We read all the lead to present a different history.
Napoleon and Hitler, two people from completely different times and countries, have many similarities in a sense. They were all outstanding European militarists, and the battles they led were all of varying degrees of injustice, and their final outcome was defeat, and the turning point of defeat was caused by the attack on Russia (the Soviet Union). In this regard, many people cannot help but ask: Why do they have to attack the Soviet Union (Tsarist Russia), first unify other places, strengthen themselves and then attack Russia (the Soviet Union) is not advisable?
Answer: It is not advisable, this is a decisive battle, if you win, you will dominate Europe and even the world, and if you lose, you will lose your previous achievements. First, let's analyze the historical background of the next two battles.
Napoleon was invincible before attacking Tsarist Russia. Except for the defeat in the confrontation with britain, the rest of the battles were won, and even several anti-French alliances organized by European countries in succession were directly crushed by him. But there was one country on the European continent that was not under his control, and that was Tsarist Russia. And he understood that Tsarist Russia, a land country still under feudal rule, was more favorable to attack than Britain, a rising capitalist maritime power. He believed that only by trampling Tsarist Russia under his feet could he conquer Britain and become the hegemon of Europe.
Before Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, he defeated almost all the countries on the European continent, leaving Britain alone. It is well known that Hitler has always been the main attack on Western European countries, and he also signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union. But just when Britain's life was on the line, the Soviet Union defeated Finland in the Winter War. This caused Hitler to change the direction of his operations and turn to the Soviet Union. He believed that the Soviet Union could not even defeat the small Finland, which showed its strength. Britain is an old industrial power, and the newly appointed Churchill is by no means idle, not to mention that it also has the support of the United States. In addition, Hitler had long been extremely disgusted with the Soviet Union in terms of ethnic origin, national nature and religious beliefs. In addition, the Vast Territory and Abundant Resources of the Soviet Union not only benefited the life and residence of the remaining population of Germany, but also solved problems such as the supply of raw materials for German industry. That is to say, once the Soviet Union was taken, Britain would be at its fingertips, and Germany would really dominate the world.
But Napoleon and Hitler's dream of global domination was finally shattered. In fact, at that time, except for Britain, most of the countries were under their control. So the so-called other place in the title is nothing more than Britain. But judging these two countries from an objective point of view and what Hitler and Napoleon had at the time, it is indeed more correct to choose the Soviet Union (Tsarist Russia). First, the disparity in military strength, Britain is undoubtedly superior; second, the abundance of natural resources, the Soviet Union (Tsarist Russia) is more attractive. In other words, in the eyes of Napoleon and Hitler, the Soviet Union (Tsarist Russia) was a big fat sheep that was relatively easy to get. But they ignored the resilience of the fighting peoples and the extreme climates of the high latitudes, which were the main reasons for their failure.
In fact, the strategy of Napoleon and Hitler is indeed lacking in the eyes of our current people. Perhaps the attack on Britain will really win, but we must not judge history from the perspective of God, but we must put ourselves in the context of the times, otherwise the meaning of history will no longer exist.