Napoleon and Hitler: two faces of the same coin, with devastation following at the end in either case...

Napoleon and Hitler: two faces of the same coin, with devastation following at the end in either case. Why the extra hatred for the latter? Partly the far greater scale and scope of WWII over the Napoleonic Wars, partly the increased power in the means of war and the ensuing devastation, partly Jewish lies and propaganda. That no one studies history any more and therefore has no clue who Napoleon was and more importantly what he did, is not exactly helping either.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Antoine,_Duke_of_Enghien
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

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.

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

That's pretty much it.

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.

/pol/ blown out

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

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.

>referring to /pol/ out of nowhere