2006-08-06 01:41:23 · 11 answers · asked by mouthbreather77 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Though they would be in awe of our technology, Nappy and Adolf would laugh at GB... compared to them, Bush has hardly any personal power. They'd probably ask him why he didn't have the Democrats and moderate Republicans shot. It's what they would have done.
2006-08-06 03:00:19 · answer #1 · answered by Spel Chekker 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
NEVER and I can't believe placed Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolph Hitler under the same umbrella. Much like Bush they all seem to be narcissists, someone mentioned it would be an oxymoron to be a narcissist and admire another narcissist but I think a key character attribute of a narcissist is to hold in complete awe an ideal and an idol to live up to and replace. At which point they expect that other people worship them as they had worshiped their own heroes. In both cases of Napoleon and Hitler that Idol was Fredrick the Great of Prussia.
Most people don't remember Fredrick as well as Napoleon or Hitler but this guy did much more with a lot less and is easily one of the greatest military tacticians ever. This is the type of person that Napoleon and Hitler would be in awe of, I don't have time to go in to detail but look him up on Wikipedia and you'll see why. When Napoleon defeated Prussia and came to the tomb of Fredrick he told his generals who were celebrating to shut up because if Fredrick had still been alive Napoleon said "Gentlemen, if this man were still alive I would not be here". Hitler was rumored to have a picture of Fredrick hanging above his desk in the bunker where he shoot himself which was shown in a movie. Now we have to ask ourselves how much is Bush like Fredrick?
Of course any idol would have to be dead because alive people make mistakes so in the context of this question the situation is in reverse so that doesn't work there it would be more likely that Bush admire some aspects of Adolph Hitler and Napoleon. There are two types of ego maniacs 1) One which draws their ego and power from the support of the people and 2) The type that draws their power and support from God, speaking strictly in terms of strengths of their egos. Hitler and Napoleon rose from nothing to become rulers of their country and it was through talent and their ability to conjure the masses that they got to where they were. Fredrick was a monarch but he hated the idea of being King and his father hated him because before Fredrick the Great, their was Fredrick the Pansy so he as well had to earn his respect. Bush on the other hand thinks God made him President to go fight terrorists which was parodied on the Colbert Report using real interviews and comments. Some might say he won his presidency with the support of the people, I disagree, he won his presidency because Al Gore quit and because of Fox News.
When Napoleon and Hitler drew support for their causes it was for glory and a better life for their people, Bush uses fear and lies.
My last point is, is anyone in awe of Bush? His approval rating is 35 % (July 31 American Research Group, Inc.)
2006-08-06 05:40:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is not the evil overlord that I see so many people give him the credit of being. But Hitler and Napoleon are in a class by them selves. They each had such a personal strength, clarity of vision, ability to manipulate people and control of the minds of their people that this comparison is in no way possible. Bush has made mistakes and is not a strong communicator. He is detached from the people and does not translate his ideas and goals well. He has a house that nobody could work with. So because of the hatred that most Dems have for him, he is viewed as a weak President. The other two had total control, and did not have to deal with such public dissidents. While each had to deal with private pun-dents in their own way, Bush has had to let them take their shots. He did not control the pundits like they could.
Finally, both of these people where ego-maniacal maniacs. The totality of narcissist. They would never be in awe of anybody.
B
2006-08-06 02:19:03 · answer #3 · answered by Bacchus 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would they be. Both were leaders of their countries but unelected as such. Bush is a pretty poor politician and will serve only two terms before he is out. I can't think of anyone who is 'in awe' of Bush other than Tony Blair, his puppy dog.
2006-08-06 01:49:01 · answer #4 · answered by quatt47 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hitler was nothing like Bush.
hitler actually DID care about his people.
sshazzam another product of Fox Jews
2006-08-06 01:46:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no...they'd be in awe of the technology we possess but not our idiotic president....Hitler and Napoleon were at least somewhat intelligent.
2006-08-06 01:46:57 · answer #6 · answered by Paulien 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you joking?
There is no comparison. Bush isn't taking countries over under our flag, he is liberating them/hunting terrorists.
2006-08-06 01:47:05 · answer #7 · answered by sshazzam 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hahahahaha!
You're joking, right?
On second thought, they might be awed by his cell phone and Television set.
2006-08-06 16:57:23 · answer #8 · answered by old lady 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but they'd be in awe of the fact that he was ever elected.
2006-08-06 08:22:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They would admire Bushes propaganda machine
2006-08-06 05:26:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋