Napoleon vs. Hitler, Why are they the same? How are they different?

Both Napoleon and Hitler were men who craved power - political power, military power, and just plain power of their will to rule.

Both men thought of themselves righteously - They believed they should rule - Believed thay had the best interests of their
homelands as a justification.

But Napoleon who may have seen the French as superior was not a racist - HIs power hunger was mainly based upon, the then
current belief in France of "liberty, equality, fraternity" - The national motto of France today.

Hitler believed in the absolute superiority of th Aryan race typified by blond blue eyed aryans.


I say Napoleon Bonaparte, though in some ways a power hungry madman caught up in his own ego and quest for power
was a leader who 'attempted' to pave the road to a better world for all.

Could you say the same about Hitler? - Could you say his twisted racist ideology even be considered as having any benign reason?
- Or was Hitler, in final analysis, mo more than the ultimate Human beast cursng the German people and the rest of the World ?

a reply to: AlienView

Could you say the same about Hitler? - Could you say his twisted racist ideology even be considered as having any benign reason?
- Or was Hitler, in final analysis, mo more than the ultimate Human beast cursng the German people and the rest of the World ?

Racism is horrible and disgusting.

That said, recent history doesn't only have Hitler as a blight for collective humanity.

Stalin and Mao were in many ways more effective in destruction. Their disgusting crimes are not spoken of as much because they weren't considered racist, because they killed their own people.

I for one think that when you knowingly make a point to kill millions of people, the reason why is shadowed by the fact you're willing to do it.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The Japanese in WW2 slaughtered millions, considered the white man less evolved than the Japanese

Just Eurocentric history

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The Japanese in WW2 slaughtered millions, considered the white man less evolved than the Japanese

Just Eurocentric history

They still see the outside world in a lens that doesn't fall in line with what's acceptable by most western nations.

But no one says it.

a reply to: AlienView

They have both been put forward as candidates for the antichrist.

Think Nostradamus also allegedly foresaw there arrival and impact they would have on our societies.

Napoleon was more of a military genius, considered to one of the finest commanders in world history through whereas Hitler was a piss-poor armchair general that refused to listen to his subordinates or military commanders.

Hitler wasn't actually a German---he was Austrian.

Napoleon wasn't actually French; he was Corsican.

Hitler was never a commissioned officer. He was a corporal. Of course, in the heavily Prussian-influenced army of the second reich, a commoner could not expect a commission, and there was no shame in a career as a noncom.

Napoleon came from a prominent family, and was more accepted by the republican elite than hitler ever was.

Hitler had two of his own private armies (the SA and SS) to compensate for the fact that the army was openly distrustful. The Abwehr actually gave Intel the the English to subvert the German war effort(!)

Napoleon actually was a tactical (rather than a strategic) genius. Hitler had particular experience from the trenches of WWI, but it was the under-commanders loyal to him (Guderian in particular) that brought him victory in the May 1940 invasion of France--and that by disobeying Hitlers direct orders.

Napoleon implemented novel troop formations, like the flying column. But he didn't invent them, just put into practice what young commanders recommended, often only because he was in dire straights anyway.


EDIT TO ADD:

Alexander the Great wasn't actually a Greek- his family would nowadays be considered Serbian/Macedonian. Sensing a pattern?

a reply to: Graysen

Hitler wasn't actually a German---he was Austrian.

if only someone had demanded to see his birth certificate before they allowed him to become chancellor

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The Japanese in WW2 slaughtered millions, considered the white man less evolved than the Japanese

Just Eurocentric history

They still see the outside world in a lens that doesn't fall in line with what's acceptable by most western nations.

But no one says it.

And what is wrong with that? I respect the hell out of the Japanese for their Nationalism for and to their country. It makes them a united people versus this forced diversity that is being forced on the rest of the Western world.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The Japanese in WW2 slaughtered millions, considered the white man less evolved than the Japanese

Just Eurocentric history

They still see the outside world in a lens that doesn't fall in line with what's acceptable by most western nations.

But no one says it.

And what is wrong with that? I respect the hell out of the Japanese for their Nationalism for and to their country. It makes them a united people versus this forced diversity that is being forced on the rest of the Western world.

17 odd million Chinese dead might argue

a reply to: Raggedyman

Would that be the ethnic Han people, the ones who've taken over the communist party and changed the pronunciation of the capital from Peking to Beijing? The ones who are imprisoning tens of thousands of ethnic Mongols for "job retraining and reeducation"? The ones who ejected ethnic manchurians from government and are bent on depopulating Tibet and replacing the local populations with ethnic Han? You mean THOSE Chinese????


History is a slow-motion race riot.

Napoleon is loved and honored by millions still.

Hitler is hated by, everyone.

_____________________________

Napoleon saved his country on numerous occasions, the port of Toulan being the first such example.

Hitler never actually saved Germany or defeated other World powers in battle.

To say Nap was not a tactical and strategic genius just means no one has ever studied how he actually won.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The Japanese in WW2 slaughtered millions, considered the white man less evolved than the Japanese

Just Eurocentric history

They still see the outside world in a lens that doesn't fall in line with what's acceptable by most western nations.

But no one says it.

And what is wrong with that? I respect the hell out of the Japanese for their Nationalism for and to their country. It makes them a united people versus this forced diversity that is being forced on the rest of the Western world.

17 odd million Chinese dead might argue

Are the Chinese any better off now with their current Communist government? How far back in history should a people go to continue guilt for actions they never committed?


I am sick and tired of the living being condemned for deeds of the dead.

a reply to: SR1TX

Which of these two is the hallmark of epic strategy:

Invasion of Russia, or Invasion of Egypt?

Which of these two is the hallmark of epic strategy:

Invasion of Russia, or Invasion of Egypt?

Maybe you think his "Escape" from Elba showed strategic vision. Other than On tallyrand's part.. Or perhaps the hundred days shows napoleons true strategic genius.

He succeeded while he had the first modern army at his disposal, and a population boom in France that made it the most populous state west west of Russia. Once he ground those numbers down which a decade of expansion/dilution of French advantages, his success ratio went into decline.

a reply to: seeker1963

Settle down poor dear

We are discussing what is commonly known as history
Things that happened in the past
We try and discuss the failings so that silly over reactionaries dont make the same mistake

I am sick and tired of poor sjw's moanings over and over
I am sick and tired of poor whiners crying for despots and ignoring history


I guess you arnt going to get an argument from the Chinese, Philipinos, Malaysians, Singaporeans blah

What do you care? but

www.japan-talk.com...

originally posted by: Graysen
a reply to: Raggedyman

Would that be the ethnic Han people, the ones who've taken over the communist party and changed the pronunciation of the capital from Peking to Beijing? The ones who are imprisoning tens of thousands of ethnic Mongols for "job retraining and reeducation"? The ones who ejected ethnic manchurians from government and are bent on depopulating Tibet and replacing the local populations with ethnic Han? You mean THOSE Chinese????


History is a slow-motion race riot.

No I just meant the 17 million killed by the Japanese pre and during WW2

Dont see what you are going on about is in anyway relevant to the discussion about Napoleon or Hitler and or Mao and Stalin as I was replying to Critical stinker

In relation to Hitler and Napoleon, nobodies compared to Genghis Khan
Ottoman Empire was pretty big
As I said, eurocentric history

www.ranker.com...

a reply to: AlienView
What are you talking about they have many differences. For instance. One had a small mustache, while the other was of small stature.

You see totally different.

Both Napoleon and Hitler were driven by their view that their "race" deserved to rule the world. Both sought to do it by conquest and control. Both sought to do it by centring them at the top of a military order as a dictator and single ruler. Both were frustrated by the British who prevented either from achieving what they set out to do.

originally posted by: Graysen
Invasion of Russia, or Invasion of Egypt?

They both invaded Russia, so that isn't a real choice.
One common factor is that they both over-reached themselves, taking on more enemies than their resources could overcome.

a reply to: AlienView

Napoleon was an enigmatic tactical genius and charismatic man whom gained not only the loyalty but the love of his men.

Even his jailor's admired the man.

The building of the French empire was bloody and an aggressive affair but if had to be since Napoleon wanted to recreate the Roman Empire with Paris as the New Rome and himself as the New Emperor.

He was far from the Evil that Hitler was and there is really no comparrison, the French nearly conquered even Russia but it was too large for them and the russian's then as later during the German period know exactly how to use the weather to there advantage.

You rightly point out that there was NO racial element behind his empire, Napoleon himself was Corsican and an adopted son of France whom loved his adopted homeland entirely.

Hitler was driven by pseudo scientific ideology and bigotry but with a purpose, the people whom he classed as subhuman he robbed of all of there assets and this allowed him a vast source of wealth which he was able to seize, the invasion of other nations was necessary to keep his financial house of card's standing since he needed to steal there wealth as well or all his plan's would have come financially tumbling down.
He was a mass murdering scum bag, the very embodyment of evil AND peraps insanit driven by a heinous intellect but not a genius one, he was not naturally charismatic and had to study footage of mussolini (whom was naturally charismatic and before the Nazi's influence not actually racist in the way they were) in order to practice how to handle himself on stage in front of a large audience.
Another difference is that Hitler was a front man, there were other NAZI's behind him while Napoleon was a True Leader, when Hitler took Paris he stood gloating over the tomb of Napoleon whom was still far successful then he ever became but whose empire was just as short lived.
The French have the moral, ethical and actually tactical - no super weapons - high ground as far as that argument is concerned at least in my book.

You know Napoleon once spent a night alone in the great pyramid, some believe he lay in the sarcophagus but whatever he experienced the following day he emerged pale and shaken and would never speak about it again.