A few very important and other less important distinctions between Napoléon and Hitler
- the Weimar republic arguably wasn’t as much of a shithole as Revolutionary France.
- Napoléon didn’t invade Western Europe “because he could”, France was at war with most of Western Europe by the time he arrived in power and the wars ended only when the initial aggressors got what they wanted, the return of Bourbon monarchy at the head of France. Hitler waged war on everyone and everything because of slights inflicted in the last war. It’s a wonder he didn’t turn on Japan for taking Germany’s Pacific colonies. Although you could also claim that Napoléon wanted to spread the ideals of the French Revolution, which he technically did, that’s extremely subjectif and an absolute embellishment of the reality.
- Being opposed by Britain and Russia doesn’t warrant a compareson with Hitler. I wouldn’t want to be compared with Sadam Hussein just because we wear hats, even if we do. Well back when he was alive anyway.
- Both persons were not “vilified after their deaths”, you don’t need to vilify Hitler because adding to his killing streak would be disrespectful towards the millions of minorities or soldiers he worked to death or plain executed.
Meanwhile Napoléon gets compared to Hitler in half of all BBC documentaries, sometimes ones not even related to his life, and he’s represented as a warmonger in all English speaking media (see 2.).
- Napoléon reinstuted slavery yes, but only in French colonies, where it had only been abolished eight years prior. Slavery in metropolitan France had been abolished more than four hundred years ago and wasn’t reestablished. This is not so much a positive point, but I felt like saying he reestablished slavery was purposefully bending the truth.
On the other hand Hitler used civilians and prisoners of war alike from all his conquests, which is not really comparable. Both are dick moves, although the later was a dick move in its own time.
- They both plundered the countries they invaded in favor of their homeland. Why do I even have to address that, like why the fuck would you invade a country if not for the benefit of your homeland ?
- Both their reign marked the pinacle of their countries’ influence over Europe, sure, but that’s exactly the same as 3., Charlemagne wasn’t like Hitler just for that fact alone.
- Both wars caused massive casualties. Yeah no shit, they’re basically both world wars. Compare Napoléon to Gengis Khan instead :v