This seems obvious but it’s really not. France was suffering as evidenced by the bloody revolution they endured. Most people needed the stability Emperor Napoleon provided.
Extending further beyond France’s borders, the Napoleonic Code formed the basis for the modern Democratic legal system. Your life has been made better by Napoleon.
You can call him a killer, which he is. Humans are inherently warlike. Perhaps Napoleon was just more honest than you about his nature. If it were not him, revolutionary France would’ve been attacked by one of the many monarchies that feared it, anyway.
Stop.

That he was a bad guy is not in question. However he had some understanding of how to conduct himself within that so there was at least a basis for negotiation which is a little bit good.

Anybody who starts invasions and wars is evil no matter who is doing it.
There is no comparison.
Both were scum sucking turds.

Napoleon was by far the better man. He at least understood proper military conduct.

I'd compare Hannibal to Napoleon, instead. I realize they're from vastly different eras, but as generals, they are strikingly similar. They were both brilliant strategists and tacticians and their logistical talent was also amazingly renown for creative success. Napoleon was of course an admirer of Hannibal.
When one thinks of canning and technology to improve an army's ability to march on its stomach, one also must think of Hannibal's genius in marching elephants across the Alps and living off the land. When one studies great classic battles, one must always include Hannibal and Napoleon when one discusses highly disciplined forces, quickly maneuvering on the battlefield successfully against a larger force and stunningly winning battles repeatedly they were not supposed to win. There's Napoleon's Austerlitz. There's Hannibal's Cannae.
Hannibal was Carthaginian and Carthage was a kind of France fighting a British Empire in the way Carthage faced Rome. There are differences, but there are similarities. They were competing Empires in close proximity. Also, when one looks at Napoleon's army being marched to death (its campaign in Russia and its Waterloo - of Napoleon's exile and return and his ultimate death far away in obscurity) one is reminded of Hannibal's exhausted Army and marching and Hannibal's exile and death. Napoleon's legend was like Hannibal's legend; they were legends in their own time and to this day they are legends. Their enemies copied them and defeated them ultimately through attrition and copying them in their own style down to the last detail. Lord Wellington even wore the same kind of boots and the same kind of Breguet watch to
feel
like Napoleon. Roman generals did the same when adopted Hannibal's ways of doing things, down to the last detail.
Some have compared Hitler to Napoleon, but I don't see Hitler as being such a brilliant strategist and tactician. Hitler had excellent generals and he did in fact save the German army a few times from destruction, but I just don't see the same finesse and tactical brilliance in the Germany of WWII. Accepting the invasion of France like a French disaster rather than a German victory and accepting the initial German invasion of Russia as a Russian disaster rather than a German victory, as soon as Germany began fighting major powers it really hit a brick wall and started reeling backward. Hannibal was greatly outnumbered but winning stunning victories. Napoleon was outnumbered and winning stunning victories. As soon as Hitler was greatly outnumbered, he was destroyed.
As an alternate to Hannibal, I would propose Julius Caesar, especially in regard to politics and governing.

Okay, I did not know that. There we have a big difference between the two.
Intelligence and purity.

Another telling contrast between Napoleon and Hitler
Napoleon ended anti-Jewish laws in France and all territory controlled or annexed by the French Empire.
On Napoleon's orders, Jewish ghettos were torn down and all occupations opened to Jews.
In French-controlled Italy, Jews no longer had to wear the Yellow Star. (Which was not a Nazi invention It pre-dates WWII, and was originated by anti-semitic Catholics.)
Napoleon is considered a "Righteous Gentile" by Israel (like Oskar Schindler).
Send her to the snakes!

Those are some good points. But what I meant was that if you didn't belong to a prosecuted minority, you had no reason to fear anything. Unless you were brave enough to speak and work against the new government, of course. I never said that Nazi Germany was a perfect society. Far from it. Neither did I say that Germans are bad people. But still, most of the them could live a good life during the first years of Hitler's reign.
Intelligence and purity.

I'm not so sure about that 90%. After '33 everyone was being watched and those who did not approve of Hitler and his ideology would get prosecuted from a fee to the death penalty, the Stockholm syndrome at its work.
Every German knew there was no more freedom of speech and the government taught it's children to hate. Germans are not bad people and I find it unbelievable that 90% would be happy and content with that inside of them.

And interestingly both had to deal with the same enemies in order to achieve there final victory, namely Britain and Russia.
Indeed, that is yet another interesting comparison.
The Autobahn in Germany were already being in construction under the Weimar republic before Hitler took control and also the economy of Germany was getting better but Hitler took the credit for it all. Though he did also enlist almost everyone in the army which also helped unemployment.
Fair enough, Hitler might very well have taken the credit for other people's ideas and acchievements. But my point was that for several years of his reign, 90 % of the German population had no reason to see him as a bad leader. And it was only after it had become too late, that the people realized their mistake.
Intelligence and purity.

In the actions yes but not so much in ideology however both were extremely nationalistic megalomaniacs! Napoleon is in my book just as a Tiran as Hitler was. And interestingly both had to deal with there last same enemies in order to achieve there final victory, namely Britain and Russia.
God bless Britain and Russia.
PS The Autobahn in Germany were already being in construction under the Weimar republic before Hitler took control and also the economy of Germany was getting better but Hitler took the credit for it all. Though he did also enlist almost everyone in the army which also helped unemployment.

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.

Fact they tried to rule the world[

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.
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.

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!"