He also did a good deal to export French legal and administrative reforms to other European countries - codification of laws, emancipation of Jews, that kind of thing. These were mostly beneficial, and were retained even after the French dominance which had imposed them was removed.
Well, that still leaves open the question of whether his war aims were justifiable to begin with. This is a legitimate question to ask of all military leaders.
From Leave It To Beaver
Regardless of whether he should be vilfied, anyone who has spent any time in Paris at all knows that he definitely is NOT vilified.
It’s always been my impression that Napoleon is regarded as a Great Leader (albeit an ill-tempered short one with a penchant for funny hats, despite the fact he wasn’t really that short) and is generally thought of as less a “Villain” and more (to paraphrase Arnold Rimmer) “The leader of the runners-up in the Napoleonic Wars.”
That’s pretty much the long and short of it. The French still seem to have respect for him and, considering how all other leaders of the time were, I really can’t see why they shouldn’t.
To put him in even the same paragraph as Hitler and Stalin is utterly ridiculous.
You beat me to it. When I first visited Paris (during the Ford Administration ? Am I getting old?) I wandered around fascinated, but with all the wonderful sites I saw, I think it might have been Le Tombeau de l’Empereur which impressed me most! My history knowledge was poor, but I sure figured these guys must have liked their Emperor!
Napoleon isn’t even considered as evil by the Brits, and apart from the fact that we were fighting him we have never been known for our love of the French generally.
As they should have. That was one Revolution the world could really have done without.
The fart guy?
Oh, wait, that was Le Petomaine. 
When I lived in France my impression was that he’s not a big deal for most people. Everybody knows he’s one of the most important figures in French history, but it was a long time ago and they go thru so much of it in their history lessons that they feel they’ve had their dose.
He’s the universal number one favorite of freaks who like the gleaming uniforms and signal horn assisted cavalry charge type of war history. It is only natural that if you are a French military freak, you can turn that up a notch.
The divisive nature of his legacy is due to his policy. His key idea was that war must pay itself. So the incredibly big French armies as well as troops of the puppet states were paid by conquered areas. So France prospered, at least initially, while the rest suffered. This killed the potential of exporting the social revolution. Well, it was exported but it was not popular because people did not prosper.
Napoleon himself was not responsible for the start of the war, Robespierre did that. Maybe there is a tendency in France not to emphasize that France actually started the revolutionary wars.
Napoleon’s problem was that he was not a diplomat. Actually he did not start many wars. The standard pattern was that Britain sends vast piles of money to a continental ally, which starts a war, Napoleon beats the said ally, who becomes even more bitter. Rinse and repeat. Napoleon did not find a way out of this and the occupied territory grew bigger and more discontent all the time.
The contrast to Bismarck, who was not a soldier at all, is telling. He got everything he wanted with three short wars and never had to face more than one country at the time.
Le Pétomane, actually, real name Joseph Pujol.