Napleon, Hitler and a Russian Winter

Napleon and Hitler were both leaders of two countries at times when the world saw them as near impossible to beat. Both times they made the British avoid meeting them directly in Europe and going to fight them on other fronts. Napleon British soldiers were sent to india, Hitler we went to North Africa.
But both of them shared a simliar down fall, Russia! But the problem is it wasn't always the training or sheer size of the Russian armed forces but the winter that defeated them.

In my personal opinion if any major dictatorial Leader or French Emperor is going to try and add Russia to his checklist of conquest he needs to make sure his conquest is complete during the summer. The reason for this is that both Hitler and Napleon made it to Moscow, Napleon actually made it further, but were then beaten by a mixture of Russian stubborness and the cold. Both times suffering logisitcal issues dues to the winters weather and scorched earth tactics done by the Russsian forces, Napleon i'm sure that happened to not so sure with Hitler. But after both these defeats both these two nations began to lose more and more ground in the conflicts they led.

Now my question is does anyone else think if Napleon and Hitler hadn't invaded Russia they may well have had a better chance of winning the Napleonic wars and the Second World War?

Of course they would have. The Germans, if they concentrated their effort to the west, could very well have eliminated the British. Stalin wasn't keen on attacking Germany, either, even if German deserters crossed the border warning of Operation Barbarossa he just dealt with them. Stalin was a paranoid guy, but he trusted Hitler. If Germany controls Britain it has no foes.

As for Napoleon, I'm sure it'd pan out the same. Napoleon even won a few battles after returning from Russia.

True I guess I should've really focused on Napleon here becauses its a undisputed fact that Russia was really Hitlers undoing. But as it stands the RAF did defeat the Luftwaffe hands down causing Hitler to call off his invasion of Britain so i'm not so sure I mean it could've been longer done but maybe the whole fight in North Africa and then Italy may well have been done by the British but at a slower pace.

Napoleon and Hitler both almost won. And mind you, they both lost after ripping Russia to pieces. Russia is just a zombie.

I'm not sure about the Napoleonic wars. World War 2 i reckon Nazi Germany would of easily kept hold of Europe and pretty much defend it off from the Allies. Hitler and Stalin would of arranged some bilateral talks, perhaps increase relations between the two nations. If this alternate was true, then you could place your bets Nazi Germany would of survived up to this day. You never know really. Nazi Germany could of declared war on the Soviet Union later on. Keep in mind Hitler had his Lebensraum goal and i'm pretty sure he would still consider expanding eastwards.

In Napoleon's case, even if he didn't invade Russia he was fighting a losing war in Spain. Now he might have been able to get a hold of the situation in Spain, but the Spanish soldiers, and Wellington would make victory difficult. Also, lets say hypothetically that Napoleon never invaded Spain, but still invaded Russia. Lets also say he had the tactical and strategic mind he had when he was young. I think the French could have overwhelmed the Russians. He would have won a great victory at Borodino, like he should have(by sending in his guard). Instead of running straight to Moscow like a madman, he would have needed to mop up the remains of the Russian army before advancing on Russia's major cities. Napoleon's invasion force should have defeated Russia, its quite amazing he lost.

As for Hitler, I don't see where he could have gone if he didn't invade Russia. His empire probably would have lasted longer, but he couldn't get across the English Channel to Britain. He might have done better in Africa, and he MIGHT have been able to repel the D-Day invasion. I believe Nazi Germany would probably collapse, while the French Empire might have been able to survive... until Napoleon died.

There was no possible way that Hitler would have world war two, so im tired of that.



as with Napoleon, most modern day historians and terminology for people who check the weather in ancient times agree the Russian winter during 1812 was in fact not that bad and relatively warm for Russia. so it wasn't really the cold that defeated the French but the Russian men theme self.


as Napoleon had said "the Russians had shown theme selfs to be invincible"

This. Sure Napoleon wasn't really prepared for any winter, but he was unable to adapt with the war of attrition and tooth and nail fighting. He had always believed that the way to win a war was to take the Capital and force a surrender, and he was right most of the time. But since they fled to St. Petersberg, Napoleon wouldn't react and march North to try and stop them. Mainly because his lines of supply were so broken, but also because he thought he had already won and saw no reason to keep going on a long, cold campaign.

Napoleon wasn't retarded, nor was he lacking his youthful skill. In fact when he got back to France he fought one of the best campaigns of his life and kicked ass (although ultimatly overwealmed by sheer number). He was more arrogent though, and that's what caused his failure. Same with Hitler, the Romans, Athens, and so many others.

like most empires they are destroyed by there own arrogent, however i do believe that the Napoleonic french did have the best chance of conquering Europe, tough the Napoleonic war is full of what if?


but i'll admit im not to familiar with the Napoleonic wars, so i'll go read up on theme and pretend i know everything about umm.

Well i hate to say it but there is one vital aspect forgotten with Napleon's invasion of Russia. Like many people i know more about Wellington in spain than the other fronts of the Napleonic wars but during their retreat Russian soldiers did burn towns and villages causing Napleons army to be unable to feed off the land and have to rely on far strecthing supply lines which Russian cavarly then raided in the rear. So true the cold didn't truly defeat Napleon but lack of supplies did which is simaliar to the Germans. BUt in truth the cold did then cause the affect too as, okay not as cold as usual, a Russian winter would still be cold to a french one due to the Gulf stream. I've even heard stories of French soldiers reverting to cannibalism, but like i said don't hold me to it i need to research the napleon stuff a bit more.

On the subject of Germans supplies lacking in Second World War Hitler had actually expected to capture Moscow before winter and all his other objectives in turn. But, like Karakoran, his arrogance caused him to delay Operation Typhoon leading to his men finally launching the offensive in spring and summer uniforms as the winter settled in. I'm not sure of statistics but a lot of men died at Stalingrad and Moscow due to the Russian winter mainly on the German side. Which says to me

I know nothing about the Spanish campaign for napoleon so im very interested, i heard the napoleon considered it his great defeat conquering Spain so im wondering if it was like a Pyaaric victory for him

with the Russian front, the french got overstretched and where ill prepared to fight Russia, which just burned or destroyed any resources the french could gain and thus resulted in great moral loss within the ranks and wide spread cannibalism. (i wonder if the french would still be civilized and high class, even when cannibalizing)

I often wonder however, could the french really have taken Russia or was that goal to far fetched?

You see thats the thing is how much of Russia did Napleon want to conquer? Because thats the problem i have yet to hear of anyone who has invaded Russia and suceeded in taking the whole country from European Russia to the Paicific coast.

Now Hitler had it a bit smarter he set up a line that had wanted to conquer to then all beyond that he'd leave alone. Would've probably worked if not a mixture of things.

SPain was a bit of an odd thing Napleons brother got given control of it, i think, as ruler of Spain no military commander, but in the end the French army had several disadvantages once again but more in tactics than weather and supplies.

1) Napleon never lead them in Spain
2) Wellington had combat experince from fighting in India
3) The double line of the British army had a higher fire power than the french battle formations. We would advance in a line two men deep but the French went in a column so when they advanced against this double line of men firing three rounds a minute their clumns were tore to ribbons before they could even get a shot off.
4) SPainish partisans

There's probably more but i've kinda been up all night surfing so their kinda hidden at the moment.

hmm i did not know that about the the Spanish portion of the war. i also wonder could napoleon have defeated the British and conquered theme, cause i know the french navy dident do well during the battle of trafalgar and cape finisterre, hell the french navy kinda sucked in my opinion it was on the ground where the french showed excellence, on the sea well it was like watching idiots play sailor.

If he had attacked early on, then yes Napleon could very well have conquered Britain and I would be sat here speaking french instead of english to you. Cause just as the revoultion happened in France the British began to see a threat from Napleon and all that, so began to build and recurit to strengthen the local militia that made up our homeland defence. Or moreover the bunch of drunkards who kept the lion safe, we weren't the best at expecting to be invaded during those times. SO by the time of trafalgar we'd built stronger, faster, much larger ships than the french, or their spainish allies. But in the end it was once again much more the command of adrimal likes Nelson that saw victory there.

there was a time when the English did speak french or at least the nobility did, and before that they spoke well an off shoot of German, and before that you have Latin (which really didn't spread that far most still kept there home lang)


tough its often hard to say if anyone could have taken Britain, the Spanish tried and well Poseidon fucked theme up, the french tried and well they suck at naval battles, the Germans tried and well OMG ITS THE SPITFIRE RUN FOR YOUR LIFES, tough i think operation: Sea lion was an interesting one at that.


i often wonder why i see world war 1 as Napoleon/seven year war PART 2. (thats got to be kinda badass getting a war named after you, NAPOLEON THE GREATEST ITALIAN THE FRENCH WILL EVER KNOW)

This has been brought up many times. Maybe Napoleon would have won, I think.
But when Hitler invaded, Stalin was planning the invasion of Germany, so Germany would still have been at war with the Soviets, it would have just been them getting surprised.

I often wonder why the soviets dident just blow into europe when they had the chance, from 1920s-1940s they could have easly taken most of europe, hell if they attacked germany in say 1939 or 40 then paris could have had a wall.