Napoleon and Hitler: two faces of the same coin, with devastation

Napoleon, save for that on Russia to which he was confronted in hopes of preserving the continental blockade that was to bring peace unto Europe, never outright declared any wars, and all those he waged bore only a defensive purpose, rather than be wars of aggressions and expansion.

Besides, Napoleon, although by near-tyrannical means, pursued the legacy of the French Revolution, in edifying all its founding values as pillars of the french empire (loss of privileges, equality before the law, etc...) while purging from it that which had been tagged unto it by Robespierre and the Directory of Public Safeguard. Furthermore, all the countries in which his armies were to tread spread those ideals into Europe, shaping a century of nationalism and democracy that was to come.

Lastly, he didn't will the entire genocide of the Semite, gypsy, and Slavic peoples, if that means anything to you.

Not to mention that one far exceeded the greed of the other, and upset the the balance of Europe much more.

Napoleon captured Vienna and Berlin three times, yet never requested more than they free some of the people subdued to them (Italians in Tyrol, Istria, Poles, etc...). Hitler on the hand sought for his Reich to spread everywhere like a fool.


Will I get a response though? Am I replying to copypasta? Feels like it.

>>1551784

I thought you were just a retard until the last sentence, then I realized it was b8. Too blatant.

>>1551813
That's pretty much it.

>>1551815
Not OP, but how is the last sentence bait?
Most people have a superficial understanding about, well, most fields.
History is mostly a niche domain for intellectuals and nerds.

File: 1413237394204.jpg (142KB, 1170x1164px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1170x1164px

>>1551813
/pol/ blown out

>>1551813
I always thought Napoleon was Robespierre with guns.He had secret police and censors supporting his rule

>>1551879
As I've said, I don't absolve Napoleon of some his policies that bordered on tyranny at rare times, and can concede that he did run a private police, and was ruthless against those that disobeyed him (see how he treated the generals that staged against his son in his absence).

However the difference in Napoleon and Robespierre lies not in how they operated, but what they showed of themselves. Robespierre would purposely open the executions he ordered to the masses to scare them into submission, and had a nasty habit of fishing amongst his former allies for people to incriminate and guillotine. So Robespierre would execute to maintain himself in power by fear, and was never consistent in who he murdered. The single least show of treachery to the Republic (i. e. things as innocent as saying month of April out of habit, rather than the republican month of Brumaire) would kill you.

Napoleon ruled much more from the public consent that the french heaved on him for having protected him. He did run the state police, but never killed more than he had to, and as I've said, bared the Revolution spirit to its innermost "no more nobles! we're all equal! fuck the clergy, but not too much!" values, and so was much more lenient. There's also a reason why the police was secret: Napoleon didn't need to instill fear into the french. He had to target fuckers seeding dissent, but otherwise, he ruled by the love of the people.

So yeah the same, but not that much.

File: picard.jpg (5KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 240x240px

>>1551860
>referring to /pol/ out of nowhere

>>1551895
>never killed more than he had to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Antoine,_Duke_of_Enghien

>>1551895
>Napoleon ruled much more from the public consent
He was,like Hitler a dictator nothing to do with public consent, and dictators are always popular when their winning.

They were just the first two manifestations of the predestined Ceasarism. We have yet to see the true Ceasar arise, when he does, the world will quake. Imperium Mundi is coming.

>>1551905
>He was,like Hitler a dictator
Even so, if he was, he never sought grab more advantages from it than he had to.

Hitler tricked his country into waging war against the entire world.

Napoleon salvaged his country from those that wanted its regime dead, and its ideals buried.

I can agree that he had to tyrannical streaks to him, but the Hundred Years should illustrate enough how he never had to summon them, and was chill with mostly riding on public adoration.

Well gee I don't know, maybe because one of those people created the Modern world, while the other's only notable achievement is killing millions of Jews?

Hitler is like mirror universe evil zombie Napoleon or some shit.

>>1551909
>tries to use Spenglerian memes without having read Spengler

Napoleon is Alexander.

>>1551960
I would venture, if there were camera around when Napoleons armies were pillaging their way through europe, he wouldnt look too good either

>>1551986
He was acclaimed as a hero and liberator in most places, especially Italy, Germany, Eastern Europe and the Balkans. The countries there are all his creation.

>>1551784
Napoleon actually was unreally hated for decades almost everywhere that wasn't France or Poland. Give it another 100 years and Hitler will be whitewashed too.

>>1551784
It is just that Hitler was more recent.
In 200 years, people will see Hitler as a great statesman and leader with some flaws.

>>1552023
>Eastern Europe

You mean specifically Poland. Russians absolutely hated him for a long time.

>>1552169
Well obviously. He didn't liberate Russia, same thing for the Netherlands. The Spanish ended up hating him too, but even they originally welcomed him in, things just soured later.

>>1552161
>with some flaws.
Litterally the madman that engineered the context for all german women, aged from 9 to 90 to be raped.

Alright.

>1552176
>>1552169
Actually, Napoleon clearly was popular among some of Russian aristocracy. Read Tolstoy, "War and Peace". Even though it's not an 100% historical accurate piece, it shows some respect to Napoleon.

>>1552223
War and peace is actually based on de Maistre's Petersburg Letters. De Maistre admired Napoleon despite being a traditionalist reactionary himself.

>>1552161
>some flaws

Genocide is not just another flaw. Nappy's flaws are not that different than any other ruler

>>1551784
Because he gassed the kikes

Also, there's no reason to hate Napoleon, he conquered Europe in wars started by his enemies
You could say that Hitler was attacked by France and Britain first, but then again he gassed the kikes so it doesnt matter