What do you think about this Zak?

Okay, okay, okay Zak- you're right in the sense that Napoleon was definitely not a fascist tyrant like Hitler. Napoleon was definitely brilliant and didn't have the same anti-semitic mindset that Hitler did. Looking back in our textbook, I see that "in most areas, the empire gave civil rights to Protestants and Jews...made Jews subject to conscription" (662). But Napoleon fought just as much for expansionism and imperialism as Hitler. Both sought to change and create a new Europe. Hitler called it a "new Europe" (965) that was safe for aryans and Napoleon called it a new European empire "modeled on Rome and ruled from Paris" (663). Wherever there is one person trying to rule over the rest of the continent- there will be rebellion. With the invasion of Spain in 1808 and the following Peninsular Wars- the Spanish guerillas fought hard for their independence. Napoleon was ruthless here and the French military tortured and executed the guerillas in horrible ways. Of course, Napoleon does not compare to Hitler on a scale of evilness, especially since everyone can be brutal in war. But one similarity between the two rulers that i find hilarious is Napoleon's attempted invasion of Russia. It ended in a disaster in 1812 because of poor tactics and the terrible Russian winter. Hitler should've learned from the past and not made the same stupid mistake that he did when he attempted to take over Russia and destroy the city of Stalingrad in 1943. 

So firstly, GRACE I ask you this: what about Peter the Great- do you notice any similarities between these 3 rulers? And Zak, Zak, Zak, firstly i understand why you think that no one would've come in and taken Napoleon's place- but do you have any evidence that there wasn't someone else that could've done the same job? Also- how would've been so different in Germany? Sure the details would've been different, but overall? How?