Who was the better general?

...

Napoleon by far, Hitler was an idiotic commander for the most part, who happened to have very capable generals picking up the pieces of his idiotic plans.

Hitler was a turbonigger

>who happened to have very capable generals picking up the pieces of his idiotic plans
No. Hitler's generals rarely disagreed with him, and when they did it was about 50/50 who was right

Adolf was a fucking LARP on speed.

The one who was actually general obviously.

If he was so dumb then how did he take out france in a few days? I don't think Napoleon could have done that. If you look at the battles Napoleon fought he was either up against idiots who didn't know how to command an army, or he was lucky or he had a bigger army.

Only one of those was a general.

good b8
also Battle of France was all Manstein's idea that Hitler only approved because he liked how bold it was

>If he was so dumb then how did he take out france in a few days?
Wasn't most of the planning for Fall Gelb/Rot up to von Manstein and Guderian?

The French were woefully unprepared in WWII, even still sporting their tri-colour uniforms and, if memory serves, armour.

Napoleon did do stuff of the sort, hell he was known for being an extremely fast moving general

>If he was so dumb then how did he take out france in a few days? I don't think Napoleon could have done that
Napoleon conquered Prussia in a shorter time

>If you look at the battles Napoleon fought he was either up against idiots who didn't know how to command an army
That's way more true of invasion of France

>he had a bigger army
Napoleon was outnumbered more often than not, including at his greatest victories like Austerlitz and Jena

Hitler was a mailboy, a mediocre painter, a misunderstood stand-up comedian, but not a general.

Corporal Schicklgruber

Definitely Napoleon

>reached moscow
>overthrew the french government and becomes emperor
>leads his troops across the bridge at Arcole
>hardly slept on military campaigns (soldiers recounted a time when he was found sleeping on top of a cannon, while rounds of grape shot blasted the ground around him)
>magnanimous in nearly every treaty he made
>escaped imprisonment although stopped by the french army,proceeds to gather more men and become the main protagonist in the battle of waterloo

>If he was so dumb then how did he take out france in a few days?
1. 1.5 months
2.Not Hitler. Manstein.

Hitler wasn't even a general

I'm an unironic Hitler worshiper, but I would say that you're a fucking idiot if you think that Hitler was better than Napoleon, let alone a good military person at all.

God please destroy this world.

I am a Stormfag you could say, but Hitler was not a general or tactician, should of left it with his generals.

>I am a Stormfag
Embarrassing

Do you mean that Hitler was more of a politician than a general?

Why do you worship him? Contrary to most people's dislike of the Nazis, my own aversion to them is not to their systemic brutality and morality, but rather that all this was in service to German nationality and Volk socialism, both essentially plebeian elements.

The biggest problem with fascism is that only the biggest degenerates of Europe embraced it. Imagine a Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Itality, except with the nobility and cultural heritage of a France.. or the heroic, enterprising capitalism of the USA!

It was estimated by his enemies at the time that the presence of Napoleon on the field in command of an army was the equivalent of an additional 40,000 men. So, 10,000 French vs. say 40,000 Austrians, Rus, Brits, etc. = sound French victory when he was in charge. In the role of Emperor, multiply that by divisions, corps, armies, campaigns. Meanwhile, the
Germans put a well-spoken corporal in charge of their war machine. What could possibly go wrong?

>when Manstein and Guderian do all the hard work, but Hitler gets the credit

Hitler was not a general.