Double Standard? Khan vs Hitler

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, in the twentienth century ruthlessly building an empire through conquest was not viewed the same as it was in medieval times.

[/ QUOTE ]

People were fine with ruthlessly building empires in the "third world", and many of the key opponents of Hitler did just that and continued to ruthlessly defend those Empires even after Hitler's defeat. They just didn;t like it when it happened in their back yard.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is partly true, but it is pretty obvious what Hitler did to make him notorious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. I'm not disputing that.

[madnak]

This is how history and common perception work.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
hy is Genghis Khan a great conqueror and military leader, a unifier highly revered in the Eastern hemisphere, and treated with dignity and respect by historians

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this really ture by the way? My response was mainly to teh fact that popular culture doesn't object to restaurants being named after him. Do historians treat him "with dignity and respect?" I would have thought most decent historians treat him with dispassion, while noting his deeds including his atrocities.

[ShakeZula06]

Well, there are a lot of people that think of Hitler as a great conqueror and military leader, a unifier highly revered.

Hitler directly wanted to rule over many people (or parents and grandparents of people to make more sense) that are living today. Our recent ancestored lost lives, lived through shortages, and footed the bill to defeat Hitler, while our very distant ancestors may or may not have been affected at all by Khan or Alexander the Great.

Plus, Many people admire doing or almost doing something like conquering the world through conquest, which is why a lot of nuts like Hitler. Who wouldn't want to be the King of the whole world? By extension people admire those that would try at it and almost succeed.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

John Wayne once played Genghis Khan in a movie. John Wayne never played Adolph Hitler in a movie. I'm sure Hitler will be more beloved once someone builds a time machine to bring John Wayne into the future and cast him in a movie as the Fuhrer.

[betgo]

Is this thread an attempt to bait the management of 2+2?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is Genghis Khan a great conqueror and military leader, a unifier highly revered in the Eastern hemisphere, and treated with dignity and respect by historians, while Hitler is treated as the son of Satan, an embarrassing legacy for the German people, and the epitomy of fear, terror, and above all pure evil?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because through the popular culture of slavery (statism), people hold on to the idea (mainly through propaganda) that there is such a thing as using violence for good and the idea of a 'good' ruling class.

[bobman0330]

OP, speak for yourself. I always knew that Genghis Khan was a vicious mass murderer. However, he didn't kill as many people, and the passages you quoted suggesting he might have seem very suspect to me.

[Metric]

Hitler lost. Thus, the children and grandchildren of both sides hate him. He resulted in zero long-term benefit for anyone.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
I think right or wrong history favors "winners" over "losers". For example if George Washington and Co. would have lost the Revolution they would be thought of as criminals today. But it really all comes down to individual perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me of a thread I was going to make. Would someone who holds this position please defend it:

-The Americans were the "good guys" in the Revolutionary War, and the Union were the "good guys" in the Civil War.

Edit: My contention is that the South's secession was equally or more justified than the American Revolution, and closely followed the same principles thereof.