Double Standard? Khan vs Hitler

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Hitler lost.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ghengis Khan was a worse mass murderer than Hitler.
When Khan put a city to the sword, no one was spared. If I had a choice of being Hitler's prisoner or Khan's prisoner....I'll take my chances with Hitler.

[QuadsOverQuads]

Riddick, I'm unclear as to what your point is in making this post:

Are you arguing that history is biased against Adolf Hitler, or that history is biased in favor of Ghengis Khan?


q/q

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Riddick, I'm unclear as to what your point is in making this post:
Are you arguing that history is biased against Adolf Hitler, or that history is biased in favor of Ghengis Khan?


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Insert &lt; <font color="blue"> smartass comment that would cause the mod to ban me </font> &gt;

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]

Riddick, I'm unclear as to what your point is in making this post:

Are you arguing that history is biased against Adolf Hitler, or that history is biased in favor of Ghengis Khan?


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought he was arguing that he doesn't like Mongolian restaurants.

[SNOWBALL]

I don't revere Genghis Khan, and I don't know anyone who does. It's pretty standard for historians to take the perspective of the societies they are writing about though. They don't always do this in an explicit way. I doubt anyone today would write "Khan was a person of great humanitarian vision" or "I think we could all learn something from Khan's brutality", but they certainly aren't going to diminish the achievements of the mongols either. It's all a matter of what you focus on.

This outlook is ok IMO. I enjoy a good amoral narrative from time to time.

[mmbt0ne]

Riddick,

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?

Probably because about 94% of Asia is related to Khan.

[betgo]

Part of it is perspective. Khan certainly is notorious for his cruelty. However, masacring of cities was not unique to the Mongols. For example it happened in the Crusades by both sides.

This also occured in WWII by Hitler's enemies. For example, look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also the firebombing of Dresden, which mostly incinerated women who had fled there from the Red Army, as well as destroying famous art collections.

What really separates Hitler from other conquerors and tyrants of all times is the deliberate systematic murder of certain ethnic groups and other catagories of people considered undesirable. Granted massacres of wthnic groups have occured in recent times on lesser scales in Rawanda and against the Turks in Armenia for example.

It seems likely that 1000 years from now Hitler will have a bad reputation. To a certain extent Ghengis Kahn does also. Certainly there are other historic conquerors with somewhat notorious reputations. In 1000 years, people will be able to look upon Hitler and Nazism more objectively, but I don't know if there will be many restaurants named for Hitler.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait! Some bad people are remembered as villains while some equally bad people are revered?! So you're saying things aren't always as they should be? Weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

what's so weird about that? is anything different for nowadays leaders?

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait! Some bad people are remembered as villains while some equally bad people are revered?! So you're saying things aren't always as they should be? Weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

what's so weird about that? is anything different for nowadays leaders?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he was being sarcastic.

[tomdemaine]

I always thought Vlad the Impaler got a bad deal, I mean you imaple one or two guys and the name just sort of sticks.