Genghis Khan worse than Hitler
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Steppe Nomads and Central Asia
Forum Discription: Nomads such as the Scythians, Huns, Turks & Mongols, and kingdoms of Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32395
Printed Date: 29-Apr-2024 at 03:18
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Genghis Khan worse than Hitler
Posted By: Toltec
Subject: Genghis Khan worse than Hitler
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2012 at 04:53
|
In my never ending campaign to besmirch the name of that angelic Mongol leader I just listened to this great podcast. http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive Dan Carling is my favourite historian, he makes it come alive with a passion and intesity devoid in other author, his account of the Eastern front in WWII is one the finest pieces of history produced in recent years. Here he turns his wrath of modern revisionist historians who paint Genghis Khan as anything other than the one dimensional butcher he was.
------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Replies:
Posted By: Ruslan
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2012 at 07:27
the difference is, Genghis Khan SUCCESSED and Hitler LOST http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthedailywtf.com%2FArticles%2FSuccessed%21.aspx&ei=1QhXUIT6O4u-9gTj8YGICA&usg=AFQjCNHjcEkujwFb4YN9XIjDD4JXUVtIDQ -
|
Posted By: heyamigos
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2012 at 02:32
| History cannot judge the 2 in the same manner. Jenghis Khan came from the steppe nomad culture where warfare and killing is the mode of life, whereas Hitler came from a high culture where life should have been valued. Jenghis Khan would not consciously know what he did was crime to humanity whereas Hitler should know |
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2012 at 07:44
|
You only grant two contexts, look at things in the context of Hitler's time and look at things in the context of Genghis's, but you forget there are three people in this situation, Genghis, Hitler and me, so there is a third context, look at things in the context of my time. In the context of my time Genghis was an animal. ------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2012 at 12:08
|
Yes, but to judge a historical person out of his on context and in the context of other ime and mores is a not very hsitoricl approach.
------------- |
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2012 at 13:55
|
As my attack is on modern views of him not ones from his time, I would suggest it is in context of the time. ------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2012 at 19:36
Germany was also an aggressive and warlike nation in the years leading up to WWII. They missed out when the older powers gobbled up Africa and Asia, so they sought to expand their living space at the expense of the Slavs ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Ruslan
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2012 at 08:32
|
let me tell you: if you kill 1 person you are an offender if you kill 100 people you are a hero! if you kill 10000 people you are a king! if you kill 10000000 people you are Genghis Khan! |
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2012 at 15:44
Stalin was 4 x as good as Genghis Khan then. ------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2012 at 15:48
If we use numbers alone...yup. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: Alcebiades
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2012 at 19:49
|
In terms of absolute deaths, the rank is: 1-) Chairman Mao - 60 million people 2-) Josef Stalin - 55 million people 3-) Adolf Hitler- 52 million people Of course that Mao had a bigger base to work with, in terms of kill/total population Stalin wins(I think)
|
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2012 at 00:06
|
The Hitler figure is the total war dead military and civilian, from genocide alone the figure would be lower. The Mao figure includes famine caused by incompetence rather than design, again not genocide. Your Stalin number too includes the Ukrainian famine, never intended.
------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2012 at 21:53
How many people is Genghis believed to have killed? Is it really as much as 10000000? ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2012 at 22:58
|
The atlas of death tolls ranks him at 40 million. http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm ------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Posted By: heyamigos
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2012 at 06:10
| Indirectly, he helped advanced Turkification of previously Indo-European (esp. Persian speaking regions). Places like Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, northern parts of Afghanistan and Iran. His armies often killed off a big portion of the Persian speakers in those lands and later his Turkic nomad allies would be rewarded to resettle those lands. |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2012 at 21:33
Not that far behind Hitler and Stalin. It's even more remarkable given the pre-industrial medieval world Genghis lived in ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2013 at 00:03
| Okay um from being a Mongolian and maybe having a biased thought yes chinggis khan was barbaric and yes he did kill a lot of people but he used many different great tactics he was a war chief commander and just saying that he is as brutal as hitler is a little to upfront don't you think I'm not saying either if them were good yes they did have some bad sides and good maybe do a little bit more research before being that upfront |
Posted By: Undra
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2013 at 18:45
That is very true.  ------------- Undra |
Posted By: Undra
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2013 at 18:50
|
Chinggis Khan was a nomadic leader who wanted to make Mongolia a glorious country. He had a nomadic life where killing was a kind of a normal way of conquering. But Hitler - he had a modern life where a life was valued - but he killed the innocent people. Hitler is infinitely vicious than Chinggis Khan. C.Khan killed the people who only wanted to fight against him. If they obeyed the simple task, they would have lived normally but with Mongolians owning the land. Although they both have weaknesses, Hitler is way more vicious and worse than C.Khan. Surely you guys know that. Think logically people. Be smart.
 ------------- Undra |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2013 at 23:44
And seeing as how there are 30 million direct descendants of his, he at least tried to balance it out.
In fact, some have wondered how he found the time to do the killing.
 ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2013 at 23:52
|
BTW, Welcome to our community Undra. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2013 at 13:50
|
Genghis/Chinngis Khan was ruthless to his opponents that is true, but he lived in brutal times when brutality was the norm right across the known world. Whenever has enemies of nations ever been portrayed as being anything but of the worst sort. The truth is that his success at his endeavours magnified this image across vast areas. Another truth however is that he ran a democracy so democratic that most, if not all, nations democracies pale in comparison. Maybe what we should be asking is this, why is it, after all this time, that those who are being judged as of the very worst, had ideals we are still grasping to get hold of, and would see in our midsts people trying to take more and more away of. Hitler deconstructed democracy under his control, and created monsterous ideals in a world which had seemingly been moving away from such things, whereas Genghis/Chinngis Khan was a man of his time, battling against the odds, and creating a democracy which would be the envy of most nations, if blinkers were removed. ------------- What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture. |
Posted By: Dazzarkel
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2013 at 03:32
|
some actions may seem degenerative but later the history shows those actions were progressive, some process might seem like chaos but later the history shows it was order of nature, so was for nomads, their massacre of moslem civilization was an order of nature, as prophet (s.a.v) warned his descendants to avoid any kinds of stagnations as extreme richness and luxury but khalifs and turks immersed deeply into richness and failed to lead nations along the way of prophet (s.a.v), for moslems Chenguizhan was bearer of chaos but actually he was saviour of moslems in the sense of withdrawing them from absolute degradation, he didn't allow moslems and turks to fall to level of what is nowdays europe to sink into hedonistic hell and demographic extinction. I think better to undergo Chinguizhan's invasion rather than to degenerate like western world is degenerating, better the war than slow death. The same is for Adolf Hitler he waged war against communists, i like Hitler for that he was the first in the world who created conservation area for wolves, the population of wolves disappeared in whole europe but Hitler tried to save them. I will always keep the side of nature, even if there would be no Chenguizhan or Adolf Hitler, any other thing or anyone else would have occupied their niches, Hitler challenged Devil to fight as there always will be someone who will protect the common sense and common sense erupted in form of second world war. |
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2013 at 10:43
|
Dazzarkel, I would have thought that the mindset of degeneration would easily fall upon those who might on one hand set about protecting a creature within their nation, when it had already been eradicated some thirty years before hand, but then set about to destroy a greater population who were sentient and living. ------------- What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture. |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2013 at 23:09
|
Europe - hedonistic hell and demographic extinction? Come on...is that why emigrant from all kinds of Arabic nations try in any possible way to get themselves there? This is beside the point of the OP however
I don't see any conqueror saving anyone from anything - people always fought over resources, not to save the other from some imaginary himself. Nature - maybe, since in nature life is based on death...however, people should have higher aspirations than just animalisticaly following nature. ------------- |
Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2014 at 19:00
People and their actions should be viewed by the community/social/political norms of the time in which they lived. In the 13th Century warfare was a common means of expanding influence, gaining land and wealth. East Asian civilisations have a record of placing little value on human life. Putting the two together, and then considering how Genghis Khan conducted himself, we would find that he wasn't as bad as you make out. Now, consider those same factors in the mid 20th Century in Western Europe and Hitler is exposed as a maniacal megalomaniac. Even the Great Khan didn't exterminate millions of people because of their ethnicity. |