bruce wrote:
do u see any similarities in strategies or tactics uses by napoleon or hirler?
one would think hitler used same strategy as did napoleon more than a hundred years ago...and why not?
I don't think you can consider that Napoleon's campaign could as a whole compare with operation Barbarossa.
The Grande Armée started from Vilnius, in one long train. It moved on foot to Moscow directly. In fact, it moved without opposition to Smolensk, and found russian troops only for the Moskowa battle. The fight was difficult and costly, but the troups entered Moscow without difficulty, and took their quarters there.
They were supposed to stay there until spring.
But Russian proved uncooperative, and the Tsar did not accept any negociations. Remember the reason of this campaign against an ally since the meeting on Tilsitt bridge was to force Russia to practise the Big Blockade against England. Alexander refused, and the war had to go on.
Napoleon had seized Moscow, and left some small garrrisons in main towns along the Vilna-Moscow road. But as said by Victor Hugo, he was very embarassed by his conquest.
I don't know where the tsar was at that time, probably in Saint Petersburg, but Koutousov and his army, covered by Kossaks was watching.
Napoleon did hope food and hay in Moscow would permit to stay there, particularly when he was told that convoy from Vilna where raided by the Kossaks. But the governor of Moscow managed, or benefited from, a strong fire which destroyed nearly all old town, and put this way an end to Napoleon's plans.
The Grande Armée was build up with regiments from all countries in Europe, French, Italians, German kingdoms, Spaniards, Croats. These disbanded, took all values they could from the burning houses, and took the way back home. French troops, more orderly, but not much, received the retreat order and took as a rear-gard the way to Vilna.
But they returned by the same road, already pillaged on the way up, and no means to eat or save horses could be provided. The Grande Armée rapidly split of in little groups, pray to Kossaks raid and very cold weather.
The only encounter with russian troops was at the crossing of the Beresina, where the rapid building of a bridge permitted the escape of the rests of the french troops before the arrival of regular russian divisions.
Then sick, wounded and remaining soldiers marched to Vilnius, where recently graves containing more than 20000 deaths from exhausion have been recently found.
Napoleon himself had fled directly from Smolensk to Paris
Similarity with Hitler is the delay for entry in Russia. Napoleon had to wait the regiments comming from allied kingdoms. Hitler had to conclude his Balkan and Greek expedition.
Dissimilarity are numerous. One trek for Napoleon, Three directions for Hitler. No deviation for Napoleon, a branch from Smolensk toward Kiev for Hitler. An expedition to put pression on the tsar for Napoleon, a war to Russia for Hitler. No real confrontation with the russians for Napoleon, Kessel after Kessel for Hitler.
Even the relation to winter was different. Unpreparation and defensive for Hitler. Improvisation for Napoleon, and the burned earth consequences resulting from the itineray used, instead of the south road planned.
From 1812 to 1941, in terms of military practice, the differences are tremendous. Napoleonic wars were similar to 1700 wars, with more troops on the battle field, no winter campaign, organised battles and honourable truces and peaces. Operation Barbarossa was entirely different, a street strugle by two mad dogs.