Will Hitler become the new Napoleon?

[DocWonder]

Greetings everybody, If you can read the title than I felicitate you on your achievements for comprehending the topic of discussion.

 

It's been on my mind for some time now. Napoleon Bonaparte, a man recognized for his valor, military intelligence and his Empire. Hitler is...(you should know who he is, you're IB!! ). 

 

Now I have a very limited knowledge on what Napoleon did, however I recognize that he is a man who took over a fairly large portion of Europe, and is presently known as one of the best tacticians the world has conceived (next to Genghis :3 ). I already know about Adolf Hitler's achievements in warfare, however will we reach a point in time where we recognize Hitler for his military intelligence just like Napoleon Bonaparte? Despite the controversy I would like to know what you guys think about this. Please write down your opinions...

 

 

Thank you. 

Edited December 23, 2014 by DocWonder

[Sandwich]

I suppose Hitler's "other" achievements will always overshadow anything else he ever did... Napoleon didn't casually murder millions of people, therefore it's a little easier to think of his military achievements first!

 

The extent to which Hitler actually contributed to the military aspects of what the Nazis did, I'm not actually sure. Napoleon certainly led from the front and masterminded a lot of it, whereas I always had it in my mind that Hitler had people to do that for him(?) rather than being personally responsible like Napoleon was. Similarly I know of things like Blitzkrieg as a new style of warfare, and the whole submarine thing, but part of that success was to do with technology and generals/commanders in the army as much as anything Hitler did. Whereas Napoleon WAS the commander.

 

So I've never considered Hitler to be a particularly military figure in the sense of genius because I never considered he did those things as an individual, but on advice. He was certainly a master politician, especially considering what he persuaded otherwise totally normal and seemingly decent people to do on his behalf, but as tactician, I've no idea. Maybe somebody can add a bit more about that

[link]

I think this is something shaped by context, and historical background. A couple decades or even centuries later, more people will definitely recognize his rhetorical skill, which is, to a large extent, the only prominent positive feature I know about. As time passes, people unaffected by his cruelty might even begin to appreciate it, but those whose ancestors suffered firsthand will probably never think of Hitler as anything but a genocidal monster.

[Thrashmaster]

Napoleon is known for his losses as well as his brilliance. People like to talk more about his Waterloo failure than his successes, don't they? And his march into the cold Russian winter? These are just like how it is more interesting to discuss the horrific things Hitler did and his ultimate loss than his temporary successes during the Second World War. I don't think either will be remembered for being successful during the long-term, just some impressive short term successes overshadowed by wild mistakes.