Are Hitler and Napoleon comparable to one another?

Hitler and Napoleon are in no way comparable.

Hitler was not worthy to shine Bonaparte's shoes.

Napoleon was not evil, not a monster. Not even a warmonger.

FYI: The jails of Napoleon's France held fewer political prisoners (per capita) than did contemporary Britain's.

Of all the "Napoleonic Wars" fought between 1800-1815, Napoleon only instigated two of them -- Spain (1808) and Russia (1812)... and it can be argued that he actually had sound political/military reasons for doing so.

1803: Britain violates the Treaty of Amiens, declares war on France.
1805: France is attacked by Austria and Russia.
1806-7: France is attacked by Prussia, later joined by Russia.
1809: France is attacked by Austria.





"Send her to the snakes!"

Not even a warmongerOf all the "Napoleonic Wars" fought between 1800-1815, Napoleon only instigated two of them -- Spain (1808) and Russia (1812)... and it can be argued that he actually had sound political/military reasons for doing so.

1803: Britain violates the Treaty of Amiens, declares war on France.
1805: France is attacked by Austria and Russia.
1806-7: France is attacked by Prussia, later joined by Russia.
1809: France is attacked by Austria.

Didn't the peace treaties he negotiated in l800 annex large territories to France, causing resentment among the other powers of Europe?

If Napoleon wanted peace he could have refrained from enlarging his realm while keeping his army strong to defeat any attacks which might be made.

Surely the great military genius Napoleon could have won while fighting a more defensive style of warfare. And surely he could have refrained from annexing lands or giving them to his allies every time he won a war.

1805: France is attacked by Austria and Russia.
1806-7: France is attacked by Prussia, later joined by Russia.
1809: France is attacked by Austria. [/quote]

And how many times in those cases did those "attacks" on France actually involve troops invading the pre-1789 borders of France or even the 1800 borders of France, and how many times did Napoleon attack their armies while they were still on relatively neutral soil, rushing to attack them with lightening speed.

Napoleon Bonaparte has left unlike Adolf Hitler a legacy which is honourable.

True Napoleon went vainglorying, handing Europe countries to his less intellectually favored siblings like they were smarties and yes, he was invading a lot

but

he left his country a legacy regarding management, statecraft, laws, education, culture as in salvaging national antiquities etc

to this day, we (I am French) sit the baccalaureat (end of lyceum/a/as levels) thanks to him, and the law code relies a lot on his works and guidances

he did a lot of things wrong
but what he did good was good indeed

he could have avoided the bloodshed of waterloo, indeed
but his rise to power in 1799 ended up peacefully the revolutionary process which was a national nightmare and disgrace

Churchill as a British man could and would not understand the traumatic nature of the revolution on any frenchman who lived through the events
and unlike Hitler
Napoleon is still a French hero (imprfect through but a hero none the less)
tell me a german who can say the same from Herr Adolf

now coming to Robespierre
the problem is that his own legacy simply was washed off

firstly he was in power for what 2years and what he left was certainly disregarded by his political successorts, the Directory was not robespeierrist (all they wanted was to carry on being in power but aside the will not to have a superior aristocratic class and the refusal of a church bowing to foreign powres as Rome) they were rather moderate conservatives
the problem was that they had no vision and they were corrupt
bonaparte was to bring some fresh hair and yes, he was endowed by a brilliant intelligence

but the directory was able to overthrow the massacres which were ordered by robespeiere so not that bad

now robespeirre for evil as he was regarding the nation bloodshed was not like hitler
hitler has a particular evil which was allowed to run amok for 12 horrible years for the world and his countrymen

we have robespeiree streets in france
I doubt germany has hitler strasses

The opposite of Love is not Hate: it's apathy. Hate still harbors feelings thus hope.

Napoleon is still a French hero (imprfect through but a hero none the less)
tell me a german who can say the same from Herr Adolf

Unfortunately you are wrong and there are small (but all too large) numbers of neo nazies in Germany and most other western countries.

No Hitler Streets, of course, since it it may be illegal and certainly political suicide for government officials to honor HItler.

Fact they tried to rule the world[

Seeing how most of the world has spent at least seventy years hating Adolf Hitler and seeing him as evil, it might be hard to realize that Napoleon Bonaparte was equally hated and feared by many in his day. Yes, Napoleon has a far better reputation in 2015 than what Hitler has. But to British people before 1815, he was no less than the same kind of threat that Hitler would become to their great-great grandchildren before 1945.

And to an average German person, who did not belong to one of the prosecuted minorities, things looked just fine between 1933 and 1939. Hitler managed to give the people new jobs after the bad situation of the 1920s, and a new hope and pride after all the humiliation after the WWI. And if you drive on the Autobahn in Germany today, you can still thank Hitler for making sure that they were built. It was only after the WWII had ended with misery for them, that the Germans started understanding that it had been a mistake to vote for Hitler.

So yes, I can see some really big similarities between Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler. Both of them were also technically foreigners in the very countries, which they would eventually rule over. (Napoleon was born on Corscia only one year after France had taken it from Genua, so he was really more Italian than French, and Hitler was born in Austria and not in Germany.)

Intelligence and purity.

Didn't the peace treaties he negotiated in 1800 annex large territories to France, causing resentment among the other powers of Europe?
In 1805 and 1809, hostilities began when Austria invaded Bavaria -- a sovereign ally of Napoleon's France, not a puppet state or annexed territory.


Send her to the snakes!

Bit late to this discussion, but a few points:
Didn't the peace treaties he negotiated in l800 annex large territories to France, causing resentment among the other powers of Europe?
There was no peace of 1800.

The next closest thing might be the Treaty of Lunéville, after the Second Coalition, which reaffirmed an earlier treaty (Campo Formio). This was not that large of an annexation. Of the treaties that caused resentment, this would not be among them.

If Napoleon wanted peace he could have refrained from enlarging his realm while keeping his army strong to defeat any attacks which might be made.
And that would stop the Prussians, Austrians, and Russians attacking French territory... how? Because it didn't.

Surely the great military genius Napoleon could have won while fighting a more defensive style of warfare.
Well, he did. See Six Days' Campaign.

But that's not preferable or the best option. "The best defense is a good offense" isn't just an adage; it has real application. Sure, you could wait until an attacker is in your bedroom to defend yourself, but if you had the option of stopping them entering your house in the first place, why wouldn't you take that?

Fighting on your own soil, even if you win, has consequences. The enemy will still loot and destroy infrastructure before you have time to reach them, which is what you want to prevent. Taking the fight to the enemy and keeping the fighting out of your country is preferable, which is what Napoleon did. Letting them invade would be a last resort.

And surely he could have refrained from annexing lands or giving them to his allies every time he won a war.
There are consequences to losing, you know. You don't pick a fight, lose, and simply get a slap on the wrist. These were also meant to decrease the enemy's sphere of control in the future.

And how many times in those cases did those "attacks" on France actually involve troops invading the pre-1789 borders of France or even the 1800 borders of France
That's not how reality works. By your logic, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, it shouldn't have been a big deal because it's Hawaii, which isn't part of the contiguous United States, much less the original 13 colonies. Right? When the Russians recently invaded Crimea, that was part of the Soviet Union at one point so nothing to fuss over, right?

No. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how sovereignty works.

When Suvorov marched into the Po Valley, he was invading French territory. When Prussia picked a fight in 1806, the Confederation of the Rhine was under French protection, period, end of story. When Austria crossed the Inn River in 1809 without even a declaration of war, they were invading a French protectorate, period.

Napoleon attack their armies while they were still on relatively neutral soil
Where did you get "relatively neutral"? There wasn't some interim period where territory magically didn't belong to anyone. French territory is French territory, British territory British, Austrian territory is Austrian. That's how it works.