This essay is a comparison essay....
This essay was not graded by Mr. DeMott ever (even though it was for homework!). The highest grade Mr. DeMott gives is a 70; never higher! Every essay I submitted was always a 70, which means I have potential. So probably this essay will receive a 70. Mr. DeMott told me that I have good thesis statements and GENERAL IDEAS, but I don't have EVIDENCE or SPECIFIC HISTORICAL INFORMATION to back up my essay. That's why he gives me 70s. Here is the essay to your right: it's a comparison essay!
Bonaparte and Hitler are similar in the fact that they have militaristic ambitions because they both took charge in a leadership role, as general and dictator respectively. Napoleon Bonaparte was an excellent general in France and took fancy to anything that was relevant to military and politics. He often gave recognition to his fellow military men, officials and generals by awarding them with wealth and medals as symbolization for their militaristic contributions. His main focus was to really strengthen the French military, to expand, give power to France ultimately by military means. His ambitions were solely by militaristic methods. Adolf Hitler on the other hand became dictator of Germany and took his militaristic ambitions to make Germany the dominating force in Europe. Hitler was very brutal in his actions. He created the Nazi party and exterminated those who were of the inferior race. He set out on a wide-spread imperialistic rampage in Europe, and he did this with his own independent judgment and is the type to not listen to any other generals’ advices.
Bonaparte and Hitler differ in how they use their militaristic methods. Those two wanted to use militarism to strengthen their countries; however, they are polar opposites in how they do it. Bonaparte was an easygoing leader who welcomed contribution of others, even by awarding those who were in his favor of military and militaristic views. He appreciated others and thus strengthened France’s nationalism with collaborative efforts in military. Hitler, however, was brutal and cold. He only trusted himself and shunned out others’ inputs on utilizing these militaristic methods. Like military plans of invasions or warfare, Bonaparte would work with everyone to conquer European countries (and reconquer) while Hitler does his own thing, everyone following Hitler’s exact orders without any contribution of others (his military actions in World War II showcase his brute force and total domination of Hitler’s views in every aspect of his battles). Bonaparte was more open than Hitler was in that respect.
Though as huge military-fanatics differing in style, Bonaparte and Hitler have something very much in common besides being very militaristic. Their ambitions are what ultimately led to their downfall. Bonaparte, focusing on strengthening military instead of balancing everything else that caused imbalance in France’s society. All the money went to military for policies and expanding their nation throughout a bulk of Europe, which led to economically depressing conditions and lack of social welfare for the people. This outraged the people and ultimately plummeted downhill from there for Bonaparte. Same for Hitler: he was very driven to imperialize Europe (practically the entire world), the idea of over-ambition got the best of him and World War II ended with his defeat. His militaristic ambitions was recognized as a threat and therefore, a huge oppositional force came about to end his mad militarism. So, overall, their overextended ambitions were ceased by others perceiving their ambitions as extreme.
Bonaparte and Hitler militaristic ideology puts them in a strong position but when overextending their ambitions to overstep boundaries, that’s where the catalyst of downfall begins. They manage to endure long enough to make a prominent name for themselves, however, not just in the glory of their status during high times, but also their epic fall when oppositional forces put a stop to their extreme militarism. Their ideology of military got the best of them, with thoughts of bettering their military might, but they fail to see the long-term consequences that would put them down. As they say: “strong men, weak walls”, Bonaparte and Hitler have strong offenses, weak defenses.
Let's discuss my essay!
--> The font in blue at the beginning of the essay is my thesis statement. Notice how it's basically an OPINION of mine! All I had to do was support it with historical evidence. However...
-->The sentences in purple show how general my facts are. I didn't really give any specific detail into what I'm talking about. Unlike the one in the green font, it's actually specific, discussing how Hitler created the Nazi army. THAT'S SPECIFIC because it's a fact that ACTUALLY HAPPENNED. One sentence in purple explained how Bonaparte funded money in political policies but I did not present ANY SPECIFIC political policies! So that's a no-no!
--> The font in red shows how I OBVIOUSLY compared Bonaparte and Hitler. This is what I mean by being obvious. You have to make it clear to the reader that you're comparing. So of course, word choice plays a huge role in comparisons! Just by reading my essay, you can see how I have one sentence mentioning both people and then I have sentences following afterwards that explain each person. And then I have a concluding sentence. It's like the hamburger chart: topic sentence, three supporting sentence, and the concluding sentence!
--> So basically, my essay is good but the ONLY THING that's missing is the SPECIFIC DETAILS! So you're looking at an almost perfect essay. Study closely, my friends. :)
I didn't do anything else to the rest of the essay because I figured Mr. DeMot might use my essay as an exercise for you guys. So enjoy! Try to improve my essay for better grading!
