Why is one considered a great person and the other a monster?

Why is one considered a great person and the other a monster?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=5-WOusf2F7U
youtube.com/watch?v=-HXaV8O7UmM
youtube.com/watch?v=reAvWtL4ecE
youtube.com/watch?v=x4obeqaxhRs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Victors write the history books.

...

Because Napoleon was genius and a great leader, Hitler was just a useless and overrated faggot

One revolutionized things from warfare to state laws the other was a prototype bad guy even going so far as to dress his followers in black.

Napolepn was considered great?
For doing what?

>able to conquer Europe
>decide to waste time and money killing millions instead. also start a 2 front war

Both of them had Europe on the ropes, and then made the perennial error of attacking Russia.

Out of curiosity, do any of you know of a successful invasion of Russia?

They're both authoritarian, racist monsters. Only on Sup Forums would either of these totalitarian murderers be considered great.

Some men need to be necessary evil to overcome an even bigger evil.

>napoleonic wars didn't kill millions

Napoleon didn't try and wipe out the sacred people

Both are losers, especially Hitler because he didn't learn from Napoleon, instead he executed officers who told him not to attack Russia during winter

Ogodëi Khan,
Son of Ghenghis Kahn
Sent forth his older brother,
Kublëih Khan,
To Conquer Russia and establish
The Golden Horde

From Asia, yes.

Metric sytems, Code Napoleon and almost no records of systematic oppression of the occupied nations are a really nice start.

Being one of the greatest military leaders in human history

Napoleon was far less racist than anyone during that time

Only Napoleon had a chance of beating Europe completely

Killing your enemies is justified.

Exterminating innocent civilians isn't, especially when it loses you the war.

Because jews told us so

this faggot.

youtube.com/watch?v=5-WOusf2F7U

>napoleon didn't brutalise civilian populations

Do you even know what the Peninsula War was?

Those were justified after the atrocities committed one the soldiers by the Spanish civilians

By the same token the German atrocities were fine too

>They're both authoritarian, racist monsters.
are you under 18?

Napoleon defend his country and conquer a large part of europ without motorisation, he was a great lawyer and fight against the olds monarchy... he gives his liberty to Italia.
He created a national myth and.... he has commited no genocide.

But and it's human, he was megalomaniac like all people who have too much power.

Soon.

>considered great
>literally every text we see paints Napoleon as a gigantic asshole

Napoleon was a blood thirsty monster no question.

You are talking about early XIX century you know that ?

Napoleon
>most of his wars were declared on him
>military genious
>commanded in battle
>brought metric system and lots of other great things to the rest of Europe

Hitler
>declared most of his wars
>did not command in battle, his generals did most of the job

Also, Napoleon ruled during the era of tyranic monarchies, he was much better compared to other rulers at that time, while Hitler ruled during the era of democracies.

being great and being an asshole are not mutually exclusive. some assholes get shit done.

fuck off plebbit

No.
what are your sources ?
He just fucked all the powerfulls monarchy's of Europe with a divised country but he was "a gigantic asshole" ...you are so funny

That is different because on many circumstances for example the Germans massacred and raped civilians for being Slavic, and ended up murdered millions. The only civilian deaths in the Peninsular were a result of civilians assisting in the torture and murder of French soldiers, and keep in mind that Anglos did atrocities as well at places like Badajoz for absolutely no reason at all. And most importantly is the differing time period - morals were significantly different back then and there was no Geneva Convention at the time.

Because Napoleon was one of the greatest military minds the West has ever seen while Hitler was a fucking bastard cuck who couldn't command himself out of a wet paper bag, you dumb cocksucking nigger.

Time hasn't healed the wound yet.

In 100 years, Hitler will probably be considered among the greats like Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon. He has a great tale that ends in tragedy. All the old people nowadays are just like "Ah, Hitler!" though so we'll have to wait for them to die.

He wasn't as good a military commander as the others but as a leader of a country he has no equals.

Entire languages and cultures were destroyed. It's not a wound that will heal, only a wound that can teach.

No Hitler was nothing. Wermarcht and the old prussian aristocracy permite to this stupid men and his fanatised country to live 4 years more.

Napoleon was a young and courageous general before to be emperor and his generals were people from poor backgrounds as Jean Lannes .

youtube.com/watch?v=-HXaV8O7UmM

>morals were significantly different

They really weren't, but you're right that there wasn't a Geneva Convention. There'd always been a law of war that existed ever since 1648 but wasn't codified until Geneva.

Also
>the germans massacred people for no reason at all and in no way could said massacres be reprisals for resistance actions or entirely made up

NZ worst state.

They both lost.

one-helped-exterminate-europe-one-tried-to-save-it.

Fuck off Ahmed

The only solutions that Hitler brought to the crisis is the rearmament and war. Any serious historian knows that Hitler was not a great leader, it was just a populist who led Germany to ruin.

Napoleon, even though he finally lost militarily at Waterloo, ultimately won. The entire modern French nation-state to this day is based on his works and leadership.

He also didn't name the Jew, even though he knew.

He worked for the Jew by spreading egalitarianism across Europe that paved the way for Marxism.

Napoleon's techniques in battle were literal game-changers. He rocked the entire fucking world and warfare would follow his style of war until after the first few weeks of World War I.

He didn't think women should be real citizens and he didn't like blacks, but even the liberal historians can't help but be amazed at how awesome Napoleon was. He's the one great man of history that Marxist historians cannot discredit. It was him and him alone that shaped the world around him and changed the world.

This.

Only reason why Napoleon is considered great is because everyone from Napoleon's time is dead and history is boring unless it can be made into a movie that won't last more than 2 hours because that's the longest people can go without pissing and shitting from too much popcorn and Cola.

You are all retards and Jews are biggest retards ever if they think the World will stand up to their shit once the last Holoshit survivor dies out.

In 300 years Hitler will probably be a name of galactic super space ship because noone will care what stupid kikes descendants think is offensive.

Gas the kikes, race war now!

>how-blue-pilled
youtube.com/watch?v=reAvWtL4ecE

why-would-marxists-discredit-their-greatest-weapon?

How was Napoleon in any way similar to Hitler?
He was a genius who rose through ranks, conquered most of Europe, and instituted relatively good change.
His troops didn't brutalize occupied population (well, maybe Spain), and he didn't plan to enslave or exterminate millions.
Napoleon's France was literally attacked in several wars of agression, Hitler started a war of agression.
Napoleon revolutionized warfare (entire era is named after him), Hitler was just a loud populist whose leadership was only effective because of his competent subordinates, which he removed one by one.
Napoleon was an enlightened despot, whose troops cheered him even in 1815, Hitler's troops tried to kill him.
Napoleon was one of greatest Europeans ever, like a force of nature, Hitler was a failed Austrian painter who failed a grade in elementary.

Great step for the French law.

One emancipated the jews, the other tried to genocide them.

Marxist historians aren't Marxists who are also historians. They are historians who think everything that happened in history was due to the lower class and oppressed people.

It's because napoleon was a liar, so everyone ended up hating him

It's just populism, where are the concrets solutions to te crisis ?

The Nazi "reprisals" were targets on random villages and were unrelated to the attacks on supply lines, they were used more as an excuse, not to mention partisans were mostly useless. Most of all the scale of the massacres between the two have an astronomical difference, in all other theaters of war during the Napoleonic wars the villagers were left unharmed. In the Peninsular war guerrilla warfare was an almost unheard of concept and the French soldiers suffered heavily, the reprisals were the only was to combat them. Also you didn't respond to my point regarding British massacres.

Popular opinion at any given time

Hitler literally did all of that.

So, what's your point?

And if Napoleon brought change to Europe, why didn't he changed your country's name from literally Nigger Mountain to something better?

This sums it up very well

sacrifice-work-faith-in-the-state-faith-in-the-municipality-municipal-initiative-to-production-only-greatness-can-come-from-sacrifice.

Because he was a leader for his people. This scared the shit out of the elites who wanted to keep control over their own peoples. It's why nazi propaganda is all talking up how great their people are, and by contrast the allies just pushed out lies and how evil the Nazis were.

>everything-of-the-great-state-crashes-block-fuhrers-create-currency-for-the-municipality-have-rights-to-factories-land-and-such-get-back-to-production.

because it's a fitting name

wait napoleon is considered great?

I dont know shit about modern history. someone educate me

This is a concret program for you ? It's a joke ?

I don't consider Napoleon a monster. Robespierre just spread a bunch of lies after his defeat.

But the victors were different.

>Hitler literally did all of that
Hitler was, as Spengler said, a heroic tenor, not a hero.
He sold Germans a story, and by the time they realized it was rubbish it was too late.
Post-Napoleonic France was still a great power (thanks to Talleyrand in no small part), post-Nazi Germany was a ruined occupied country, which still hosts occupying troops.

all-that's-needed-is-faith-sacrifice-and-work.
youtube.com/watch?v=x4obeqaxhRs

napleon-exterminated-all-non-liberals-as-counter-revolutionaries-first-state-of-communism.

Is this bait?

because the war is not over. it wont be over until all europeans are dead and so until then it is vitally important to tightly control the minds of europeans while they are bred out of existence

I'll help you the only hitler program is the "Vierjahresplan" or "four-year plan ." The goal is to dévelop the army and achieve autarky to trigger war and conquer new territories ... what visionary !

How were victors different?
You are aware Nathaniel Rotschild basically bankrolled UK and coalitions?
British did smear Napoleon a lot, during his lifetime and after. But problem is, most of that were lies, propaganda. It was disputed even during his lifetime.
With Hitler and Nazis, they didn't even have to use that much lies and propaganda.

So what, you're saying napoleon wasn't a conqueror?

napoleon emancipated the jews

Reminder that the Montenegro anti-fascist poster is a nigger.

...

>There's only one Mountainnigger on Sup Forums
Really made me think, Vegemitebro

That's not me though, there's several posters here, and even then you'd have to be autistic to not see that guy is trolling idiots like you.
Napoleon fought Jewish (Anglo) interests.
Again, Nathaniel Rotschild.

He was. But for one reason , the European monarchies had sworn to destroy the revolution and make coming back the kings of France. France just wanted to live his life without suffering the plots of his neighbors.. ...

...

>In 100 years, Hitler will probably be considered among the greats like Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon
>In 300 years Hitler will probably be a name of galactic super space ship
>Gas the kikes, race war now!
You guys are fools if you think the Jews will somehow miraculously agree to drop their shield (the holocaust) and accept the pre-ww2 social/political status.

get a load of this racist

>Why is one considered a great person and the other a monster?

Time has to pass. Napoleon was the most hated person at bis time. But however, Hitler created the first industrial grade genocide. So I don't think he will be glorified as Napoleon in some decades.

Napoleon was considered a monster for most of the 19th century.

even if that war propaganda stands the test of time genghis khan killed civilians in ridiculous numbers and is still considered great

Oh just being one of the greatest generals to ever live.

By whom? Turks and Mongols?
No one considers him great, it's just that no one cares anymore.

Yes, because most of the european kings were the majority of European kings were his enemies.
And the majority of these monarchies have lived until 1918

how the hell do you define great?

>How were victors different?
Because the Coalition didn't divide up France and literally try to reduce it to a third world country?
The yids had a hatred of Germany long before Hitler, and long after as well. It has nothing to do with the supposed holocaust.
>You guys are fools if you think the Jews will somehow miraculously agree to drop their shield (the holocaust) and accept the pre-ww2 social/political status.
Jewish power isn't forever. In Christ's time the Jews were well respected and powerful within the Roman Empire and had special privileges and protection. Two centuries later they were exiled.

>Firing no shot in his defence, his troop numbers swelled until they became an army. On 5 March, the nominally royalist 5th Infantry Regiment at Grenoble went over to Napoleon en masse. The next day they were joined by the 7th Infantry Regiment under its colonel, Charles de la Bédoyère, who was executed for treason by the Bourbons after the campaign ended. An old anecdote illustrates Napoleon's charisma. When royalist troops deployed to stop the march of Napoleon's force at Grenoble, Napoleon stepped out in front of them, ripped open his coat and said "If any of you will shoot his Emperor, here I am." The men joined his cause.[14]

>Marshal Ney, now one of Louis XVIII's commanders, had said that Napoleon ought to be brought to Paris in an iron cage, but on 14 March, Ney joined Napoleon with 6,000 men. Five days later, after proceeding through the countryside promising constitutional reform and direct elections to an assembly, to the acclaim of gathered crowds Napoleon entered the capital, from where Louis XVIII had recently fled.[7]

Napoleon-had-more-power-over-the-folk-than-a-king-who-usually-only-tries-to-dominate-aristocracy.

At what point in history did brutalising peasants become unacceptable?

Different time period

After the industry boom in the 1800's the world became fairly globalised and there was a lot more diplomacy between nations. Both world wars infringed on these global relations and Hitler's targeted genocide makes a good example of good defending someone against evil.

We still have people alive from the war. Give it another century and people won't care, hopefully they'll realized fighting Hitler was possibly one of the worst mistakes ever.

>In Christ's time the Jews were well respected and powerful within the Roman Empire and had special privileges and protection.
Ebin

>Singapore

Search: mongolian invasions of the Rus