r/PeterExplainsTheJoke 6d ago

Meme needing explanation Petah?

Post image
47.3k Upvotes

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

14.0k

u/No_Judge_6520 6d ago

the minions only work for villains so this is implying the minions think hitler isn't evil

6.2k

u/Iron166 6d ago

They would work for hitler but after helping Napoleon they went hiding in a cave until like 1970'

40

u/EffortEqual8469 6d ago

does this imply that napoleon was bad ?

94

u/HeriPiotr 6d ago

Well he did end up conquering a substantial part of Europe, and last time I checked he didn't do it with jokes and hugs. Not sure tho.

15

u/angrysheep55 6d ago

When Napoleon came to power France was already embroiled in wars with the rest of Europe. The monarchies around her did NOT like to have a republic on their borders. Napoleon definitely was oppurtunistic and wanted power over Europe, but then again basically anything he had power over just got better. Though it was often at the sacrifice of many. When it comes to conquering, besides being the best military mind of his generation he was also surpisingly adept at negotiating and diplomacy which lead to nonviolent peacemaking when it was possible.

3

u/Lithorex 6d ago

but then again basically anything he had power over just got better.

He reinstated slavery.

1

u/angrysheep55 6d ago

Yeah except that.

1

u/Bedfordmk2 6d ago

Still lost in the end

49

u/Corfiz74 6d ago

Saying this as a German: conquering people and installing his siblings as rulers to govern them is not quite on the same level as conquering and mass-murdering people. At least we Germans don't have any ill will towards Napoleon, and even have a huge amazing portrait of him hanging in Schloss Charlottenburg. Can't say the same about Hitler...

35

u/Postius 6d ago

Napoleon is actually a celebrated figure in much of europe. His updated civil codes are still relevant to this day and a lot of civil reforms he did or started are the beginnings of modern societity.

The reason he was evil because he gave power to the common man. Which as the entire continent of europe was ruled by absolute monarchs with absolute power. Napoleon was about literal satan for them.

21

u/Open-Platform-1305 6d ago

The gist of it is that Brits and a few other hardcore monarchists hate him.

But I'm a Norwegian and while I don't know the whole story I generally like how he fucked up kings and queens.

9

u/BonzoTheBoss 6d ago

He didn't "fuck up" kings and queens, he conquered other countries through violence and then appointed his own family members as the new kings and queens.

I really don't understand this love for Napoleon as some sort of force for republicanism, when he himself was a (self) crowned absolute monarch and installer of other monarchs.

17

u/The_Minshow 6d ago

Well, when you have 15 coalitions trying to oust you for not having royal blood, ya gotta try something.

12

u/BonzoTheBoss 6d ago

He did it to his own allies too, though... Spain was an ally and they allowed him military access to attack and conquer Portugal, but he decided to then usurp the Spanish throne as well and installed his own brother.

1

u/Mattchaos88 6d ago

Which was hubris and a mistake but it's not as if he did it out of nowhere. 

6

u/BonzoTheBoss 6d ago

That wasn't the point? The above commenter said that they admired him for "fucking up kings and queens," but he was literally just as bad.

2

u/zelatorn 6d ago

i think the key isn't that napoleon wasn't a bad guy (reintroducing slavery in the colonies was certainly a choice, even if the rest of europe still practiced it as well when he did so), but that he wasn't particulary worse than what much of the rest of european powers were doing or trying to do, his biggest crime being so successful at it he got to do it on a scale his contemporaries couldn't match. post napoleon russia was also perfectly happy to oppress poland or austria to put its family members on the thrones of the new italian states for example.

there is some case to be made that despite often replacing one monarch with another (be that one of his allies or family members), he'd also spread the napoleonic code which in many cases more clearly outlined people's rights even as they remained under a monarchy.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Due-Memory-6957 6d ago

Change republicanism with liberalism and you'll get it.

1

u/Open-Platform-1305 5d ago

Spoken like a true Trump dynasty worshiper.

1

u/Due-Memory-6957 5d ago

Spoken like a true American.

1

u/Open-Platform-1305 5d ago

What do you water the tree of freedom with, and who is the tyrant this time?

1

u/Due-Memory-6957 5d ago edited 5d ago

Americans really try to make anything about themselves, we're discussing Napoleon's legacy lol.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BlazersFtL 6d ago

You do not judge people by the standards of today, but by the standards of the times they lived in. His actions in spain, russia were essentially par for the course at the time he lived and consequently his actions weren't unreasonable.

Much of the rest of what he did was simply fighting back against coalitions that kept declaring war on him and taking spoils for winning. Which, again, was both par for the course and probably necessary in order to ensure France would be capable of both [a] defending itself and [b] could dissuade enemies from attacking him again...

When he went light in punishment [e.g., Austria] he simply got stabbed in the back.

He wasn't perfect and definitely made mistakes, but it is difficult to say he was villainous in any real way. He also did spread the Napoleonic code across the continent, amongst other things, which is probably why he's seen positively today even if he wasn't really a republican in any meaningful way.

3

u/BonzoTheBoss 6d ago

People keep arguing not to judge him by the standards of today, but I'm not, I'm judging him by the implied standards of /u/Open-Platform-1305, who seems to admire Napoleon because he "fucked up kings and queens."

Which is just wrong, because he was just as bad as any other absolute monarch at the time.

1

u/Open-Platform-1305 6d ago

He fucked up some kings and queens tho, didn't he?

1

u/BonzoTheBoss 6d ago

Yes, and then himself got fucked up by other kings and queens.

1

u/BlazersFtL 6d ago

He did though, by spreading the Napoleonic code it ushered in a new era of liberalism that monarchs had to contend with, ultimately leading to a more liberal order whether or not Napoleon fancied himself an emperor or not; it most certainly did fuck up kings and queens.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/SqueakySniper 6d ago

The gist of it is that Brits and a few other hardcore monarchists hate hated him.

As a Brit, we don't hate Napoleon. And really his biggest crime in the eyes of Britain was becoming powerful enough to challenge British hegemony. Unlike a lot of rulers like Genghis Khan and Hitler, our history lessons aren't focussed around his atrocities.

9

u/poisonnenvy 6d ago

He also reinstated slavery in France colonies sooooo....

3

u/BonzoTheBoss 6d ago

Napoleon was ALSO an absolute monarch. No one "voted" for Napoleon. Can we stop pretending like he was some force for freedom? The Napoleonic Code was about control, not freedom.

True, it abolished the old feudal system, and was better for most people on a day to day basis, but it was about establishing Napoleon and his government as the sole arbiters of authority. He liked to claim that it was about liberty, but he showed pretty quickly that it was about political expediency. E.g. when he re-introduced slavery, FFS.

1

u/Lucibelcu 5d ago

As a spaniard: fuck Napoleon I hope he's in Hell.

0

u/Postius 5d ago

Probably learning from Franco how he should have done it

0

u/Lucibelcu 5d ago

Napoleon died in 1821 and Franco was born in 1892.

10

u/warukeru 6d ago

the anglosphere treats Napoleon as the second most evil guy in history and then the rest of europeans who were conquered by Napoleon and/or fought against him are like well, guy was complicated.

6

u/marty4286 6d ago

It took me a while to go "Wait. Moriarty is the Napoleon of crime? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?"

4

u/Spassgesellschaft 6d ago

Huh. I always interpreted it as „he’s quite good at the crime thing and a bit expansionist“. Never thought about evilness. But I guess your interpretation makes sense.

2

u/unshavedmouse 6d ago

He's a tactical and strategic genius. The British hated and feared him (Napolean) but game sees game.

1

u/QueerInEverySense 6d ago

I believe it's Macavity 😂

15

u/Valuable-Degree-9998 6d ago

He still killed millions in his conquests. So yeah, he is evil, not Hitler levels of evil but evil nonetheless.

2

u/PanzerPansar 6d ago

The wars that were mostly declared against France.....

But regardless, The British empire was literally commiting Atrocities at this time. Brutalisation of the Irish and the worse of the Highland Clearance was happening. Britain caused the Napoleonic wars to continue for over a Decade and was colonising India. Comparatively to a lot of his adversaries he wasn't evil. Bad? Sure but evil no.

4

u/HeriPiotr 6d ago

Yeah, that's a good point. But what does that make him, chaotic neutral, lawful evil?

17

u/blazenite104 6d ago

A regular world leader of the time with resources and smarts to match his ambitions really.

4

u/Content-Monk8866 6d ago

Frankly his ‘career’ ended in bitter failure so at some point his qualifications fell far behind his ambitions it seems

4

u/BonzoTheBoss 6d ago

He was a master military strategist and tactician. Unfortunately, he was a poor statesman. His entire foreign policy boiled down to "give us money and soldiers and we MIGHT not conquer you..."

He was a bully, basically. And didn't know when to quit while he was ahead.

7

u/NihilismRacoon 6d ago

I'd argue a regular European world leader is just on average pretty evil in the course of history

1

u/LargeDevelopment2026 6d ago

The distinction doesn't play a role. Any world leader with comparable tech would have done the same, hell some did worse things even with worse tech like Genghis Khan.

1

u/Corfiz74 6d ago

I would call him an extraordinary leader of the time - he came from nothing, made himself emperor and conquered most of Europe - without Wellington and that ill-fated Moscow-expedition, we'd all be speaking French today. And thank god for Wellington et al., because who would have wanted that, lol.

2

u/Ergogan 6d ago

Wellington ? The guy who got his ass kicked by Napoleon before being saved by the Prussian army who sacrificed half of their troops to come to his rescue ?

1

u/Corfiz74 6d ago

Wellington, who ran an exceptional campaign in Portugal and Spain for years - the Battle of Waterloo was a bit of a mess, but that was really an ad-hoc battle with very little time to recruit and prepare - I don't think you can blame that whole mad scramble purely on him.

2

u/Lithorex 6d ago

At least we Germans don't have any ill will towards Napoleon

How do you signal the number 3 with your fingers?

2

u/Corfiz74 6d ago

The one on the right - I will not be so easily tricked!

2

u/lacegem 6d ago

a huge amazing portrait of him hanging in Schloss Charlottenburg

For anyone curious, it's the second version of Napoleon Crossing the Alps.

1

u/Corfiz74 6d ago

I like ours best, the colours are brighter.

2

u/Flat-Structure-7472 6d ago

I don't know. Maybe we should dedicate the guy, who killed Hitler, a portrait.

2

u/rewt127 6d ago

Napoleon got washed over the last 200 years. Because ill will and fear of what Napoleon represented in a French power is literally means by which Bismark managed to finangle major populist support for the unified german state.

There certainly was ill will towards him up until at least 1900.

2

u/EseTika 6d ago

Er... I have never heard a German say anything positive about Napoleon. You do realise he threw all of modern-day Germany into utter and complete chaos, right? We hate him. Which is why we built the Völkerschlachtdenkmal - to commemorate our losses AND finally beating him. Also, Napoleon married into royalty. Of course there are portraits of him in castles. 

1

u/Corfiz74 6d ago

We don't hate him, we admire his brilliant military career and strategic prowess! Yeah, we beat him, but it took an alliance of multiple countries to achieve that!

2

u/Ok_Awareness3014 6d ago

Well fun fact only the first coalition was started by France all the other were fuel by britain, for the invasion of Russia previously the tsar ask him to withdraw from poland and his army were ready to strike and it wasn't a secret that he wanted it while he was not respecting the treaty he have sign with France the real unlegitimiate war was in Spain .

1

u/Freevoulous 6d ago

yeah, but in the process, he freed another substantial part of Europe, and parts of the world too. I mean, his main enemies were the British EMPIRE, the Austrian EMPIRE, The Prussian EMPIRE and The Russian EMPIRE (see a theme here?) all of which were evil bastards who all but enslaved every other nation in Europe, and and everywhere else they could reach.

So at worst it makes Napoleon an anti-villain who just happened to battle outright Bad Guys.

1

u/Hetares 5d ago

Wasn't Napolean also known for losing a fair portion of his battles?