Double Standard? Khan vs Hitler

[Riddick]

Does this upset you? - Genghis Khan eatery

How about this? - Hitler's Cross eatery

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 ]
In military strategy, Genghis Khan generally preferred to offer opponents the chance to submit to his rule without a fight and become vassals by sending tribute, accepting residents, contributing troops. He guaranteed them protection only if they abided by the rules under his administration and domain, but his and others' policy was mass destruction, terror and murder if he encountered a resistance. For example David Nicole states in The Mongol Warlords, "terror and mass extermination of anyone opposing them was a well tested Mongol tactic." In such cases he would not give an alternative but ordered massive collective slaughter of the population of resisting cities and destruction of their property, usually by burning it to the ground. Only the skilled engineers and artists were spared from death and maintained as slaves. Documents written during or just after Genghis Khan's reign say that after a conquest, the Mongol soldiers looted, pillaged, and raped; however, the Khan got the first pick of the beautiful women. Some troops who submitted were incorporated into the Mongol system in order to expand their manpower; this also allowed the Mongols to absorb new technology, manpower, knowledge and skill for use in military campaigns against other possible opponents.

There also were instances of mass slaughter even where there was no resistance, especially in Northern China where the vast majority of the population had a long history of accepting nomadic rulers. Many ancient sources described Genghis Khan's conquests as wholesale destruction on an unprecedented scale, causing radical changes in the demographics of Asia. For example, over much of Central Asia speakers of Iranian languages were replaced by speakers of Turkic languages. According to the works of Iranian historian Rashid al-Din, the Mongols killed more than 70,000 people in Merv and more than a million in Nishapur. China suffered a drastic decline in population during 13th and 14th centuries. For instance, before the Mongol invasion, unified China had approximately 120 million inhabitants; after the conquest was completed in 1279, the 1300 census reported roughly 60 million people. [13] How many of these deaths were attributable directly to Genghis Khan and his forces is unclear, as are the highly generalized numbers themselves. In addition, some modern scholars question the validity of such estimates, since the methodology of the 1300 census likely underestimated the population.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Riddick]

I could probably ask the same question regarding Alexander "the Great"

[Dan.]

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.

[Riddick]

[ 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 ]

Was this your best attempt to be a sarcastic smart ass?

[nicky g]

Because Ghenghis Khan's atrocities happened a long time ago very far away?

[Mark1978]

Many people are still alive today who remember Hitler's atrocities. I'm sure in a thousand years he won't be considered any different to Khan, the Romans, Alexander the Great, Tony Blair etc..

[haarley]

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.

[betgo]

I think Gengis Kahn does have a bad reputation for massacres and so on, although to a certain extent he is also revered as a great conqueror.

In addition to attrocities and so on against subject people, Hitler systematically murdered Jews, gysies, gays, and the mentally ill and retarded. Nothing quite like that had ever happended. Also, in the twentienth century ruthlessly building an empire through conquest was not viewed the same as it was in medieval times.

Hitler is partly regarded as extremely evil for what he did and partly regarded as similar to Napolean, a successful conqueror who overreached.

Obviously, Hitler is partly regarded badly in conutries he was an enemy to, such as the US and UK, just as Musilini and the Japanese leader are regarded as evil, although they did less that could be considered evil than Hitler did.

[nicky g]

[ 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.

[betgo]

[ 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.