Concluding post

In Grace’s final post she concludes that Peter the Great and Hitler were both totalitarian dictators, differing because they ruled in different time periods. While this is untrue simply for how different Hitler and Peter the Great were, I agree with Grace’s point about the evolution of Totalitarian governments. As Grace pointed out, the goal of all Three dictators, Napoleon included was to “persuade the public...exhibit their power and insure that their power is cemented in history.” All three dictators definitely succeeded in this goal.

My research on Napoleon has led me to regard Napoleon as a short fused, conniving man, always eager to prove himself to the world. This image of him is his stereotypical characterization, he is after all napoleonic. From his rise to power to his views on government and civil liberty, Napoleon changed Europe. He removed class distinctions, thereby created the “modern” state, which led to the possibility of totalitarian tyrants such as Hitler.

Napoleon's rise to power

Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyes was French Roman Catholic clergymen, and one of the chief theorists of the French revolution. He instigated the coup d’état that brought Napoleon to power in 1799. He was one of the 5 Directors, and planned to institute a stronger executive. He supported republicanism, but wanted it oriented to the right. At this time the French population didn’t know what they wanted, but they generally did not support the directory. Like when Hitler came to power, the population was unhappy with the existing government, and ready to accept a strong leader that would represent them better. Both Sieyes and Barras, another director, approached Napoleon; curious whether he could fill the position of the strong executive that they needed. Napoleon believed that he had a strong enough reputation that he could win over the population without Sieyes and Barras, but it turned out that he was wrong. He went to meet with Sieyes at Napoleon’s brother’s house, Lucien Bonaparte had just been elected president of the Council of Five Hundred. Napoleon declared that he was ready to support Sieyes in his coup if the government would be provisional pending a new constitution. On November 9, 1799, the council of Elders, under the influence of Sieyes, declared an emergency, and gave Bonaparte command of the troops in Paris, and transferred the houses to St. Cloud, where they would be under less outside influence. The elders voted and agreed to make Napoleon commander. Barras was surprised in his bathroom and forced to resign. Two other directors, Gohier and Moulins, were placed under guard. The next day, the council of 500 started to doubt what they were doing—Napoleon took a squad of soldiers, gave a very bad speech, this was followed by chaos. Napoleon and his brother were dragged to safety.
The houses voted to establish the provisional government, after napoleon’s troops terrorized them. Sieyes, Ducos, and Napoleon were named provisional consuls of the regime.
Before he had even seized power, Napoleon had printed proclamations and broadsheets declaring him a hero. The fact that he did this without Sieyes’s knowledge shows that his intention was more self-centered than truly wanting a better government for France. This idea of promoting himself as a hero can be compared to Hitler’s self promotion and demagoguery.

Paving the way for Hitler

After Napoleon conquered Prussia in 1807, reforms were instituted that changed the general political structure of the country so that the middle class became “free” and the noble class lost its privileges. This effectively changed Prussia from an enlightened despotism to a “modern” nation state, which would eventually become the German Reich. It was this change that first sparked a new wave of anti-Semitism in Prussia. In Prussia the emphasis on freedom and equality, and free trade led to anti-Semitism; not simply because of their financial success, in 1812 an emancipation edict reassured the fact that Jews did have equal rights. In reality however, the edict only affected the wealthy and useful Jewish groups who were already privileged—this angered the aristocracy who had just lost their privileges.
The aristocracy was so outraged, that it chose a spokesman who submitted a lengthy petition to the government arguing against Jews receiving special advantages—he spoke of the transformation of the old awe-inspiring Prussian monarchy into a new-fangled Jew-state.
The state had been transformed, not into a Jewish state, but modern state, with the majority of the wealth in the hands of the middle class, many of whom were Jews. The nobles and the wealthy Jews were both opposed to the middle class centered government that praised the individual above all else. Both aristocratic and Jewish culture emphasized family, and ones duty to family as more important than the individual. Both groups considered national allegiance second to loyalty to the family.
By eliminating the privileges of the aristocrats that he conquered, Napoleon helped pave the way for a modern Europe, with a large middle class. He also laid the foundation for stronger anti-Semitism and the possibility for rulers such as Hitler.

Napoleon and civil liberties

Like the other dictators, Napoleon was restrictive of civil liberties in order to better control the general will of the population. Unlike many dictators of the world however, Napoleon’s aim in doing this was to insure equality in his empire as best as he could, while continuing on with his conquest. He took this idea from the ancient Romans, who inspired the Napoleonic codes. He went even farther than the Romans, abolishing hereditary nobility and class privileges. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Napoleonic codes were the first set of laws to be based on reason rather than ancient customs.
Though Napoleon was generally loyal to the Revolutionary ideals, incorporating many of them into the Napoleonic cods, he repressed many liberties gained during the revolution. He eliminated republicanism and required that all printers swear an oath of obedience to him, the emperor; newspapers only published what came from the government. Printers and booksellers were forbidden to circulate “anything which may involve injury to the duties of subjects toward the sovereign or the interests of the state. In addition the codes denied equal treatment to workers in disputes with employers, women were subject to their husbands, children were subject to their fathers
Napoleon favored equality before the law, and equality of opportunity as necessary for a well-run state, but he believed that political liberty was inefficient and threatened the state with anarchy. He would govern in the interest of the people as an enlightened yet absolute ruler.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, like Hobbes believed that in the natural state humans are competitive and warlike, and will eventually result in a master-slave relationship. With that idea in mind, Hegel argued that “war has in it the deep meaning that by it the ethical health of the nation is preserved and their finite aims uprooted.” People must win wars in order to continue to be recognized as the master. This thinking was wildly influential on Mussolini, who believes that “War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it.” Mussolini concludes that statement arguing that War is the only trial that decides between life and death—this is opinion is similar the Hobbes’ idea that man is naturally either a master or a slave.
Napoleon, perhaps took Hegel’s ideas closest to heart; he definitely shared the view on war that Hegel and Mussolini felt. Napoleon waged continual war, fearing that he would lose prestige and honor if he stopped winning battles. Looking at Napoleon in this way, I can’t help but consider him an early fascist. Or was he simply

Though I definitely agree with Danielle’s point that there is a connection between Hitler’s fascist state, and the ideas based in the theory of the general will; it seems obvious that there is a connection between the general will and all states—people generally tend to form opinions about most things, and even without the right to, some will express their feelings. I would like to add to Danielle’s point, and say that the link between Rousseau and Fascism is an opposing link. According to Mussolini’s
“What is Fascism” “Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage.” In case you both lost your sheets that Cas gave us, here is a nice definition of fascism.
the two philosophers that I would give credit to for the idea of fascism are Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Friedrich Nietzsche. In Hegel’s discussion of the state he uses the metaphor of the human body, in which the humans are individuals that only serve true purpose or function, when they are part of the whole, the whole being the state. To me, it seems like this is directly influenced by Hobbes, rather than by Rousseau.