Was Napoleon Hitler?

>Study Napoleon's russian campaign to not repeat his mistakes
>fall for the same old tricks.

More like eternal failure

>>1891768
Hitler avoided attacking Moscow, he was actually defeated by massive US supply to Russia

>>1891776
>Hitler avoided attacking Moscow

Except that, you know, taking Moscow was vital for Hitler's plans.

>>1891794
no oil fields in moscow

>>1891798
That's correct, but I don't see where you're trying to get. Taking Moscow, Leningrad and Ukraine but Moscow especially was the main goal of Barbarossa

File: Eastern_Front_1941-06_to_1941-12.png (330KB, 1201x920px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 1201x920px

The two campaigns had nothing in common. Napoleon's army was a march to Moscow, the Russians didn't give him a major battle (except Borodino) and he went back. Hitler's armies actually occupied a shitload of land and were pushed back later on.
The only similarities was the Russian strategy of retreating and shitting up everything for the enemy.

Napoleon was competent, so no.

>>1891776
>t. burger

there are some similarities but loads of significant differences

-Napoleon fought a defensive war while Hitler was completely offensive
-Napoleon enforced more progressive ideals while Hitler tried to enforce more traditional ones
-Napoleon ultimately left his conquered countries alone to govern themselves (he conquered them so they can leave France alone) while the Reich wanted to gain more land at the expense of its neighbors
-Russian winters outright destroyed Napoleon's army whereas it only Stalled Hitler's army (Stalin kept Hitler Stalin') giving the Russians time to build up their army to actually destroy Hitler
-Napoleon was a fucking genius whereas Hitler surrounded himself with fucking geniuses

>>1891776

>Hitler avoided attacking Moscow

Are you retarded?, he literally committed 6 entire armies to it

>>1892975
It's also fair to point out
>Napoleon was a revolutionary, hitler was counter revolutionary
>Both had humble beginnings in the military
>Both failed to defeat England
>Both occupied countries not out of necessity, but out of a desire for control
>Both were self declared rulers

>>1893006
Not him, but he forbid Guderian to send tanks into undefended Moscow until Kiev fell.

>>1893007
>Both were self declared rulers
really that's one of the differences

Hitler was a democratically appointed ruler
While Napoleon was a Military dictator

>>1891776
>Hitler avoided attacking Moscow

And Nappy avoided attacking Petersburg
What is it with no wanting to take the capital?

>>1893018
>democratically elected dictator
when will this meme die?

>>1893156
they voted the nazis in nazis appointed hitler as their representative

sure maintaining power had Hitler purging and culling, but how he got in was legit, as opposed to the full-front military coup Napoleon did.

>>1893248
the nazis did not win a majority in that election. hindenburg was kind of insane when he nominated them. he was always a secret monarchist after all

>>1892402
But he is right.

>>1893316
the UK sent more materiel than the US via the Arctic Circle

>>1893156
Hugo Chavez did the same thing and have /his/ approve.

>>1891814
>Taking Moscow, Leningrad and Ukraine but Moscow especially was the main goal of Barbarossa
No it wasn't, of the three Hitler ranked it as the least important

>>1893324
Maybe in military equipment but in things Urss really need, the US was first.

>>1893285
to be fair quite a few Germans were secretly monarchist. They only went along with the republic because they were afraid of commie uprising. Then you have the nazis says "hey if you vote for us we'll remove the commies for you" and that's how they got in.

>>1893356
oh that makes a lot of sense anon thank you. My knowledge rests more in the final years of the Reich

>>1893014
>undefended Moscow

>>1893014
>undefended Moscow

>>1891956
Sure, there was no defend of Brest Fortress, no battle for Kiev, defend of Sevastopol

>>1892975
-Napoleon fought a defensive war while Hitler was completely offensive
Napoopan went on the offensive a bit, and Hitler was forced to go defensive later on.

-Napoleon enforced more progressive ideals while Hitler tried to enforce more traditional ones

Hitler was enforcing radical National Socialist governments and installing them across Europe; that itself is quite progressive (but not socialist or whatever) and new for their time. It's more of a modern, biased outlook to view Nazi Germany as traditional. Hitler was against the monarchy and republics. He preferred his third way ---German National Socialism (I'm differentiating fascism from him at this point).

-Napoleon ultimately left his conquered countries alone to govern themselves (he conquered them so they can leave France alone) while the Reich wanted to gain more land at the expense of its neighbors

Did he? That's a lot of romantic delusions you harbor in that statement. I can't remember but some general or diplomat under the French in Egypt, stated that in truth the French government did not give a damn about other religions or any of the enlightenment crap. The point was kind of unrelated, but Napoopan was good at diplomacy and propaganda, and that "spreading democractie et merde" is the hallmark of his efforts. Hitler took over countries to get trade partners in a league against Britain and ensure he got deals. Hitler wanted land, but Napoleon took land just the same in the low countries and elsewhere.

-Russian winters outright destroyed Napoleon's army whereas it only Stalled Hitler's army (Stalin kept Hitler Stalin') giving the Russians time to build up their army to actually destroy Hitler

Napoleon had to retreat, Hitler had to retreat.

-Napoleon was a fucking genius whereas Hitler surrounded himself with fucking geniuses

Very simplistic, but partly true.

>>1892975
>Hitler surrounded himself with fucking geniuses
Yea not really

>>1893754
>he cannot greentext

>>1892975
>Napoleon fought a defensive war
>Hitler was completely offensive
Yet they both were fighting battles outside Moscow, you appear to have an interesting definition of the term "defensive"

>>1893754
>>1893880
Napoleon personally attacked countries later but that was because of them constantly attacking him the second he makes treaties with him this includes Russia, so he figured that he had to knock out Russia to be safe. The foreign policy to defensive attacking the countries so they don't attack France whereas Germany's invasion of Russia was a pure land grab.

>Napoleon had to retreat, Hitler had to retreat.
my geniuses point was simplistic but this point you made was even moreso.

File: 1477706025108.gif (2MB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 800x800px

>>1893871
epic >>meme here's my fav, the green frog!!!!

>>1894051
Yeah, Napoleon lived in a more kingdom/empire oriented world. So, because of this there were giant conglomerations of disgruntled people united by one king he could freely split up. Hitler lived after WW1, the 48' revolution, and Napoleon, so there were a lot more baggage of nations he had to get through to get the deals he wanted.

I would never say any war is purely one thing. Hitler wanted to destroy his ideological enemy and liberate himself from the alliance of Stalin. He was taking oil with supplies from Russia and he wanted to free himself quickly from that bad situation of appeasing Stalin. It's not just lebrensmemes.

>you made was even moreso

I felt the point you made there was redundant and a continuation in part of the first one. I got bored with some of the weird points you made and commented less on them. I did that one just for sake of completion.

>>1893880 this

File: From-frustrated-writer-to-009.jpg (59KB, 620x372px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 620x372px

>>1891755
I believe Goebbels remarked on it, thought I can't find the quote now. He said something along the lines of

>it's just a meaningless coincidence

>>1891776
>he was actually defeated by massive US supply to Russia

>>>/pol/
>>>/x/
>>>/b/