Hitler vs. Napolean

This was posed to me while watching Jesus Christ Superstar.

So, the political climate is 1939. Hitler and Napolean gear up in France and Germany with 2 million men each, all of their famous generals beneath them, and the best warfighting technology 1939 has to offer. They begin to both spread out and invade Europe and all of Russia. The British Isles, America, Africa, and Asia (except for Russia) are excluded in their conquests. Who takes Europe and Russia first?

hitler was an idiot when it came to military tactics, so napoleon wins this easily

*Napoleon

Overly speculative, but based on the time period that Napoleon came from, how generals acted in WW1 (cavalry charges into machine guns), and how Napoleon and his generals wouldn't know the technology or how to use it effectively, I think Hitler's generals would have an edge as long as Hitler didn't interfere.

If they both have equal technology and understanding of how to use it, Napoleon easily. Assuming they don't have equal understanding, then it's close and down to luck based on what Hitler does.

Hitler was not a military man, he was a politician. He had charisma and was very pretentious and thought he was a military genius, when the opposite was true. He interfered with the German military too much for it to be effective and was a major reason Germany lost WWII. That's why the Allies stopped trying to assassinate him, he hurt far more than he helped.

Napoleon on the other hand, was a skilled military man and is well known for his numerous conquests. He might not be able to use the equipment given to him most effieciently, but neither would Hitler, because he was a fool.

Hitler, the man who banned the most effective sub-machine gun built at the time from service, because he didn't like the way it looked.

I was assuming that they would both be on equal footing in regards as to how to use the technology they are given, otherwise thats like asking if a SWAT cop could beat a redcoat in a gunfight.

Hmm... I'd say that Germany would have several advantages if everything outside of Europe and Russia were removed from consideration.

• They are allied with Italy. Honestly, the net benefit of this is probably zero, but Italy did attack part of the Maginot Line in our time, so they're at least useful as a distraction.
  
• The French used their tanks in support of infantry, which means that they'd be at a disadvantage to Germany's Blitzkrieg tactics.
  
• Germany's Mutual Non-Aggression Pact with Soviet Russia is what let her catch Stalin with his pants down around his ankles. Stalin would probably see Napolean march through Germany, Checkoslovakia, and Poland, and prepare accordingly.
  
• When it comes to logistics, Germany is closer to most of Europe than France is, for what that's worth.
  

I wonder if the Maginot Line would have been built under Napoleon. I can't help but think of that famous occasion where, after seeing a plan his generals drew up to deploy troops equally along the border, he quipped "Are you trying to prevent smuggling?"

And one of the ironic things about this debate is that Hitler actually admired Napoleon as a leader. I wonder how that would play out at the negotiation table.

---

Don't really know enough about Napoleon to make a call, but I think you guys are flanderizing Hitler.
The man made bad calls when it came to war. That is indisputable. But not all of the calls he made were mistakes, and he also suffers from the fact that the generals that disagreed with him often lived to write their memoirs.

Off the top of my head, one of the better orders he made was for the Wehrmarcht to stand their ground in Russia during that first winter, rather than retreating to 'safer' positions. Whatever losses Germany took that winter, it would only have been worse if they had withdrawn, letting the Soviets pick them apart all the way.

Somebody's going to bring up the fact that invading Russia at all was a dumb move, which is true. It was also the same dumb move that Napoleon made. Napoleon may have occupied Moscow, but Nazi Germany made it to the outskirts of Moscow before Winter hit. That's right, Winter with a capital W and an embossed business card. The harshest winter on record for over a hundred and forty years. I'd file that one in the same folder as the Kamikaze storms.

Also, are we counting the fact that Hitler had over forty attempts on his life? I'm pretty sure that's as much to blame for him going off the deep end as his syphilis.

KrAzY wrote:Hitler, the man who banned the most effective sub-machine gun built at the time from service, because he didn't like the way it looked.

What?

Sub-machine gun? Are you sure you're not talking about the MP-43/44/StG-44? That's not what happened.

The thing is, each branch of the military had its own development arm, and Hitler decreed that no new rifles were to be evaluated in order to cut down on administrative infighting. The Army renamed the weapon (Machine-pistol instead of Machine-rifle) and continued development.
Hitler halted the program when he found out about the deception, gave it six months to continue development, and then gave the green light for full production. Reputedly, he even gave it the name "Sturmgewehr".

Stalin

Winter is the Champion of House Stark Russia

only the mongols have ever beaten the Russian winter, and looking at what Mongolia looks like 24/7 its not a surprise, The Mongols used winter against the Russians when they showed up if that's to be believed. so technically Genghis Khan and his successors > Hitler or Napoleon

dragoon9105 wrote:Winter is the Champion of House Stark Russia

only the mongols have ever beaten the Russian winter, and looking at what Mongolia looks like 24/7 its not a surprise, The Mongols used winter against the Russians when they showed up if that's to be believed. so technically Genghis Khan and his successors > Hitler or Napoleon

The Russians at the time did not even constitute Russia. They were a few city states scattered across that territory, and when their protectors were defeated, they got hit too.

And for sake of argument, yes, they can both use their technology just fine.

Russia's greatest allies are space, time, delay, and winter.

you forgot

Also, with a total of 4 million men, that is a little over the amount deployed for Operation Barbarossa in 1941, about 3,800,000.

Assuming that no more troops can be recruited, and all of Europe, minus the ones you stated, it would be awfully hard to control or attack all of Europe as well as Russia. Also, during the course of the war in Russia, some very capable German generals were on the Eastern front. But sometimes being a good general or a good tactician does not help you. Its ultimately the men on the ground, morale conditions, numbers, training, terrain, climate, supply...supply lines into Russia would be Lord Pheonix awfully long for an invading force. Just some more of my $0.02.

Personally, I'd say neither would win.

Also, as Gauz said, Vodka.

Well, if it's 1939, that means Hitler hasn't made a lot of mistakes that lost him the war. He got overconfident after he rolled through most of Europe.

If Napoleon understood the technology and tactics of the era, he might have a good chance. If he didn't he'd do probably do as much as Poland did.

The French army numbered in the region of 900,000 men in 1939. In addition to this number of enlisted men, the French had 5 million reservists who had received some military training. Germany had it had had 2.5 million men and 2,500 tanks.

I think the main thing would be if he would approve the Maginot Line and would the Germans approve the sickle cut plan through the Ardennes they used. Would Napoleon fall for the bait?

Also given the tension between Napoleon and the British Empire, as well as his surrounding neighbours, France and Germany would fight alone. We had a vested interest in Poland, but I'd assume we wouldn't get involved until either fell.

But in this circumstance, I'd probably say Germany.

well, Napoleon WAS a General, and Hitler was a Political Leader.....

Hitler never really had to be in command of a military in any real way, while it was everything Napoleon was.

That being said, the bit about them having their best generals, Napoleon's military wasn't made of great generals, it was mostly just him, and Hitler's military was made of brilliant generals even if he wasn't.

@ Vigil, I was using Noc's restrictions, where both Hitler and Napoleon were only given 2 million men a piece.

That being said, would the attack on Russia be a surprise? No, I don't think so, at least not how it was during WWII. I believe Russia would not have lost as many men as they did in the opening months of their part of conflict.

Russia also had some exceptional generals as well who were not afraid of doing anything, a lot of which is unethical. However, they too were restricted a lot by Stalin intervening.

I'd be very interested to see a Rommel vs. Zhukov or a Rommel vs. Rokossovsky with nothing holding either side back.

How about Shamil Baseyev vs Ahmed Shah Moussad?

KristallNacht wrote:How about Shamil Baseyev vs Ahmed Shah Moussad?

Despite them being militants and terrorists, I think it would also be interesting how those two would compete against each other.

Ruski wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:How about Shamil Baseyev vs Ahmed Shah Moussad?

Despite them being militants and terrorists, I think it would also be interesting how those two would compete against each other.

Ahmed Shah Moussad campaigned for the UN to intervene against the Taliban and provide humanitarian aid for the some million Afghans that fled the Taliban. He believed democracy was the best thing for Afghanistan and he's also recognized as the Afghan that defeated the Soviet Union....

He's hardly a 'terrorist' lol

As much as I loathe Hitler and the numerous mistakes he insisted on making that ultimately cost Germany the war, I really don't feel like Germany could have lost to Napoleon for one major reason: France was at the very very very top of Germany's shit list during WW2. The German people backed Hitler and the war almost exclusively because of the awful depression that had been directly caused by the French and British imposing grossly unfair punishment on Germany in the wake of WW1. The Germans hated the French and British (and, to a lesser degree, the Americans who just let it happen). Germany sent out probes and took some minor countries around it to see how long the British and French would appease, but once war was declared, France was the first to fall. Imagine how much worse it would have been for France without any British support? Because Lord Pheonix knows, Napoleon wouldn't be allies with the British.

Except it's Napolean with 2 million troops.

Good for him. The Germans had blitzkrieg. Even if Napoleon understands military tactics of the 1930's, all that means is that he's prepared for trench warfare. Nobody was prepared for or predicted blitzkrieg, which is why it was so effective against both the French and British. Moreover, Napoleon's physical presence was practically required at each battle to keep French morale up. This worked in the late 1700's and early 1800's because warfare was very limited in scope, but in World War II there was a good chance of Napoleon being killed in battle.

basically what I said, Napoleon MADE the french military, while Hitler just sat over it. Hitler's military needed him the least.

When you look at the numbers, France actually had an upper edge on Germany in practically everything, they even had better tanks at the time of the invasion, they lost because they decided to line their men up along the border. Not to mention this is Shock and Awe were talking about, which doesn't work when your on the defensive, Napoleon probably would have just outright invaded Spain and Germany both Far before 1939.

dragoon9105 wrote:When you look at the numbers, France actually had an upper edge on Germany in practically everything, they even had better tanks at the time of the invasion, they lost because they decided to line their men up along the border. Not to mention this is Shock and Awe were talking about, which doesn't work when your on the defensive, Napoleon probably would have just outright invaded Spain and Germany both Far before 1939.

But the point remains, if Hitler died, Germany still had a lot of amazing Military Leaders, like Rommel. If Napoleon died, their best military mind goes with him, and given he needed to be at the front with his men to keep morale up, it's very likely he'd be killed in action.

As for that point. Germany was pretty much ready for war far in advance of 1939. They started taking land in 1936, and Hitler had been bolstering the Germany army ever since he was made Chancellor in 1933.

Given a Rising French Threat, I'm sure it would have only speed up the reforms he brought in.

That's assuming no time accurate french generals are there also, Now that's not saying much but they'd be better then Napoleon's underlings since Napoleon's generals weren't very competent at all.

Napoleon most like wouldn't have even used his 'lead from the front' tactic considering the scale of the battles of WW2, Even if he was on the front with his men its they wouldn't have even noticed. If this was WW1 Napolean would be very very dead but WW2 assuming Napoleon knows wtf happened in WW1 with generals dropping left and right in charges would have known to stay away from the front enough to survive, and use Doubles to lead if he needed to give his troops morale.