The french suffered under the nazis the same sufferings they had caused to the rest of Europe with the Napoleonic invasions . The french napoleonic wars produced about 12 million dead in Europe . The french invaded from Cadiz to Moscow . the french armies , like the nazi armies , lived on the territories they occuped , stole food and everything of value , killed civilians , destroyed churches , art , archives ….
In Spain ( 12 million inhabitants at the time ) the french invaders killed about 500.000 people , half of them civilians , and the french armies lost about 300.000 soldiers . The french napoleonic invasion of Spain produced the collapse of Spain and the disorderly collapse of the spanish Empire in America . Afterwards France invaded Mexico and Argentina . The english also invaded Argentina . The yankees invaded from California to Texas , and as everybody knows have given counteless coups in what they call their ” back yard ” , and just now are trying to invade Venezuela .
Napoleon wasn't autistic about killing every single jew ever. Also he's still comparably well liked in many places today unlike Hitler.
Oliver Morgan
Muuu propaganda, he only wanted to expulse them thats all
Brandon Perry
What French suffering? Shut up with your high school bullshit.
Nobody holocausted you kike. If he had, you wouldn't be shilling. That's why he failed.
Asher Martin
Let's see if the (((mods))) delete this.
Caleb Kelly
Hitler was not a manlet.
Kayden Brown
>>>/methods/
Brody Young
Napoleon was a French imperialist, Hitler was a German nationalist. Napoleon set out to conquer all of Europe for the French. Hitler set out to restore Germany to its rightful borders. Maybe avoid the jew stew OP and stop being such a massive faggot so your brain can function past the level of a 6 year old girl that’s lost her doll ya fucking faggot
Jose Carter
are you a cow or retarded?
Gabriel Gomez
Except that they didn't really suffer all that bad.
I will tell you the difference between Hitler and Napoleon, user. The difference is that Hitler sought to unite all Germans. Napoleon sought to create an empire by conquering non-French peoples.
Oh great. Then America would be less than 30% White. I'm going to light a candle to whoever prevented that catastrophy.
Just as with Hitler and Germany, the French Revolutionary Wars and the Wars of the Coalitions were cases of the English gathering up lackey armies to smash a rising continental threat which they saw as a threat to "balance of power," which meant a potential threat to their international empire. Only the obtuse think that Napoleon or Hitler were cases of guys who just built up big armies and invaded Europe because why the fuck not? That was the dumbfuck propaganda of the time to maintain the status quo of British hegemony. Napoleon and Hitler both represented revolutionary movements that threatened the status quo of elites across Europe, and the fucked up moribund systems they were fighting to protect, much more so in the latter case (ancien regime had its faults in many ways, but National Socialism was a hell of a better solution than most aspects of the French Revolution).
That being said, you are correct in that the Spanish theater is overlooked among Napoleon's greatest failures, and as a sheer case of human brutality (as reflected in much of Goya's work). But if André Masséna is to be blamed, one must also look at Wellington.
Nathaniel Bennett
Holocaust didn't happen kike.
Nolan Bailey
jidf spotted.
Ayden Evans
It depends; the French under Napoleon were greeted with rejoicing in Poland, Bavaria, Heidlberg, Northern Italy, Croatia etc.
None of this matters Jared (((Q)))ushner is the Antichrist You'd better get right with God anons This is the tribulation Third Temple is months away End is close
Robert Baker
What the fuck are you talking about? The French are suffering now in fact plenty of French welcomed the Germans as liberators and preferred National Socialist rule to the Allies. And you will tell me that that is just propaganda. Well riddle me this - what's more likely, that we're all suffering from a WW2 German propaganda machine or that you're suffering from Allied Post-War propaganda in the West? Hmmmmmmmmmm tough fucking question.
The only similarities between the two of them at all - is that all of Europe banded together to take down their nations and that they both fought a war during a Russian spring. Every other similarity is you being a brainlet trying to divorce History from it's context - as brainlets are always want to do.
Nicholas Sullivan
Kike filled first post. damn shame.
See that hand in the jacket gesture? It's a part of some "seekrit society" or something, It can be seen on a LOT of politicians, especially notable communists, such as Stalin. Something to do with freemasonry IIRC. Notice that you will not find a picture of Hitler with his hand in his coat that's because he was the objective good guy .
This as well, although he wanted to unite all Aryans, not just Germans. He genuinely wanted to help all Europeans and halt the bolshevik advance on Europe.
John Fisher
is this another boomer thread in disguise?
go back to /x/ nigga
Evan Collins
. Difference is —'''Napoleon tore his bone apart;;;.
This. Pathetic thread with a kike as the first post; sage this absolute shit
Cameron Price
Hitler wasn't an evil megalomaniac spreading destructive leftist ideals throughout the entirety of Europe like a deranged Johnny Appleseed for one. He didn't destabilize the entire social order of the world, and every single country in Europe, just to usurp a crown. Fuck Napoleon.
Jaxson Fisher
MODS didn't delete this thread. ABANDON THE BOARD
Anthony Young
If that was his goal, that was his mistake. War makes Aryans hate each other. If we ever are to be united, it must not be through war. Not against each other, anyway.
War was thrust upon him, not the other way around. Hitler always wanted peace.
Oliver Wilson
nope
Grayson Myers
I like how this mouthbreathing retard described what the (((allied))) forces did to the fucking T though. Hilarious
Jack Hill
Why'd he invade Poland then? Yeah but that only happened after Hitler began demanding land and being unreasonable about it. Danzig would be one thing but demanding the entire Polish Corridor (a Polish majority area, not German majority) is ridiculous. No intelligent country is just going to meekly hand over land that belongs to its people. Especially after what happened to Czechoslovakia. No, I'm just unbiased. Poland was in the wrong too but we're talking about Hitler. Okay, so what if roles had been reversed? If you were representing Germany and Poland demanded the annexation of southern Prussia (polish majority) AND the German majority regions, would you just hand them over because Poland said "Oh but back in the Middle Ages they were Polish clay?" What kind of stupid country would do that? And if Poland just annexed an entire country after annexing the Polish parts and agreeing to respect the new borders, would you trust Poland to respect the new borders if you handed over Prussia? What's to stop them from making more claims?
I don't mean to assume your responses but I just want to save time here.
Here's a far better way to protect Germans without stumbling into a war that you know that the fucking jews want. 1. Don't invade Czech lands. It looks horrible when you say "I just want the German lands back pls" and then go ahead and annex sovereign Czech land. 2. Make ridiculous demands upon Poland. But then say, "Okay, fine. Let's negotiate. I understand that you want the Polish majority land in Germany. How about a few region swaps. In return, we sign a new co-defense pact against the USSR for when they inevitably invade you. (You can now stop relying on Britain to defend you from me)" This is a far better solution than just going to war.
OP is clearly a shill but this is actually a fairly interesting topic.
As others have said the short answer is that Hitler did not really have any goals for expansion other than re-establishing the borders of the German people which he justifiably felt had been broken down for purely political reasons. Now you can poke holes in Hitler's logic, you can say that historically the Franks, the Anglo-Saxons, the Belgae, the Scandinavians and arguably even the Frisians(not 100% sure about them to be honest) were all Germanic, but as each had developed considerably on their own he had no desire to 're-unite' with them despite a common ancestry; where he did desire to re-unite with the Hungarians, Austrians and Czechs. You could further reduce his concept of 'German' by realising that Germany itself had only been in existence for an incredibly short time, previously it was a bunch of fractured states. If he was basing it off the 'Holy Roman Empire' than his invasion of Czech and Austrian lands should be disputed. The point however is that he fundamentally just wanted to unite a people based on their blood.
Napoleon wanted an Empire that incorporated other people. That's not necessarily a terrible thing, but its certainly harder to justify than a desire to 're-unite' your people, even if your logic regarding who 'your people' are is a bit faulty. Hitler, at least in his own mind (and certainly in many of ours) was a good guy, even if idealistic and with some questionable ideas. He had no real desire for war but simply wanted his people strong and united. Napoleon on the other hand was a warlord from the beginning until the end, it was always about conquest for him.
Jackson Miller
he requested a land connection (meaning infrastructure) to east prussia and a damn plebiscite in west prussian counties, hardly ridiculous demands.
but true, the whole bohemia thing was a dick move
Zachary Foster
Yes. For nothing. And then he increased his demands for the entire corridor.
Danzig is one thing, but land is precious for nation-states. Ports are even more precious to nation-states. Worse, by annexing Bohemia, Hitler made the Polish people think that he wanted to annex all of Poland. This appeared to be the first step in further demands. A better way to assure the Polish people that Hitler respected them and did not intend to swallow them up, is to engage in a peaceful, fair exchange of land. It doesn't even need to be 50/50. Danzig is far more valuable than say, some Polish majority rural counties in Prussia or Silesia. But it's a symbol of Germany's respect for Poland's right to exist.
Leo Howard
Not even close. He wanted none of these wars (rings a bell?), disliked kikes with all his guts (read for example his letters to his brother), wrestled to retake control of central banking and opposed blind monarchs whose armies were abundantly funded by Rothschild. Napoleon was a serious return to a sensible powerful government after the chaos caused by the (((French Revolution))).
Just hope and pray that the next Emperor of Aryankind is a fine blend of TurboNapoleon and MegaHitler and has properly studied their respective mistakes, because anything short of that won't cut it.
Asher Mitchell
Napoleon was a Mason and Hitler was not a Mason.
Gavin Brown
And the SA had so many faggots.
Isaiah Butler
Who the fuck cares? It was time for a European Empire with a German nucleus based on race realism and without money worship. Even if Hitler wasn't actively pursuing that, realpolitik/destiny/whatever has always pointed towards that. It would have been the first everlasting Empire, because the focus was on race and not civil nationalism like with the empires that came before. But money won over blood. And now we have a bastardized version in the form of the EU that is in its terminal stage. Czechs, Poles, who the fuck even cares? Hitler was the only one who could've united Europe, whether he realized it or not. It doesn't matter what he chose to do, everything would have led to war, and a victory would have lead to Empire. It had to be decided during his lifespan because there was nobody else to do it. Without Hitler, even without WW2, we would be in the same position as today. Don't kid yourself, there was never any real opposition in Europe besides the Germans.
Kayden Cooper
People who actually value people over empty, soulless empire. Nations are made of people. What you advocate is not a nation. It's just a multi-ethnic economic zone. I have higher values.
That sounds like the old argument. "It was time for X" "It was Y's time" is all nonsense. We create history. Not the other way around. That's what the Marxists believe.
If all Hitler wanted was to dominate other Europeans, then I am not a Hitler supporter. And I am 100% of German blood. But I do not want to dominate and exploit non-Germans.
Hitler came to power under the promise to unite all Germans, not to dominate other Europeans. If he merely wanted to have a big empire to exploit and dominate the people of Europe, then he was not only a liar, but he was a normal, run-of-the-mill despot.
