"Since the 1940s it has been fashionable in some quarters to compare Napoleon with Hitler. Nothing could be more degrading to the form and more flattering to the latter. The comparison is odious. On the whole Napoleon was inspired (in the early years at least) by a noble dream, wholly dissimilar from Hitler's vaunted but stillborn "New Order." Napoleon left great and lasting testimonies to his genius--in codes of law and national identites which survive to the present day. Adolf Hitler left nothing but destruction. In certain superficial aspects, however, the careers of the two men bear resemblances. Both climbed to power through the use of opportunism in an unsettled period that favored the emergence of adventurers and dictators. Both possessed that magnetic appeal of personality that inspired their devotees. Both overthrew an older order, created new laws in an attempt to set up a new social order, challenged the positions of the churches, resorted to police-state terror and atrocities to gain ends; both proved incapable of converting a conquered continent into a lasting Napoleonic Empire or a Thousand Year Reich. But there the resemblance abruptly ends. Even though it is difficult to form an objective view of Hitler in our own time, there can be no doubt that he was not cast in the same mold as Napoleon. Despite flashes of lucky intuition, Hitler was no soldier. Hitler's most lasting perverted achievement for which he will be remembered to the end of history was genocide; Napoleon will always be regarded as a soldier of genius and the creator of modern Europe. The two most devastating "corporals" of modern history therefore have little in common. In the worlds of Octave Aubry: "This is his [Napoleon's] distinction, and if necessary, his excuse. When an achievement lasts so long and bears such fruit, it provides its own justification." - The Campaigns of Napoleon by David G. Chandler.

I've often used this quote but never to the full extent as given. It marks the last paragraph where Chandler, one of the most balanced Napoleonic scholars in history (doubly so for being British and not giving into Anglo-centric bashing of the Emperor), who gave a short view of how Napoleon was treated by history.

Napoleon left a great and lasting testimonies to his genius--in codes of law and national identities which survive to this day. Adolf History left nothing but destruction.

While I haven't studied German or WW2 history to give anything about the positives of the Third Reich, I can assure you that very few if any credible historian will grant Nazi Germany an award for anything they've done that wouldn't be tainted with the torture, abuse, and murder of humans. Napoleonic France, while not without sin, did many great things that were inspired by the hopes of the Revolution and helped to create these national identities that do continue to this day. The Napoleonic Code, implemented by Consul Bonaparte, is an example of the first national legal code to be implemented. The identities of Poland, France, Spain, Italy, and even Croatia and Bosnia. Napoleon forged a world without the Holy Roman Empire, made European powers think beyond family and religion, forcing a new world and the Congress of Europe to form after his defeat.

Both climbed to power through the use of opportunism in an unsettled period that favored the emergence of adventurers and dictators.

Hitler came to power during a low point of German political stability and forced his way through in a minority position; conversely Napoleon was able to force a coup to usurp the French Directorate into the formation of the Consulate. Both usurped power but while Hitler used brute strength to consolidate power, the French people welcomed Napoleon's stability and voted for him to be First Consul, First Consul for Life, then Emperor in three democratic plebiscites (which historian Andrew Roberts confirmed all three as legitimate if the numbers were a bit fudged, with the last one having only 70% support). One used power to stay in power while the other gained the support of the people.

Both overthrew an older order, created new laws in an attempt to set up a new social order, challenged the positions of the churches, resorted to police-state terror and atrocities to gain ends; both proved incapable of converting a conquered continent into a lasting Napoleonic Empire or a Thousand Year Reich.

The history of Nazi Germany's change is... rather known. Using power to subjugate the Jewish population and extending it to political opposition was a trademark of Nazi rule. As Nazi Germany expanded, so did these things to the conquered countries. Nazi expansion is also Nazi oppression. Napoleonic expansion was the result of taking land from the defeated and expanding French ideology (liberal ideas based on the French Revolution and codified in the Napoleonic Code). Marshal Marmont, in his governorship of Ragusa (current day Bosnia), had created the first cobble roads since the Roman Empire and modernized the area to 1808 standards.

there can be no doubt that he was not cast in the same mold as Napoleon.

There is little doubt that Napoleon was an extremely intelligent individual blessed into a position of life that allowed him easy access to a booming literary culture. He was a skilled mathematician that held the title of "Member of the Academy of Sciences" equal to that of Consul. I do not say this as someone that admires Napoleon as a "great man of history", but I will say that he was easily an overly intelligent individual that had an interest in building France into a nation to last the ages.

I cannot speak of the intelligence of Hitler nor his habits. It's a joke that his art was poor but I am also not a critic. Hitler too wanted to make a Germany that would last a thousand years, but a thousand years built off the death of the Jewish people, subjugation of Slavic peoples, and the superiority of the "Aryan Race". Napoleon's lasting France was built on the enfranchisement of the Jewish people, a focus on education and liberty, a restricted Church that never gained strong power in France after, and an egalitarian view of those that served him.

While there are books that have done this, they rely on bad historiography to sell books rather than make quality effort.