taylor Allen, Adam Smith, James Giliberto, Albert B. Knapp MD, Tobias Wildenblanck, Richard L Benkin, Marco Kuhnert, Matt Barnes, Ramon Rijkhoek, Jan, Scott Deederly, gsporie, Kekoa, Bruce G. Hearns, Hans Broberg, Fogeltje
» SOURCES
Englund, Steven. Napoleon and Hitler, in The Journal of the Historical Soviety VI: I, 2006: 151-169.
Lentz, Thierry. 1941-1812. Les protagonistes de l’opération Barbarossa et le souvenir de la campagne de Russie, in 1812, la campagne de Russie, eds. Thierry Lentz and Marie-Pierre Rey: 319-332.
Kershaw, Ian. Hitler: Nemesis, 1936-1945.
»CREDITS
Presented by: Jesse Alexander
Written by: Jesse Alexander
Director: Toni Steller & Florian Wittig
Director of Photography: Toni Steller
Sound: Above Zero
Editing: Toni Steller
Motion Design: Toni Steller
Mixing, Mastering & Sound Design: above-zero.com
Digital Maps: Canadian Research and Mapping Association (CRMA)
Research by: Jesse Alexander
Fact checking: Florian Wittig
Channel Design: Simon Buckmaster
Contains licensed material by getty images
Maps: MapTiler/OpenStreetMap Contributors & GEOlayers3
All rights reserved - Real Time History GmbH 2023
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
>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?
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
Excellently researched! You've gained a new subscriber
Excellent content as always. I really appreciate you guys.
Interesting snippet of knowledge, thank you for bringing it up.
Happy new year Real Time History! Can't wait to see what you will be uploading this year.
Happy new year!
loved this video and editing. The script was great keep it up! :)
Brilliant!!!perfect comparison, and great work as always
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.
Superb approach, research and execution of this extremely interesting comparison video 👍👍+1.
Thanks!
I was expecting this piece to be story telling but you made a great case of history facts. Well done..
Fascinating, and beautifully produced video!
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.
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?
Real Time History, the only youtube history channel that doesn't make the classic blunder of getting involved in a land war in Asia.
great video, always wondered this
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
Excellent, as usual.
Had to pause to say bravo to maker of this - incredible video
Ah finally what I've needed thank u Real time
the problem whit propaganda, is the danger of believing in ones own propaganda
Amazing content as usual!
Excellent video like always.
Great video as always
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.
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
Thank you, for this information.
You doing great job
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.
History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes.
Very true
A play of words with the same point.
Awesome video
After watching some of your videos here and there...I think you're worth the subscribe 😎 At least for support,I mean!
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
bro really thought he was Napoléon 💀💀
Same as napoleon wanted to be caesar 😂
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 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 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.
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
I’m amazed that so many leaders want to be just like Napoleon and not more like Sir Arthur Wellesley. He was a great tactician in his own right, and his victories over Napoleon’s armies are a clinic for late 18th to early 19th century land combat.
He truly did admire Napoleon so much so that he had the remains of Napoleon II returned to France so he could rest with his father. IMO they had a lot in common and are ultimately the two most significant and self destructive men of modern history
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.
the parallels are uncanny
Would you ever make a video on the wars of italian unification
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
Hey man, to quote Roger Stirling from Mad Men, "old man starts talking about Napoleon, you know he's about to die..."
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
The great master oogway had said, "One meets his fate in path takes to avoid it" 😂😂
It's an interesting point to make about what makes the 2 invasions different: the use of motorized vehicles. On one hand it is an advantage, but at the same time there are problems on how to fuel them. In Napoleon's time, he did only had to worry about food and ammunition, not about resources such as oil.
Even in the WW1 still, the economic aspect of the war was not that prominent yet.
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
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
Tbh it's crazy I can see the Bismarck/Napoleon references Hitler draws so deeply from. It reflects in the way he acts ngl.
"The example of Napoleon will not repeat itself."
*It's Always Sunny music plays
"The Example of Napolean repeats itself."
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.
hitler was so obsessed with napoleons defeat he even recreated it as faithful as possible! he would make napoleon so proud
Lmao
Sure you've got vehicles but so do the Soviets. You can cover more ground but your enemy can get reinforcements to the front or trouble spots faster as well. It's not an advantage if you both have it.
On the Barbarossa objectives. Hitler wanted the southern thrust as the primary, to get to Rostov and Baku, for the oil. But staff planning gradually strengthened the north and centre at the expense of the south.
OKH did studies and war games that showed Germany did not have the logistics to attain the objectives (Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan), nor enough troops to operate beyond the Petersburg-Rostov line while maintaining adequate reserves.
Keitel suppressed some of this information but Hitler was also dismissive of difficulties, expecting the Soviet army & regime to rapidly collapse.
Taken together, this makes Hitler’s campaign, based on ignorance and wishful thinking, more similar to Napoleon’s than indicated.
I mean can you blame him for being obsessed? Napoleon is a freaking legend.
Keep this historic content alive, society & big tech is trying to cancel, hide and twist history. Very interesting I love hearing unbiased facts
The British blockade really did a number on each invasion by limiting supplies and putting a timer on a war covering a massive area
One of the classic blunders…
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.
czcams.com/video/liokytT2TSk/video.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 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.
1 The Battle of Trafalgar was a decisive turn around in the course of events. Vs Horatio Nelson
2 Napoleon was Corsican
3.He had some paranormal abilities. Eg) photographic memory AFAIK
damn man your pronounciation of scharnhorst and gneisenau is perfekt
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.
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
in a state of war most contract are invalid includind the Münchner Vertrag o.ä
Fascinating
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.
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 CZcams 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
Yes
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.
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
ironically, the exact thing they were trying to avoid happened
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.
What we learn from history is that no one learns from history.-Otto Von Bismarck
Was there really an obsession? he made some comments and that was about it
If someone went back in time to tell hitler his fate, it wouldn’t do anything, because napoleon already told him in his grave.
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. :)
Napoleons obsession with Caesar
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.
History often rhymes.
Odd that the Germans made so many of the same mistakes the French did. Lack of adequate preparation for winter, underestimation of the enemy's resolve, and underestimation of the sheer size of the territory to be occupied and the logistical problems that come with that being the main examples.
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.