Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


View Poll Results: Will Hilter's postion be raised to same level , that of Chengis Khan?
Yes 7 24.14%
No 22 75.86%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 10th, 2012, 02:45 PM   #11

Scaeva's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,208

No.

Historical figures have to be viewed through the prism of the time in which they lived, and the morals of the culture they belonged to. Hitler lived in a time when both wars of conquest and the mass murder of civilians were widely acknowledged to be 'evil,' and was born in a culture that also deplored both. Hitler was monstrous even by the standards of his own era.

I'm not sure the same is true for Genghis Khan.
Scaeva is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 10th, 2012, 04:31 PM   #12

Recusant's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2009
From: Sector N
Posts: 1,778
Blog Entries: 1

Hitler's Third Reich was an abject failure; its one lasting "achievement" was to murder millions of civilians solely in pursuit of a bigoted agenda of extermination.

Genghis Khan's empire was a success which outlasted him by a considerable margin, and I think that the many deaths that can be laid at his feet were incidental to his pursuit of that empire. This is not to excuse the brutality of his methods, but to acknowledge that they were a means and not an end, which was not the case for Hitler's death camps.

There really is not a lot of basis for comparison, except perhaps in the mind of a person who is abysmally ignorant of history. I think it's not outlandish to imagine that among such people of the future, Hitler could be placed in the same sort of category as Genghis Khan. I voted for the "No" position more as a statement of hope for the future than out of any real belief.
Recusant is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 10:49 PM   #13

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,609

They are not different to me on the violance side and ruthlessness. But on the military side I think the great Khan prevails...
Essa is offline  
Old November 11th, 2012, 04:54 AM   #14

purakjelia's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,723

Quote:
Originally Posted by Essa View Post
They are not different to me on the violance side and ruthlessness. But on the military side I think the great Khan prevails...
I have to agree with you. Even back in the 13th century, mass murdering of civilians and capitulants was not the norm, yet Chengis Khan did those horrible things. Just to give an example, when the Tangut Xixia Dynasty surrendered shortly before Chingis Khan's death, he gave the order to massacre all the Tangut aristocracy without mercy. It is said that this was his last order before his death.

I think the only difference between Chingis and Hitler is that the later devil is better known in the west and the memories are still fresh.

On the violence level, these two devils were no different, both of them were relentless mass murderers.
purakjelia is online now  
Old November 11th, 2012, 07:36 AM   #15

Cavanboy's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,714

Quote:
Originally Posted by funakison View Post
Horses for courses, Genghis khan lived in a time of feudal overlords, warring tribes, when crushing your enemies and wholesale butchering of civillians was not umcommen.

Hitler lived in an age of reason governed by international laws and agreed conventions on warfare and the treatment of prisoners. The attempted wholesale murder / ethnic cleansing of an entire race, and his barbaric conduct of war put him in a league of his own, as the lowest of the low.
There has been plenty of genocide and ethnic cleansing in various countries since 1945, even in Europe, so by your logic does this not mean that the people committing these atrocities since after Hitler are worse than Hitler because they are closer to the present?
Cavanboy is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 04:22 PM   #16

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,609

Quote:
Originally Posted by purakjelia View Post
I have to agree with you. Even back in the 13th century, mass murdering of civilians and capitulants was not the norm, yet Chengis Khan did those horrible things. Just to give an example, when the Tangut Xixia Dynasty surrendered shortly before Chingis Khan's death, he gave the order to massacre all the Tangut aristocracy without mercy. It is said that this was his last order before his death.

I think the only difference between Chingis and Hitler is that the later devil is better known in the west and the memories are still fresh.

On the violence level, these two devils were no different, both of them were relentless mass murderers.
Yeah.....Not just memories are fresh and people tend to recall the latest memory. Its also due to the large scale of 20th century warfare compared to Mongol time, which further magnifies the effect....

Both are renowned for violance and terror....I wouldn't consider both as the top on the "Brillinace" or "Military Genious" critieria though...
Essa is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 04:33 PM   #17

unclefred's Avatar
The Snub Nosed Truth
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Oregon coastal mountains
Posts: 5,964
Blog Entries: 30

The Mongols are favorites of forum kids. Mongols this, Mongols that. So much so that actual history doesn't matter. Hitler is politically vilified, rightly so. In the future, they will all be looked upon as primitives and perhaps without the politics. Still, bloody primitives and without the exaltation that history/wargame enthusiasts endow them with.
unclefred is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 06:32 PM   #18

mister's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2009
From: United States of America
Posts: 333

Genghis didn't committ any sort of genocide intentionally. He just killed a lot of people that either stood in the way or pissed him off. Hitler did an actual genocide on a group of people treated badly for centuries. Really, Hitler won't be treated as just another conqueror unless some maniac comes along and outdoes him by a wide margin.
mister is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 06:38 PM   #19

unclefred's Avatar
The Snub Nosed Truth
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Oregon coastal mountains
Posts: 5,964
Blog Entries: 30

I say killing multitudes of people for ideology or race/religion is no better or worse than killing multitudes of people because they pissed you off.
unclefred is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 01:40 AM   #20
Archivist
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 238

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavanboy View Post
There has been plenty of genocide and ethnic cleansing in various countries since 1945, even in Europe, so by your logic does this not mean that the people committing these atrocities since after Hitler are worse than Hitler because they are closer to the present?

Yes they are, and the reason that nobody will mention them, is pretty blatant as well. Hitler was the only genocidal maniac we ever defeated. The rest we ignore, so while it's easy to say other genocides are worst, it's impossible for us to come to terms with our inaction.


Regardless hitler will be the vlad the impailer of the future. Which means most won't remember what he did but will know the name, goth kids will think he's totally cool and only a few will actually study him.
Terranovan is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
attaining, chengis, hitler, khan, status


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
El Cid's Legendary Status Salah Medieval and Byzantine History 12 March 17th, 2012 07:21 AM
The drugs status quo: shrug or act? corrocamino Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 1 September 3rd, 2010 03:07 AM
Tibet - SAR status would've been better? Kiwi Asian History 22 October 8th, 2008 10:09 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.