Is it more accurate to call Hitler Germany's Napoleon?

is it more accurate to call Hitler Germany's Napoleon?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=e0QHB62uf4s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Progressive Napolen tries to carry out the bourgeois revolution by smashing up feudalism in Europe

>Reactionary Hitler tries to prevent the proletarian revolution by smashing the insurgent working-class in Germany.

No, it isn't accurate. Hitler is more analogous to the Holy Alliance.

>is it more accurate to call Hitler Germany's Napoleon?

Write coherent sentences m8

It's entirely grammatical, it's just a garden path sentence.

Napoleon was Germany's Napoleon. Hitler was Germany's Hitler. He was also France's Hitler for a little while too.

>national socialist workers party was anti working class

you are not working class and all working class people hate communism

...

No, he wasn't much of a military leader.

>NSDAP was working class
you don't have to be a communist to know the party that aligned themselves with Junkers and purged the SA (Socialist elements of the NSDAP) isn't for the workers

>they call themselves socialists therefore they are socialists
You ever heard of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? I've heard it's quite an egalitarian place, you should move there.

Theyre egalitarian in that most of them are shitty and miserable

Similarities:
>both started out as unknowns
>both became well known during a period of huge national instability
>both fought in a huge European war that shaped their views for the future
>both took advantage of this through populist rhetoric and immense personal charisma
>both were despised by the traditional nobility
>both claimed to be democratically elected but were not in reality
>both brought their country back from near ruin and made them economic and military superpowers through extremely efficient administration
>both idolized the romans and tried to emulate them
>both cited frederick the great as an influence
>both waged huge wars with their European neighbors and were immensely successful for the first few years
>both of their constant aggressive expansion resulted in a coalition of European powers teaming up to defeat them
>the united kingdom was the main driving force of resistance against them even when all of their allies had been defeated
>both planned on invading britain
>both made a pact of non-aggression with russia but both then broke it
>both made the mistake of invading Russia and severely underestimating the strength of the Russians, and suffered catastrophic losses in this theater of war
>both fought a hopeless defensive war against vastly superior numbers as the coalition advanced on their own country
>both attempted suicide rather than submitting to capture

[part 1]

Differences:
>Napoleon was a very minor member of nobility; Hitler was of no notable birth
>Napoleon originally was a far-leftist in terms of politics, while Hitler was more conservative in many aspects
>Napoleon embraced religious freedom, while Hitler suppressed it
>Napoleon granted the Jews equal rights before the law, while Hitler ruthlessly purged them
>Napoleon was a military genius and personally led his armies in all of his campaigns, while Hitler never commanded troops and was militarily incompetent
>Napoleon failed to commit suicide and was exiled, whereas Hitler successfully committed suicide
>Napoleon is idolised in France today whereas Hitler is universally condemned
>it is completely socially acceptable to admire Napoleon, whereas it is socially unacceptable to admire Hitler

There are more similarities than differences between the two men, but in my opinion the differences are in many cases far more pronounced and significant.

[part 2]

>Napoleon was Hitler

>Progressive Napolen tries to carry out the bourgeois revolution by smashing up feudalism in Europe
He pretty fast started to chase his own goals

>Socialism is revolultionary

Spoken like a true brainlet
Hitler wanted to smash the Jewish bourgeoise and destroy the Jewish forces of international capital in order to secure the fruits of German labour for the German people. The few industrialists who were allowed to "own" means of production during his reign were forced to conform to the strict demands of Göring's Four Year Plan, and had little to no say in the management of their factories. Many industries were given back to the people through the state and the working class granted businesses of their own in conquered territories. If anything, Napoleon was the reactionary one, being a tyrannical despot Emperor and a puppet of the Jewish capitalists.

>>Napoleon was a military genius and personally led his armies in all of his campaigns

Fake. The fact that Hitler was incompetent is a myth, at least at the level that the vast majority of people try to paint. Several of his generals were the idiots who disobeyed his orders and for that reason they missed opportunities to win the war.

And his ability in the war was on the same level as Napoleon, who was not an infallible genius. If it had been it would not have been epically defeated.

The other things that you said were right, though.

Napoleon gambled France's entire population and set them back 100 years.

Nappy didn't fail in war really. He failed as a man. Talleyrand organized the 100 days set up, and even made it so that Napoleon would believe he could come back. That has nothing to do with military genius. When you fight the world alone, even with the bravest 100 000 men, you can't win.

> Napoleon gambled France's entire population and set them back 100 years.

The only difference with Germany is that the French didn't receive billions of dollars from the US to recover, and they didn't bitch about it.

Better question, is Napoleon a good body pillow?
youtube.com/watch?v=e0QHB62uf4s

>Progressive Napolen
>Restor slavery

Here you go >>/b/rainlet

Rothschild betted against Napoleon.

>feudalism in 19th century

Ancien Regime

Clergy, Nobility, Commoners.