Napoleon vs hitler
In this case, the historian was comparing the biographies of two individuals who had lived and come up against each other at the same time and in the same context. But we know all too well that when it comes to this sort of book, a point by point dissection means nothing.
The only one to whom he can be compared is Adolf Hitler […]. Moreover, such comparison could only be made in specific and extremely localised circumstances, circumstances quite unlike those at the beginning of the 19th century.
Controversial they may be, but in being cited, these books gain an aura of respectability. Any reference to what he considered to be the decadent ideas of the Enlightenment was to be rejected; France, in his eyes, was the arch enemy of the German nation.
Rulers like napoleon
But neither should we allow him to monopolize our perspective on how the past can illuminate the present. Any normally constituted historian would, upon reading this book, be shocked at the shortcuts taken, the absence of discussion, and the author's lack of objectivity. The two men's origins, both social and — I would argue — sociological, are fundamentally different. Controversial they may be, but in being cited, these books gain an aura of respectability. They may make mistakes. This time, any basis for such an approach was found in alleged similarities, coincidental evidence and strained connections pushed to breaking point. He did not so much join the ranks of earlier historical symbols of evil as render them unusable.
Need I emphasise any further just how different in nature their respective legacies are? He did not so much join the ranks of earlier historical symbols of evil as render them unusable. The physician expects to learn from experience -- that is, from history.
And in his diary, Goebbels often compares Hitler to Napoleon… although only to rank him above the French emperor. The solution, it seems to me, is not to ban comparisons to the Nazis—as if such a thing were possible—but to grant that analogies have always been a tendentious business, and that only the future can tell which ones were valid. Hitler is merely a symptom, [just] as Napoleon III [was a] A comparative biography, 3 well-known amongst Anglophone historians. This startling approach went on to find its methodological footing at the heart of one of the s' burgeoning trends, the comparative biography. The two men's origins, both social and — I would argue — sociological, are fundamentally different. By the time Americans were invoking Philip, however, many European observers felt that historical analogies no longer held water. But Napoleon did not destroy France. The physician expects to learn from experience -- that is, from history. In this case, the historian was comparing the biographies of two individuals who had lived and come up against each other at the same time and in the same context. Seward clearly feels no need for such restraint.
It would be a virtual acknowledgement that the wars of can only be seen as ideological wars, thus reducing their importance and separating them from a complex history of events, ideas, economic factors and, above all, age-old geopolitical concerns.
Commentators should proceed with a little more humility, a little more circumspection, and, perhaps, a little more creativity. Far easier to amass counter-truth upon counter-truth, offering the faintest of ideas but nevertheless leaving the reader with a vague conviction that soon becomes very hard to shake.
These works from Seward and Ribbe frequently crop up in the bibliographies of otherwise well established authors with a healthy respect for an academic approach to history. His life's work continued after his exile and death: administration, education, legal codes and institutions left by him still abide in form.
based on 32 review