People underestimate napoleon

>occidentaldissent.com

Lefty/pol/ pls
And Napoleon wasnt a "white nationalist" lmaoing at the idea of appluing it to early 19th century figures)
The reason he wanted to restore slavery was purely economical

The Grande Armee killed in the context of war
And as the post you're replying to points out, Napoleon isnt the one who started those wars
If you need someone to take responsability for the war death, look at King George, Emperor Francis and Tsar Alexander

>“I am for the whites because I am white; I have no other reason, and that one is good,”
oh my little corsican friend

hitler killed in the context of war too

why can't napoleonboos accept that their guy was a sociopathic mass murderer

Because how many crazy people like Hitler and Napoleon that failed.

Napoleon was in no way a fucking white nationalist, he despised people who viewed the world like that.

>hitler killed in the context of war too
But that's not what lead to him being remembered as evil
Gassing the kikes is

>why can't napoleonboos accept that their guy was a sociopathic mass murderer
Because he wasn't
It's the second time that you reply to a post that points out that Napoleon isnt the one who started the wars and carefully avoud adressing that point
The mass murder was King George since Britain is the country that factually started the Napoleonic Wars

Lindybeige pls
Go samefag somewhere else

shit napoleonboos say

i mean he was unquestionably a racist and the funny thing is that he wasn't even white lol
napoleon started wars by being a corsican upstart

if he had just prepared the way for a bourbon restoration none of the wars would have happened

Outsiders, at least, genuinely did think that it was just a prank bro.

smithsonianmag.com/history/how-journalists-covered-rise-mussolini-hitler-180961407/

>But the main way that the press defanged Hitler was by portraying him as something of a joke. He was a “nonsensical” screecher of “wild words” whose appearance, according to Newsweek, “suggests Charlie Chaplin.” His “countenance is a caricature.” He was as “voluble” as he was “insecure,” stated Cosmopolitan.

>When Hitler’s party won influence in Parliament, and even after he was made chancellor of Germany in 1933 – about a year and a half before seizing dictatorial power – many American press outlets judged that he would either be outplayed by more traditional politicians or that he would have to become more moderate. Sure, he had a following, but his followers were “impressionable voters” duped by “radical doctrines and quack remedies,” claimed The Washington Post. Now that Hitler actually had to operate within a government the “sober” politicians would “submerge” this movement, according to The New York Times and Christian Science Monitor. A “keen sense of dramatic instinct” was not enough. When it came to time to govern, his lack of “gravity” and “profundity of thought” would be exposed.

>In fact, The New York Times wrote after Hitler’s appointment to the chancellorship that success would only “let him expose to the German public his own futility.” Journalists wondered whether Hitler now regretted leaving the rally for the cabinet meeting, where he would have to assume some responsibility.

>it's another stealth trump article
lmao stay mad that you lost libtards

literally did not mention Trump once.

>“No people ever recognize their dictator in advance,” she reflected in 1935. “He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the instrument [of] the Incorporated National Will.” Applying the lesson to the U.S., she wrote, “When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American.”
literally the last paragraph

you lot did this with that volker biography of hitler too

again, literally did not mention Trump once, it was an article about how American journalists covered the rise of Hitler. You lot really love projecting.

idk if you're really this stupid or think i'm really this stupid

either way i'm insulted

Stop comparing Napoleon to Hitler.

they are literally the same guy

>people underestimate trump
>gets into power and kills a fuckton of people
Oh wait that's the present

This pretty much sums up how Hitler got into power so easily (I can't speak for Napoleon), he was seen as a pawn that could be easily co-opted and controlled in the political battles of Weimar Germany. Franz von Papen convinced Hindenburg to appoint Hitler under the assumption that he would be the real power in the government, yet as we know they let the fox into the hen house who would proceed to sideline them and consolidate Nazi control.
Trump and his "movement" are certainly not Hitler and the Nazis (if anything he's an American Silvio Berlusconi) but there are some obvious similarities in how they came to power that make for an easy comparison, a media who could never quite take either man 100% seriously, a political establishment who assumed he was either lying through his teeth and was secretly one of them or could be controlled so they supported him against a antichrist tier opponent (in Hitler's case the specter of the communists), and a populace so desperate for change they ignored some of the batshit ideas/stuff that they did

>he was unquestionably a racist
Everyone born before 1900 was a racist. If the last couple of years are any indication, it seems like racism is more sensible than whatever ideology is driving Europe now, at least.

>people on this board can't understand the difference between a man who took control of a country in chaos and everyone attacked him, and a man who took control of a defeated country and attacked everyone

amerilards and britbongs everyone

technically everyone declared war on hitler

after they said they would if he decided to expand more than he already had, which was already incredibly aggressive for a country that still hadn't paid back its war debts

yeah but technically the allies were the aggressors

Because war was always the last resort? You have all the power of history and hindsight at hand, so criticizing someone for not wanting to send 1/10 of his adult male population into a possibly needless war is childish.

no, we weren't.

Pooland had its independence guaranteed by the allies.

The only reason they got into power is precisely because of the fact no one took them seriously.

That's the irony.

Anyone who has ever worked in an office environment where a promotion was available knows precisely this fact.

Hitler was voted in and Napoleon was greatly respected for his militsry feats

Don't know how this "no one took them seriously" meme started but it isn't true

why does everyone think i mean "kill them" when i say take them seriously
exactly, the allies started the war
napoleon got his first command because barras thought he was easy to control

hitler became chancellor because von papen thought he was easy to control

Do you know what "stealth" means?

>the allies started the war

Pure ideology.

The war started with the german invasion of pooland, not after.

>The war started with the german invasion of pooland
the war started when the allies declared war lol

don't redefine reality

actually I did forget about how they got into power you're right

but I think OP is talking about when they're already in power, and the approach other countries have to them

i am OP

and no i'm not

The real question is "why didn't they take the eternal Anglo seriously?"

>Poland is a part of the Allies
>France and GB say "alright, we let you annex Czechoslovakia, but this time, we're serious."
>Germany decides to try and fight world Bolshevism by invading the Eastern European bulwark against Communism (and splitting it with Stalin)
>THE ALLIES STARTED THE WAR

>Napoleon was Hitler of his time maymay
Nope, repeating it won't make it true. Napoleon was worthy of being taken seriously. He was intelligent, talented, made positive contributions to society, military genius. How was he even underestimated, he was viewed as a hero based on his accolades before seizing power. And while he certainly had grandiose ambitions, they were within the right context: wars being waged against his country. For when he was selfish, he was just a conqueror, not a genocidal maniac like Hitler.

By contrast, Hitler was underestimated because he was completely average except for a few skills, and he came off as a weird loser with wacko beliefs. But those skills proved valuable with some luck and opportunism to help him along. Still, he was a shitty leader, a war monger, genocidal maniac, and nothing like Napoleon beyond superficial similarities.

Some people wish to see the world burn.

>try to invade Russia
>fail
>begin to decline

history is poetry

the allies started the war because they declared war

how is this hard to understand
hitler wasn't stupid you napoleonboo

Hitler was stupid, otherwise he would have won :^)

>the war he fought were mostly started by his enemies
You can say the same about Hitler

hitler had to put up with a lot of shit that napoleon didn't have to

like he pulled off a perfectly planned coup that would have succeeded if an idiot hadn't LET THE ENEMY WALK AWAY

imagine if this had happened during brumaire

Because most underestimated people never actually do something to change their status. Napoleon and Hitler were exceptions

Napoopan made sure he deployed no idiots. Thats the difference between the two

in that scenario he was the idiot and his brother saved him

>He began to speak, but only muttered a few stock phrases ill-suited to the circumstances, punctuating each idea with, ‘That’s all I have to say.’ The more he went on, the more embarrassing it became for all concerned.

Hitler is a hero

>like he pulled off a perfectly planned coup that would have succeeded
Reichswehr was against the Nazis. Same with police and everyone else. Kapp Putsch failed, why do you think Hitler's shitty attempt at overthrowing the Bavarian (not even real Weimar government) would succeed?

because the leaders of the bavarian government had promised to give power to the nazis

it was only after they LITERALLY WALKED OFF that they broke this promise

I think that kind of proves my points about appointing the right people for the job

your point was that he deployed no idiots

however he deployed himself who was an idiot

And yet he managed to stay in power and crush his enemies for another 12-13 years.

He sure was a good for nothing idiot

yeah because he got lucky

if the beer hall putsch had succeeded we'd be calling hitler a genius too

Napoleon was not lucky at Aysterlitz, or Jena or tilsit.

Do you seriously think think the Weimar republic would have done nothing while bavaria went rogue?

>Napoleon was not lucky at Aysterlitz, or Jena or tilsit.
ok
>Do you seriously think think the Weimar republic would have done nothing while bavaria went rogue?
bavaria would not have went rogue, it would have been a coalition government suboordinated to the fuhrer principle

Not really
Hitler invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland before being attacked

I surely remember when Hitler made useful contribution to the war planning.
Staline was a better commander that Hitler because he at least understood at one point that he should shut the fuck up and let people that know better than him do their thing.
Only three types of people compare Hitler to Napoleon, SJW, anglos and nazis, none of which deserve any respect in this day and age.

oh come on the parallels are obvious

Lindybeige pls

They are two leaders with somehow timid dispositions in their private life. Wow. I can "raise parallels" between your mom and linda lovelace too if this is the standard we're going to use.

Except Bavaria was largely irrelevant. Reichswehr was against this putsch and Berlin (and Prussia in general) was largely pro-socialist. Kapp putsch achieved much more and still failed.

Napoleon was a genius, Hitler was merely a lucky idiot.

t. Lindy

they were practically identical characters
or hitler was an unlucky genius
i hate neither hitler or napoleon tho

Repeating it doesn't make it true.
Either you start making a list or you shut the fuck up

Hitler was incredibly lucky.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5923.2006.00171.x/pdf
he was also really unlucky

Because figures like that come about maybe once in a generation, surrounded by dozens and dozens of overhyped pretenders who amount to nothing.

>once in a generation
it's pretty obviously once every century

He was the closest thing to a white nationalist in the early 1800's.

His goal was to unite Europe for the European peoples.

>He was the closest thing to a white nationalist in the early 1800's.
so in short he wasn't a white nationalist

thanks

He was mostly just an idiot with delusions of grandeur.

It's a miracle (or maybe a huge mistake) that NSDAP ruled Germany. Literally everyone treated them like a meme. They were vulgar plebeian nationalists without a single original idea and terribly banal propaganda.

>He was mostly just an idiot with delusions of grandeur.
you are literally underestimating hitler after he proved himself to be ruthlessly efficient at gaining power lmao
>It's a miracle (or maybe a huge mistake) that NSDAP ruled Germany.
it's the result of hitler being really good at gaining power

Without the Great Depression and von Papen's plot there wouldn't be Hitler or the Third Reich.

>Without the Great Depression
lol
>Without von Papen's plot
why wouldn't von Papen or someone similar suggest a coalition between the german establishment and the nazis? they had more in common with each other than the commies or the social democrats

Did you even read what you posted or did you hastely googled "napoleon hitler comparison" and c/c the first article that came up? Cause the author demonstrate how remote from historical truth the thesis is

he admits that there are parallels and they were very similar characters

i didn't say they were identical

Nazi were irrelevant before 1929.

>why wouldn't von Papen or someone similar suggest a coalition between the german establishment and the nazis?
Exactly. The old elites wanted to destroy democracy but were too weak to control Hitler or reestablish monarchy.

People like Papen or Hugenberg are very much responsible for the rise of Hitler.

German political class was very snobby when it came it education.

They couldn't believe that some uneducated beer hall agitator could pose a threat. German conservatives wanted to manipulate Hitler to do their dirty work him and then fuck off.

>People like Papen or Hugenberg are very much responsible for the rise of Hitler.
yeah but they couldn't choose not to be responsible for the rise of hitler; this is a truism

they didn't choose to offer hitler power they were forced to
>Nazi were irrelevant before 1929.
not in bavaria where they could have easily seased power if they hadn't got unlucky

>Hitler
>unlucky

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_Elser

>The high-ranking Nazis who accompanied Adolf Hitler to the anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch on 8 November 1939 were Joseph Goebbels, Reinhard Heydrich, Rudolf Hess, Robert Ley, Alfred Rosenberg, Julius Streicher, August Frank, Hermann Esser and Heinrich Himmler.
>With the departure from Munich's main station set for 9:30 pm, the start time of the reunion was brought forward half an hour to 8:00 pm and Hitler cut his speech from the normal two hours to one hour duration.[5]
>Hitler ended his address to the 3000-strong audience of the party faithful at 9:07 pm, 13 minutes before Elser's bomb exploded at 9:20 pm. By that time, Hitler and his entourage had left the Bürgerbräukeller. The bomb brought down part of the ceiling and roof and caused the gallery and an external wall to collapse, leaving a mountain of rubble. About 120 people were still in the hall at the time. Seven were killed. Another sixty-three were injured, sixteen seriously, with one dying later.[5]

>Let us stipulate that Hitler and Napoleon were both deeply cynical, opportunistic men, that both manipulated people without an ounce of apparent bad conscience, that both took criticism badly (or not at all) and ended up listening to almost nobody except themselves. Finally, each brought disaster upon himself and his country.
This is the only comparison that he admits, a single paragraph in a 20 pages piece that aims to destroy the thesis that the two are comparable. Yet you chose to ignore it and retain this litte thing because it validate what you already think is true. But I guess as someone who thinks Hitler is a genius this shouldn't be a surprise.

>i didn't say they were identical
Sure you didn't

>where they could have easily seased power if they hadn't got unlucky
Where is this even coming from? Do you think the government would just sit there and do nothing?

>This is the only comparison that he admits, a single paragraph in a 20 pages piece that aims to destroy the thesis that the two are comparable.
the entire piece is based on comparisons

for instance he says that napoleon isn't seen as a monster (he is) and hitler is
like most of it is inaccurate but i expected that Veeky Forums would be able to see past this

they are identical characters, not people

character is personality
it's almost as if assasination attempts that rely on precise timing rarely work

see the infernal machine

also you can be lucky and unlucky
yes because they were collaborating with the local government at the time

>yes because they were collaborating with the local government at the time
Which again, means jack shit. Like I said, Kapp putsch was much more successful. The government ran away, Bavarian government was actually replaced, freikorps and the army joined the putsch and yet it still failed.
How the fuck would Hitler convince millions of Prussian workers to join him if most of them supported SPD or KPD?

Hitler wasn't even close to seize power in 1923.

>The government ran away
that is the very reason why it failed

if the government had been held hostage nad had legally agreed to terms then the coup would have worked

>How the fuck would Hitler convince millions of Prussian workers to join him if most of them supported SPD or KPD?
it was right wing government being replaced with a right wing government, like anyone would have given a fuck

>that is the very reason why it failed
I'm talking about the Kapp putsch and Weimar government, not Kahr and his cronies. Do you even realize that Bavaria wasn't as important as Prussia which was socialists' stronghold?

well if the two aren't comparable then why are you bringing it up

i'm making the point that if you seize control of the legitimate government then any coup succeeds