The materialistic conception of history and the Napoleon-Hitler comparison
Moscow , 1942For the “History” column we propose a writing by the Soviet historian Evgeny V. Tarle , one of Napoleon's leading academic experts and eminent Marxist historian. This is his introduction to one of his best known works: a biography of Napoleon , in fact. The writing is quite relevant in several respects: firstly it is composed at a very delicate moment in Russian history - that is, in the face of the Hitlerian invasion of the Soviet Union and the heroic effort of the Soviet people who, destroying the Nazi-fascist hordes, 'he was preparing to liberate the whole world; secondly, it is a fruitful example of historical-materialistic interpretation and comparison between two diametrically opposed figures, those of Napoleonand Hitler . Far from being an apology for Bonaparte , however, Tarle highlights the progressive historical role of Napoleon as a gravedigger of the feudal regime, using the apt expression of "history surgeon", who works in "harmony" and in trend with respect to the historical period in which it operates: that is the era of the rise of the bourgeoisie and capitalism. Quite the contrary of Hitler , who, instead, is the bearer of a regressive and terrible countertrend, inevitably destined to succumb under the weight of his own atrocities.
Neglected interpreter of a historical phase that sees capitalism in its phase that is no longer progressive but putrescent and destructive, Hitler cannot be compared to Bonaparte . Tarle , with this current introduction, rejects, referring to the same fathers of communism, simplistic idealistic readings that were in vogue in his time on the balzana and false Napoleon-Hitler analogy , also reconfirming the right weight to the action of personality in history.
The new edition of my book comes out while the struggle of our heroic army against the hateful Hitler horde is in full swing, led by a man who is in the true sense of the word a very mean and above all ridiculous caricature of Napoleon. As is well known, not only Hitler himself, but his whole gang (in particular Goebbels, Frick, Dietrich and in general all those involved in "written propaganda") are pleased enough often to draw a parallel between the "Führer" and Napoleon. They praise Napoleon for "uniting the continent against England" and for attempting to annihilate Russia. The defeat of Napoleon's army in Russia in 1812, which ultimately led to the collapse of the Napoleonic empire, is attributed by them not only to cold and other random circumstances, but to the irresoluteness with which Napoleon pursued his ends: he wanted Alexander's victory and submission to his politics. Instead, it was necessary to set the question more broadly, as the “Führer” put it, that is, to set as a fundamental objective the physical destruction of a large part of the Russian people and the conquest of the whole territory of Russia.
In this way, the "Führer" is called to renew and successfully complete the work of the great emperor. This modest thought explains the theatrical noise that the Hitler gang has been raising demonstratively around the name of Napoleon for some time now. This also explains the pomp and military parade with which the ashes of Napoleon's son were solemnly transported from Vienna to Paris. This explains the act of Hitler who, having arrived in Paris, went directly from the station to bow in front of the tomb of Napoleon, the sarcophagus of the Palace of the Invalides, and other histrionic finds of the same kind.
While considering any attempt to seriously compare an insignificant pygmy with a giant as supremely ridiculous and caricatured, it is worth spending a few words on the profound, radical differences that distinguish the historical ground of the first French empire and the terrain on which the Hitler gang staged. its hateful and bloody dance. This clique of uneducated men, in which a crude mind like Rosenberg and a vacuous paper-scruffer like Goebbels are even considered scholars, has not hitherto forbidden Goethe's lines that sound bitter condemnation for it, certainly because it has never read them. But the great poet seemed to have foreseen this absurd mumbling of Napoleon when he wrote those immortal and truly prophetic verses:
Cursed be he who is like a fool
will go beyond the boundaries of pride,
which, being German, he will dare to do
what the Corsican did!
He will remember sooner or later
my words! He will believe them!
He will dedicate all his toil and suffering
to hurt himself and his own!
The historical situation in which Napoleon's extraordinary career began, developed and ended was such that it touched him partly in the history of France, but above all in the history of the countries he subjected to, to have a certain progressive function for a long time. Even in France itself his military despotism retained not a few achievements of the revolution which undoubtedly had a progressive character. It is no coincidence that Pushkin, like many publicists and historians of his time, called Napoleon the "heir and graver" of the revolution. Not only a "graver" but also an heir. Of course, Napoleon destroyed all the seeds of political freedom that had begun to arise with the revolution. He brutally put an end to the movement that had just begun which, despite major arrests and deviations, still tended to establish a bourgeois-constitutional regime. Napoleon smothered every memory, every sign of political freedom in France. The slightest opposition to his will, to his provisions was seen by him as a state crime. Under him there was no trace of freedom of speech, nor of the press, nor meeting. He did not admit any participation of citizens in the direction of the state, in legislation, in the direction of current politics. His will was to reign supreme everywhere. The legislation concerning the working class and the relations between workers and bosses had already distinguished itself under the revolution for its extremely unjust character and left the worker the victim of employer exploitation.Under Napoleon, new laws were introduced that worsened the legal position of the working class even more.
But alongside these phenomena there were also others. Napoleon from the very beginning of his state activity had clearly recognized and proclaimed several times that the feudal systems destroyed by the great bourgeois revolution were not to be resurrected nor would ever be resurrected. With his sharp intellect Napoleon immediately saw that the noble reactionaries, the emigrants, who absolutely did not want to resign themselves to the victory of the bourgeois revolution, were doomed to the most complete failure, since one cannot reverse the current of a river, from the mouth to the source just as it is not possible to turn the wheel of history backwards.
Therefore he created a broad, general system of civil law, the penal code, a nimble and deeply studied network of administrative and judicial bodies, which forever destroyed the possibility of any attempt to restore the old feudal regime. While depriving the bourgeoisie of the right to intervene directly in the direction of the state and in legislative activity, Napoleon nevertheless carried out, with full awareness and systematicity, with his personal, autocratic will, those profound and very solid transformations of the French state and social regime. which responded to the interests and socio-economic needs of the bourgeois class, in particular the big bourgeoisie.
If, for example, during the reign of Napoleon, civil legislation, the judicial and administrative system fully satisfied not only the big bourgeoisie, but also the very numerous urban and rural petty bourgeoisie, Napoleon's foreign policy took into account above all the interests of the big bourgeoisie, and above all the industrialists. Napoleon was directly concerned that large industrial companies prosper and that new ones were created (especially in the field of the textile industry). And when he overthrew one after another the noble, monarchical-feudal states of Europe, in concluding peace with the enemy he never failed to create the most favorable conditions for French industry. The conquered country was to become, in the first place, a necessary outlet market for French products and, secondly, a source of raw materials. But Napoleon considered himself, and was in fact, a conqueror and a statesman, and not a criminal, the leader of a band of robbers and murderers.
Therefore, with all the egocentric character of his politics, with all the will to exploit that was at the basis of his enterprises in the field of foreign policy, the French emperor understood perfectly well that the complete ruin of the subjugated peoples would be above all harmful and inappropriate. Having conquered Italy, Napoleon first of all freed the peasants of this country from illegal services and obligations, because for him it was necessary that the excellent Italian raw silk not only continue to be exported to France, to feed the Lyon factories, but that there was exported in increasing quantities. And if the peasant had been oppressed, allowing the soldiers a ruinous plunder, naturally all the work for the cultivation and harvesting of the raw material would have ceased,
By subjugating all the German states, Napoleon put them in a position to be able to continue their economic activity quietly. If he had plundered them, he would have destroyed an outlet market for French industry itself. Furthermore, when Napoleon mercilessly destroyed the feudal regime in the conquered countries, he freed millions of peasants from servitude, proclaimed the full equality of all subjects before civil and penal law, and, in so doing, also considerably raised the standard of living of the population. of these countries, that is, the breadth and purchasing capacity of what was a new outlet market for French industry.In this way, by eliminating the feudal yokes and breaking their bottlenecks, hastening the process of inclusion of Europe in the system of developing capitalism, Napoleon, moved above all by the economic interests of the French bourgeoisie, at the same time objectively served the cause of economic and social progress , helped to deal with the liquidation of old, outdated forms of life. In this way, due to its consequences, its grandiose historical function has generally been progressive.
There is, nor could there be, anything in common between the circumstances in which Napoleon's dictatorship arose, and the conditions that made possible, even if for a short time, the domination of the Hitler gang in Europe. Even less is the analogy, evidently, between the history of the collapse of the Napoleonic empire and the course of events, already clearly outlined, which will inevitably lead to the destruction of German fascism. Napoleon himself, with his cold but always clear and luminous intelligence, perfectly understood the secret of his enormous popularity and the mighty bastion of his throne, which in fact could only be brought down by the desperate and prolonged efforts of the whole 'Europe. He heard the cries of the peasants on his triumphal return trip in 1815: “Long live the emperor! Down with the nobles! " and then he answered these cries, as in Grenoble, as soon as he entered the city: “I have come to free France from emigrants. Beware the nobles and priests, who wanted to reduce the French to servitude! I'll hang them from the street lamps! ”.Napoleon was unbeatable, and the struggle against him invariably ended with the defeat of his enemies, until he fulfilled his function as a "surgeon of history", hastening the triumph of historically progressive principles, until he destroyed decrepit feudalism with iron and fire. European, now doomed to ruin .
When Marx and Engels affirmed that the Napoleonic wars had in a certain sense accomplished in the countries of continental Europe the same work that the guillotine had done in France in the years of revolutionary terror, they were thinking precisely of the defeat of all the European absolutist-feudal monarchies. made by Napoleon. From those harsh blows, European absolutism could no longer recover.Napoleon had secured in those years the sympathy of the progressive circles of European society in the countries he conquered, which was expressed sometimes secretly, and sometimes very openly. "We came to a foreign land and immediately after our arrival the master ceased to oppress his peasants and his servants, immediately the doors of the dark monastic prisons opened, where the fanatical clergy kept the heretics closed ceased the hateful contempt towards all men of non-noble origin ”, so the old Napoleonic soldiers later recalled the times of Napoleon's victorious march through Europe.
In the first years of Napoleonic rule, the French army was in fact the herald of liberation for the peoples of the conquered countries. True, however, things soon began to change. Napoleon began to burden the population of the subject countries with ever heavier taxes, duties and bounties. He also began to require his vassals to provide his army with a certain number of soldiers annually. And, given the continuous Napoleonic wars, these soldiers often returned home on crutches or, still more often, did not return at all. Finally, having established his continental block, that is, having destroyed the legal possibility for all subject countries to trade with England, Napoleon gave a strong blow to the standard of living, if not of all, of some peoples subject to him, for example the Dutch or the inhabitants of the port cities of northern Germany such as Hamburg, Bremen, Lübeck, who, before the arrival of the French conqueror, exercised a vast trade with the English. But it is true that for many industrialists the blockade proved, on the contrary, very advantageous, since it freed them from English competition.
In short, with the passage of time, the subject peoples endured less and less the despotic rule of Napoleon, and the old sympathy towards him began to turn into disappointment, irritation and finally into open hostility. But, nevertheless, even in the last years of the Napoleonic rule, which were the hardest for subjugated Europe. all the subjects of the French emperor, without distinction of nationality and faith - Germans, Italians, Poles, Dutch, Belgians, Slavs of Illyria, Hebrews - felt under the safe shelter of the law and were fully convinced that their person and their assets were carefully protected by the police, courts and imperial administrators against any violence, robbery, theft, assault and appropriation. Every subject of Napoleon, even in the most remote locations of his boundless empire, he knew that not only the French soldier, but also the prefect, the supreme commissioner, or the substitute of the emperor himself would not have dared to illegally make an attempt on his life, his honor, his property. When a childhood friend of his, Bourrienne, who had been with him since the Brienne military school, began extorting Hamburg merchants too openly, Napoleon immediately dismissed him.
Napoleon's new subjects in conquered Europe scolded him a lot, especially at the end of his reign, but in many ways they also exalted him. They liked the establishment of strict legislation in the courts and administration (in all "non-political" affairs, of course), the equality of all citizens before civil and military law, the fair administration of finances, the accounting and control, payment in hard currency for all government commissions and orders, construction of excellent carriage roads, bridges and so on. “Napoleon took a lot from us, but he also gave us a lot”, so said of his reign, still in the years 1830-1850, the old people in Westphalia, Italy, Belgium, Poland. "When was this magnificent road built?" once asked Emperor Franz I of Austria, traveling through Illyria towards the end of the decade 1820-30. "Under the Emperor Napoleon, when he took Illyria to Your Majesty!", He was answered. “In that case, it's a pity that he didn't take me all over Austria for a year, at least we could now travel all over our realm without risking breaking our necks!” Francis observed. In this case Francis showed that he had the typical petty-bourgeois opinion, according to which Napoleon had been a force that had put many things in order, rearranging and improving them, in the purely technical-material field. at least we could now travel all over our realm without risking breaking our necks! ”Francis observed. In this case Francis showed that he had the typical petty-bourgeois opinion, according to which Napoleon had been a force that had put many things in order, rearranging and improving them, in the purely technical-material field. at least we could now travel all over our realm without risking breaking our necks! ”Francis observed. In this case Francis showed that he had the typical petty-bourgeois opinion, according to which Napoleon had been a force that had put many things in order, rearranging and improving them, in the purely technical-material field.
But Francis was an old-fashioned, absolutist-feudal monarch, and of course he could not also see all of Napoleon's historical work - that is, the overthrow of feudal Europe - from a positive point of view. Some time after the somewhat simplistic observation of Emperor Francis, here is how two profound thinkers, such as the founders of scientific socialism, remembered in Napoleon's reign: "If Napoleon had won in Germany, he, according to his note energetic formula, would have eliminated at least three dozen beloved fathers of the people. French legislation and government would have created a solid basis for German unity and would have avoided the more than thirty years of shame and tyranny of the confederal junta ... A few Napoleonic decrees would have completely destroyed all the medieval junk, all thebarstcine and desiatine, all the appropriations and privileges, every feudal bossiness and every patriarchalism, which still weigh on us today in every corner of our innumerable homelands "(Marx-Engels, Opere, vol. 5, pp. 310-311)
Another consequence of such a policy was that throughout Napoleon's reign economic crises and famines were a rare phenomenon, which only became more frequent towards the end. In general, economic activity both in France and in the vassal countries of Europe developed normally, to the extent that, of course, one can speak of "normality" in a capitalist regime and moreover in a state of war. The gold currency, introduced by Napoleon, proved to be so solid, that it hardly underwent any fluctuations even after its last most terrible and devastating wars, which were accompanied by catastrophes such as the end of the Great Army in the Russian snows, in 1812 the two invasions of France, in 1814 and 1815. Napoleon had found French finances in a desperate situation,The fact is that Napoleon was a despot, but an intelligent despot, a conqueror and not a marauder, a statesman and not the leader of a band of looters, a brilliant legislator and not the instrument of a gang of criminals, a man who had prepared himself to carry out his historical function by carrying out feats in Italy and Egypt that remain immortal in military history, and not dealing with obscure business and intrigues, nor with the profession of hired “informer”.
One can say anything about Napoleon, that he was inclined to tyranny and the most cruel actions, that he shed endless human blood and that he waged wars of conquest, destructive, unjust, but one thing no historian with a minimum of knowledge: that he bears some resemblance to Hitler, that he can be defined as a "Hitler". And not only because enormous, without borders, is the difference in the intellectual qualities of these two men.The similarity between them can in fact be enclosed only in the fact that both belong to a single breed of mammals, to the human one. In this sense (but only in this sense) even the kitten, even the most filthy and miserable, is "similar" to the most majestic lion of the Atlas, since both however belong to a single zoological family. Such is the sarcastic confrontation that resonates in Stalin's speech in Moscow on November 6, 1941.
The truth is, you can't find two individuals who have so little in common with each other, like Napoleon and Hitler. Lord Rosebery, in his book on Napoleon's last years, wrote: "Napoleon expanded to infinity what before him were considered the ends of the human mind and energy". On Adolfo Hitler, on the other hand, Heinrich Mann, like others who knew him and who studied his figure, expressed themselves roughly this way: the world would never have known up to what filthy cowardice and what impudent folly man can reach. , had it not been for Hitler, nor would he have known the extent to which the shameful decay of any human society could reach, had it not been for Hitlerism in contemporary Germany.
It is also absolutely clear all the difference between the European rear of Napoleon before June 24, 1812 and the European rear of Hitler Germany before June 22, 1941. Napoleon's "allies" were powers which, although they wished to free themselves from his dominion, nevertheless they expected to gain something from his victory and, most important of all, not only among the governments but also among the peoples of conquered Europe there was a certain divergence of opinion as to the desirability or otherwise of Napoleon's defeat. In Poland, Belgium, Saxony, Bavaria, in some countries of the Rhenish Confederation, in northern Italy, this split of opinion was very evident throughout 1812 and again at the beginning of 1813. Let us recall, for example,
There were also some strata and social groups of the European population, in which there were not many who wished for the fall of Napoleon. On the contrary, in 1941 and 1942, the attitude of the European peoples in the face of events on the German-Soviet front is characterized by a unity of feelings and thoughts perhaps never seen in the course of history. The Lodz worker and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Serbian pastor and the Parisian student, the rector of the University of Vienna sheltered abroad and the Norwegian fisherman, all of them (although some of them had not already understood this ) finally understood that the salvation or ruin of civilization, or even just the salvation or slavery of all those who did not belong to the Hitler criminal gang, they depended above all on the heroic struggle of the Red Army and its final victory. The mental anguish of all these Italian Farinacci and German Goebbels, who fill their mouths by proclaiming Hitler's resemblance to Napoleon, is such that they do not even think of the colossal difference existing in the historical situation.Progressive capitalism, which rose victoriously, brought Napoleon forward; reactionary capitalism, at sunset, in decay, conscious by now of being condemned to collapse, has been able to carry on a clique of bandits, whose only program is zoological cruelty to defend the interests of the most backward, most chauvinistic elements financial capital imperialists.
Today's degenerates, who marvel at the misery of their thought and their individual nullity, build their whole "ideology" on the struggle against the prospects that the great socialist revolution that took place in the USSR opened to humanity; and they came to attack us armed with an ideal old age so decrepit, that even at the time of Frederick II it had already been eaten by moths and was thrown away even by this rapacious man as an ideological antiquity by now completely useless. Another characteristic feature is worth underlining: that is, comparing Napoleon's attitude towards Russian history with that held by Hitler's leaders. We recall the splendid definition of Peter I given by Napoleon in an interview held in the Kremlin on October 15, 1812.
The restless and agitated thought of the emperor was in continuous and intense work. He reflected more and more often and more deeply, even if belatedly, on that extraordinary people with whom he had fought, on its character and its history. "What a tragedy a brilliant writer, a true poet could draw from the story of Peter the Great, of this man made of granite as the foundation of the Kremlin, who created civilization in Russia and who compels me now, a hundred years after his death, to conduct this terrible campaign! ”, Napoleon then said, speaking with the general Count Narbonne. "I cannot recover from my amazement when I think that, in this same building, Pietro, only twenty years old, without receiving advice from anyone, almost without any education, faced with a power-hungry queen and the very strong conservation party, he conceived and mapped out the plan of his reign, seized power and, dreaming of making Russia a victorious and conquering power, he began by destroying the streltsy, who seemed to only force in the kingdom. What an example of moral autocracy! " The emperor later said, again in Narbonne, that Peter the Great had accomplished a "18 brumaire of the palace" by deposing Sofia.
Napoleon was enthusiastic thinking that Peter, while fighting, had created not only the army and the fleet, but also a new capital. What the emperor particularly admired about Peter was that the tsar "born on the throne", had decided of his own will to go through various experiences and to assume the same commitments that the man who wants to reach supreme power only with On his own strength, Pietro even went abroad for some time, "to cease being Tsar and learn about common life, he voluntarily became a gunner like me!" exclaimed Napoleon. This conversation took place in the Kremlin, in the apartments of Peter the Great, in October 1812. And Napoleon could not help but think, by association, of the serious difficulties that oppressed him at that very moment: "Can you understand?" he continued “Such a man, on the banks of the Prut, at the head of the army he created, let himself be surrounded by Turkish troops! These are the incomprehensible gaps in the life of great men. It is the same thing that happened to Julius Caesar, who was besieged in Alexandria by the Egyptians! ”.
Thus Napoleon judged Peter, whose immortal glory he did not consider in the least tarnished by this or that failure. Napoleon knew by now, at that moment, that his "terrible campaign" on Moscow was also a "void", and with the example of the two other "great ones" in world history - Peter the Great and Julius Caesar - he was naturally looking for to excuse himself. But most significant of all here is the undisguised, full admiration for what had attracted his attention in the history of the great Russian people. It is precisely this great Russian history that he wants to "destroy", 130 years after Napoleon's words in Narbonne, the obtuse and uneducated Nazi rebel, who precisely for this purpose ordered his gang to systematically destroy any relic of Russian history.
To deny the evident and irrefutable fact that the very hard defeat inflicted by Napoleon on absolutist-feudal Europe had enormous historical importance, in an absolutely positive, progressive sense, would be a foolish lie, unworthy of any serious scholar . Napoleon as a historical figure is a phenomenon that cannot be repeated in any time and in any place, because never in any time and in any place will it be possible to repeat the historical situation that dominated France and Europe between the end of the 18th and the 19th. early 19th century. In that Europe, Napoleon himself was destined to inflict very hard blows on the feudal regime. Without knowing the history of the Napoleonic Empire, absolutely nothing can be understood of the history of Europe from 1815 to 1848.
Introduction and editing by Luscino
https://ottobre.info/2020/12/19/la-conc ... ne-hitler/
Google Translator
