What do you learn about him in your cunt?

What do you learn about him in your cunt?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=kWjkqw7SeRI&t=167s
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1504014/Napoleons-genocide-on-a-par-with-Hitler.html
youtu.be/jptE2SQyKaU
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

That he might actually have saved some of the values that came with the French revolution.

He was an evil man brought down by the might of the Anglo alliance.

The Proto Hitler

Not much. He was way more relevant to yuroland. We had already had a Democratic Revolution before the French.

honestly, why do people come up saying he was like hitler? why?

Cool guy who did lots of good for Europe. Also sold Louisiana to us, which lead to Manifest Destiny and the BTFO'ing of Mexico

cowardly backstabber

He fought against british invasions

– Poor background and youthful ambition;
– Continued thirst for power;
– A coup d'état to achieve power;
– The goal of, in the one case, creating a new France and, in the other, a new Germany;
– The use of war to expand their influence;
– A desire to conquer Europe;
– A shared failure to conquer Russia;
– Attempts to defeat Britain with a continental blockade;
– Resistance to the regime: in Spain for Napoleon, in all the occupied territories for Hitler;
– Downfall follows defeat by a coalition of countries;
– The story comes to an end with their respective countries in ruins.

most of those things that you listed are pretty common to any leader maybe except:
>failure to conquer Russia
>Downfall follows defeat by a coalition of countries
>Attempts to defeat Britain with a continental blockade

American settlers would have overrun the western third of the continent anyway, in fact Nappy sold it for the precise reason that there was no way ultimately to prevent this from happening.

Greco roman and renaissance built the USA in its values of hunan rights, anti feudalism and democracy.

How are they common?

13 colonies still hacent colonized the middle of the continent

Neither had France. It was just empty land filled with forts and natives.

He was an opportunist who espoused ideals of revolution but mainly because he was jealous of the monarchs and wished to be emperor himself, not for moral reasons.

what? no conqueror, no country, no empire has ever, absolutely never wanted to conquer europe? nobody had a thirst of power? and in the conquered lands, nobody offered resistence?

Britain's goal in Europe is and always has been to keep it divided.

gonna be honest they didn't really teach us about napoleon in school. it's 99% US history. 1% mention of other countries related to US

You said it was common. It was pretty uncommon for someone wanting total control over Europe throughout history yes.

Stop watching hollywood movies.

The Napoleonic Wars were so costly that they left Europe in an economic and demographic depression that lasted a couple of decades. Also heightened political repression.

>Stop watching hollywood movies.
I don't
>It was pretty uncommon for someone wanting total control over Europe throughout history yes.
okay, I exagerated, but there were many empires in history that, if given the chance, they would have conquered europe

Is he Macron?

The War of 1812 was kind of a North American extension of the Napoleonic Wars, but we ended up being drawn into every major European conflict from the Nine Years War until WWII.

I disagree about that. Maybe they were a few but in the around 2500 years of European history you can probably count the amount on your pair of hands. The similarities between them are close in the 125 year space they inhabit. Both wanting to lead their country into greatness by leading an all out total war in Europe by controlling the entire continent. Both having to have pretty much every powerful nation on earth to take them down. Both leaving their country in ruins after the war. They may not have had the same beliefs, but the framework is pretty much the same. History repeats itself with a new lick of paint.

went to war and lost

also changed the calendar

He ruined the REVOLUTION!!!

He saved the revolution

>– The story comes to an end with their respective countries in ruins.

France wasn't really in ruins, they ended up with a few years occupation and pre-revolution borders.

Napoleonic battles were huge, rivaled only by WWI for the size of the armies and amount of casualties. The Battle of Borodino killed and wounded 70,000 men in one day of fighting.

That he was an overcompensating manlet, just like every French.

Didn't some of the Eastern Front in WWII have bigger battles?

>"The revolution is over, I am the revolution."

Bonaparte is the only man in the world that deserves the title "The Last Roman". He was a true Roman Emperor and the last man to ever deserve the title of Roman Emperor.

>History repeats itself with a new lick of paint
I can agree this with you
do they also teach that he was a manlet?

It gets a little tricky because by the time of WWII, you no longer had set piece battles with fixed formations of soldiers and battles were fought over a period of weeks or months rather than a day or two. Aside from the Eastern Front, most WWII battles were not nearly as huge 1914-18. The total Allied and German troop presence in Northwestern Europe in 1944-45 was about a third as many men as in the WWI Western Front.

youtube.com/watch?v=kWjkqw7SeRI&t=167s

You don't really learn anything about him unless you elect to take some history papers in uni i think.

Personally I think he was one of the last true great figures of history.

>France wasn't really in ruins, they ended up with a few years occupation and pre-revolution borders.
Correct. The demographic impact of the war was huge because so many young men had been killed, but France itself was largely spared the devastation inflicted on Spain, Germany, and Russia.

As much as I like George Washington there was no way the continental army would even match up to the French in 1800s

The US military was not up to the level of European armies in training, equipment, or tactics until WWII.

this desu

t. Euro on proxy

NO country on the face of the Earth could've invaded USA after 1860 and won, not even during Reconstruction

>implying some frog emperor could defeat a literal god

>George Washington
>literal god

god job missing the entire point of your country.

He was a humble God
Unlike your god forsaken King

Name 1 Euro army that would defeat the USA in a war, even a non invasion.
USA might lack slightly in army. But we ruled the waves.

North America was too big and they'd get swallowed up. But as far as a pitched battle between regular armies, no, we couldn't beat the best European armies. For example, the tactics used in the Civil War were often embarrassingly crude and army staff work was lousy if you compare it to Napoleon's army.

The point he is saying is that USA in the early days would have lost to a European country. Your biggest asset is the Atlantic ocean. The supply line is too big.

Yes, but it's still supposed to be a secret for now.

>The point he is saying is that USA in the early days would have lost to a European country. Your biggest asset is the Atlantic ocean

And the huge size of the country and the fact that European armies couldn't handle all the woods, hills, and swamps. Even in the American Revolution, the British had a difficult time dealing with the rough terrain of the colonies; they were trained to fight in the neat, manicured villages and farmlands of Western Europe.

Stop talking with your ass. Napoleon never tried to kill an entire people by putting them into death camps.
Comparing the two is really an anglo thing and it's ridiculous.

Russia is a death camp

My son is literally writing a paper on him..the teacher gave them a quick rundown and made them pick pro or con, he went with pro

>Napoleon never tried to kill an entire people by putting them into death camps.

>A French historian has caused uproar by claiming Napoleon provided the model for Hitler's Final Solution with the slaughter of more than 100,000 Caribbean slaves.
FRENCH HISTORIAN
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1504014/Napoleons-genocide-on-a-par-with-Hitler.html

>Napoleon never tried to kill an entire people by putting them into death camps.
Nobody was arguing this. Your emotional because Napoleon was a famous french historical figure.

>Ribbe, 51, who is of French-Guadeloupe extraction, said he was unrepentant.
>French-Guadeloupe
Into the recycle bin it goes

>english newspaper

I'll stop this discussion the level of anglo insanity in this thread is too high.

I wish he won.

is Napoleon the french version of god?

t. Sylvie-Agnès Bermann

>English newspaper uses French historian as a source
Muh bias

is this bait?

Him selling Louisiana is taught to every student though

Napoleon is hardly relevant to teaching of the Louisiana purchase.

At best it's mentioned that Napoleon sold it to Uncle Thommy.

>63 posts
>no Russian flag
It's mid-morning there; guess they're all off at work/school.

I hate France, but I hate fake grievance-mongering even more.
>Ribbe's most controversial accusation is that the holds of ships were used as makeshift gas chambers; and that up to 100,000 black slaves were murdered in them.
Get real.

Hitler, but with cultural genocide , instead of physical one.

>cultural genocide
Napoleon was a lot of things, but he wasn't a communist

His "good things" were not good because he was an imperialistic dictator.

America had no tradition of conscription or a large standing army. Civil War generals for the most part had only fought against Indians or in Mexico, they had zero prior experience with handling large armies with tens of thousands of men.

>good things
>coming from a dictator

>he was an imperialistic dictator

Wait, isn't this every Russian leader ever?

Not all of them, but the ones that aren't get killed by Russians

Yeltsin was allowed to retire quietly.

shit me brick I forgot the pic

Yeltsin threatened to war USA because of Serbia

It's ironic considering how many millions of young Frenchmen got killed in battle or froze to death in Russia thanks to him.

>durr it's ironic considering how so many young men died in war because of Lincoln hurr
neck yourself, contrarion pretender

He should have been hanged.
This video contains all of his policy :
youtu.be/jptE2SQyKaU

They died because the South didn't want to give up their slaves and decided to fight for it.

>you died because you got yourself shot by my gun

...

Yea on Sunday

Mostly came down to economics. Cotton was the oil of its time so giving up the slaves was a massive money loss (that is why slavery more or less phase out in the north and massively expanded in the south thanks to how good the weather was for cotton there). If you tell a bunch of rich guys they gotta stop doing whatever is making them rich, probably going to start a war.

Jesus of Europe
Big chance to ressurect the Polish state after the partitions
Good guy overall

>that is why slavery more or less phase out in the north and massively expanded in the south thanks to how good the weather was for cotton there
fucking this

It's almost never talked about, but an argument could be made that the invention of the Cotton Gin was the primary reason for the Civil War

Evil man who invaded Russia but failed.

he was the classy frenchman who gave us Louisiana before throwing a fit in europe and getting banished, but that doesn't matter.

>if i burn my capital down, destroy all my crops, and retreat into the wasteland, i win
Is this what is taught to russian children?

>gun barrel pointed right at his head
Did people not even have basic gun sense back then?

You make a joke of it, but that's the same strategy they used in WW2, more or less.

>Moscow
>capital of Russia in 1812
10/10 education my burger friend
Also, that strategy clearly worked. Don't forget that when the war began, Napoleon had an advantage both in numbers and in the quality of his troops. Retreating and weakening him was the only viable strategy.
He's probably checking if the barrel is clear

>my capital

>implying it matters
Go ahead and do your mental gymnastics. Russia got its shit pushed in and need the British/Prussians to best mean old nappy

>Napoleon's army was utterly destroyed during the Russian campaign
>Russia got it's shit pushed in

Not by your army. It was the Winter that killed most of them

all i remember from school is that my teacher called him a manlet and said that he had a huge inferiority complex about his height

The Russian winter was/is hell, plus the vast distances and terrible road network. Also this was during the Little Ice Age, so winters were overall colder than they are today.

Considering that Napoleon started with 600,000 men and the only major battle he fought was at Borodino which cost about 30,000-40,000 men. Then consider that he came back with about 35,000 men.

The Russian population were also borderline schizo and would butcher/lynch any French they captured. Being captured or falling out of the army's column was certain death. It was not unlike Spain where the hyper-religious peasantry believed that the French were atheist/Freemason servants of the Devil.

Because Anglos need to comfort themselves in the idea that they're righteous. He had nothing to do with Hitler.