Serious Question

>>1950045
Yes, he was the Hitler all the way until Hitler and people throughout that time talked about the Napoleons of the world, Bonapartism and so on very much like we talk about hitlers and hitlerism.

>>1950045
No, not really. He was much more like the julius caesar of his day. He didnt create any major human rights atrosities, as a matter of fact he came to power condemning the bloodshed of the french revolution. Not to mention that he was never shunned by the French. He is very much revered in France, Russia, and to some extent in the US. He was known as a good general. He managed to conquer and hold his empire for a period of time.

Hitler was elected. Hitler was never a general. Hitler sucked at strategy. Hitler organized holocaust. Hitler did not hold any of his conquered land for longer than the war. Hitler is only revered by dumbass neonazis.

>>1950343
What about the 3000 prisoners of war Napoleon had killed in the middle east?

That's a war crime.

>>1950355
War crime was not a thing back then.

>>1950045
No he was more like the Stalin of his day.

>>1950343
>hitler was elected

>>1950045
>no mustache nor genocide

Poor man's Hitler if you ask me

He was the Napoleon of his day.

>>1950045
He was used in arguments the same way Hitler is, until Hitler happened.

>>1950570
Not really
Napoleon didn't cause white guilt and death of nationalism

>>1950595
>Napoleon not responsible for the rise of nationalism across the continent, which was seen as radical and barbaric in the way total war was conducted
>Not responsible for the death of nationalism by exporting it through violent means

>>1950355
Im fairly sure every entity that has gone to war has commited war crimes at some point. A war crime is different to the systematic genocide of civillians

>>1950355

They deserved it, he released thousands of war criminals and said i will release you if you never lay a hand on my men and take up arms again.

They took up arms again and he lost thousands of soldiers and do you know what he did in response, he razed them.

The whole idea of napoleons campaign in the middle east as well was subverted by the imams and the mamluks+british. He literally was trying to help enlightening them so the brits wouldn't get there and some far fetched idea about more colonies for france to compete with England.

Brown skinned people were usually seen as lower anyway at the time and england as well as other european nations were more then happy if they had to resort to means of fighting to put the natives down.

It's not morally correct but it in no way makes napoleon like hitler killing a bunch of savages.

Napoleon was an enlightened ruler.

Hitler was an oppressive despot.

File: Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte.jpg (19KB, 233x326px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 233x326px

Was he the Hitler of his day?

>>1950343
...Napoleon is not revered in Russia, where did you get that from?