Would he be remembered and regarded like Napoleon from common academic perspectives if not for the ethnic and genocidal...

Rather have a board for of those than a board full of christians. Which is what we have now.

Nah.
Napoleon is equally well regarded in terms of military but also in terms of political achievement, with the code Napoleon beeing a pretty damn important document that in parts is still used today, Hitler doesn't really have somthing like that.
Additionally Napoleon can be seen as a direct consequence of the french revolution which is arguably one of the most important things in history.
Granted one can argue that the Cold War was a result of Hitlers wars but his political legacy and thought were by no means as relevant as Napoleons were in the 19th century.

and by christians you mean catholicucks

Op didn't mention 'military genius' at all you retard. Very clearly he's talking in terms of overall global importance.

>>Encircling and eradicating unprepared and ill-equipped soldiers who have been given orders not to fight you
As if that was a cohesive element during the invasion. Also the French had far superior armor, not to mention being more than capable of repelling the invasion overall.

>, after spending pretty much your whole country's GDP for twelve years on the military to the point where your nation is close to bankruptcy
Yeah, that's what nations tend to do when rearming for war. And that won them The Battle of France

> only to overextend your supply lines and get brutally stomped by the most powerful military

That is not the Battle of France. Victories can be had within a lost war. Are you new at this?

...

Well I don't think anyone can deny that a guy who was the fact of a massive revolution and who lead the 'bad guy' country of the largest war of all time can't be denied as one of history's most significant people.

I always imagined hitler to be a meme. I mean i cannot imagine how such thing could exist in modern era. They had phones, cameras, planes. How did the world let it happen?

Napoleon isn't remembered and regarded as "globally important", he's a byword for military genius

I would argue that Hitler's political impact was greater than that of Napoleon.

I never even heard of the guy in my life until i hit my teens. And my friends those days loved politics and history. As for the holocaust i only heard of it back in 97 when one of my professors was talking about how her family had just been given legal rights to the property they were sheltered in, after the war. However she looked a lot darker than the people in the pictures. Always assumed she was a dark puerto rican with a central european lastname.

He cannot go in history as a great man. Look at the german hospice laws.

If you come from a crazy country and someone gives you a place to live. I think there are laws that would treat your home as a hospice and you were ill cared for. Allowing you to get buck.

So if they thought themselves greater than you even if they gave you dwelling. You were allowed to sue because you were ofcourse, less capable and they were more capable. According to how its moving there are no statutes of limitations.

Even if it was just for a day. It became a hospice.

But i believe the law also has correspondence in waterboarding scenarios and malicious use of instruments. Basically if you are under the care of a fed or govt contractor. As for former employees or contractors there is a time and if anything strange happens. There must be research done and the country could be sued as well as their businesses, if a contractor.

Hitler is remembered for setting up laws of great ethic and moral boundaries amongst kindsmen. And the jews were kept from it. So if the Jewish people sued and the U.S. Did their best to make Germany honor those laws for them then they applied themselves unto German law. And created Israel. It must honor those laws at home.

>No, this board just got stormed with prussiapros and pangermanists.

Holy fuck how long have you been here, 5 seconds? This is the most anti-German board on the site.

>Perhaps the much successful campaign ever

But what about the Mongols?

nobody cares

follow your leader /pol/tard

So I'm /pol/ now for pointing out the Nazis actually had victories? lmao le boogey meme is real

Depends on which Mongol Campaign you speak of. Certainly competitors for the title nonetheless

would the world care if Trump was elected and decided to genocide the mexicans and conquer mexico?

more importantly, would the world be able to stop it?

not saying that trump is le hitler, but... i believe that even today, the "global community" is mostly an illusionary thing. nobody would sacrifice something to stop a real genocide or military invasion.

see: rwanda, north korea, ukraine

the bosniak genocide was only stopped because the west had nothing to lose by bombing the poorfag serbs.

imagine a genocide done by an actually strong country like china or russia. who would ever dare to stop them, especially now that they have shitloads of nukes?

nobody fucking cares because he was a dick and only /pol/tards would be interested in hearing anything else

mate i started on your side but you can't say only raysists are interested in Hitler

lelno
no way even in a thousand years when most historical pieces of history are lost...
the only thing both had in common is that both led armies - and napoleon did genocide the haitians.
but the comparisons end there, hitler was a grunt just like all germanoids and just like them he thought war could be won purely with violence and ultimately that's what's been keeping europe safe from the rapacious attacks - while the germans might excel at violence, agression and brutality but they're incapable of logical thinking outside their little pragmatic box.

He'll be remembered as a brilliant politician and orator. He is already regarded that way from what I've seen. Him and Churchill are commonly presented as two excellent speakers/politicians.

He is an incredibly case of the kind of power a popular leader can attain and the things they can get the nation to do once they attain it.

If you're comparing that to Napoleon, sure Hitler/Churchill don't represent the kind of leader that are known for being brilliant tacticians, but their ability to control the public psyche is a different kind of leadership: one that is more fitting in the 20th/21st centuries.

>Yeah, that's what nations tend to do when rearming for war.
that's not how it works; most nations at the time had standing armies and they only had the soldiers they could afford.

needless to say that didn't work with hitler because he didn't follow any rule and wasn't playing fair - so he bolstered a huge army he couldn't afford counting on invading near countries as soon as possible.
starting a war to pay the army is the most stupid move in the books and pretty much no one ever pulled that shit successfully.

Funny how I haven't mentioned Hitler once. This is history, so there's context to things. I was speaking from a military context, and if you're too retarded to see that, you don't belong here faggot.