These two individuals would arguably be considered to be some of the most evil people to have ever lived, but which do you think was worse.
Bear in mind that Genghis Khan did a lot for the environment.
:dubious: And the Nazis were known for their enlightened forestry policy. So what?
You’re quite notorious around here as some sort of keyboard warrior aren’t you Der Trihs?
As a what? :dubious:
I haven’t decapitated anyone recently with a spinning flung keyboard, no.
True, but I’ve seen you eviscerate witnesses.
I don’t know about the killing, but in the screwing there’s no comparison.
GK’s DNA can be found in one in 200 men.
Hitler, OTH, considered himself the smartest German since Goethe, and sympathised* with his son, Julius August Walther von Goethe, who had been overshadowed, browbeat and perhaps even cuckholded by his father.
In balance, Genghis Khan could only paint a small yurt in one afternoon, and with one coat at that.
*Of course, this wasn’t a rare instance of nice guy Hitler: it was his conceit that he was smarter than Goethe, and also more sacrificial and magnanimous. He probably kept that belief all the way to the end, along with the one about him being the greatest German general since Frederick the Great.
Hm, Hitler more or less worked within a framework of existing laws [and then added a bunch about racist crap] so while I would consider him evil in general and specifically towards about a third of the population of his control area [and the areas he wanted to get control of] I do not believe in demon possession or that he could have been an incarnation of a demon or other supernatural entity. His region of control fell on [or really just prior to] his death from external means.
Temujin, QaQan of much of the Eastern lands on the other hand I really do not consider evil at all. That is in others perceptions, and our perceptions today.
He was born into a tribal society area, and as such there were always squabbles over grazing lands, livestock and occasionally wife raiding [and the wife raiding continues today.] No big surprise that he continued the practice of tribal squabbles. Where he was different was that he managed to start uniting the tribes under himself and started taking control of land outside normal ranges. He didn’t ‘cover the land from horizon to horizon’, his army actually routemarched city to city, so they only really cut a swatch. If you were outside the path you pretty much only ended up with a change in government, and if your city capitulated, and gave the required booty you were effectively left alone to get on with life. [Rather a similar policy like the Romans ‘when the ram hits the wall’ - give up immediately or the city goes down with no chance of surrendering]
Temujin also had firm ideas about governing according to laws, so after you were subsumed into his region of control, life would be fairly normal, it wasn’t like there were wandering bunches of mongolians raiding your town every few months randomly. His region of control ended 150 years after he died due to internal squabbles over the throne.
So, obviously Hitler was the most ‘evil’. He was attempting to gain control of other regions in a time when borders were more or less long established in the same manner that Saddam Hussein tried. We the world have more or less agreed that our borders are pretty much set now, though the Soviet Union did spontaneously explode from internal pressure into the more or less original internal borders.
I think it’s in the eye of the beholder. Maybe you don’t consider him evil, but I’d bet (and writings from the time confirm) that the people he killed/extorted would have a different opinion on the matter. Yeah, yeah, law and order, but were they worth the 6/7/8 figure deaths? Besides, law and order were a byproduct. He didn’t set out to impose order, he set out for glory, for rape pillage and plunder, and once he got it it just turned out that governing happens to be a decent way to keep it coming. You can use the Roman example, but the peoples they conquered considered them incarnations of evil as well, and rebellions, at great cost, never truly ceased until the collapse of the system.
Even if it was standard operating procedure for most of history, I’ll never concede that those intentionally responsible for genocide aren’t an undeniable form of evil.
Genghis Khan murdered a much higher percentage of the world population, but Hitler murdered more people in absolute numbers. Khan is said to have murdered 30-70 million people. WW-II according to Wiki cost 72 million lives. Although many of those were in Asia which cannot really be blamed on the Nazis, and many were the victims of Communist purges too. On the other hand I’d probably venture that the 70 million victims of Mongol massacres are probably on the high side. So perhaps they tie on numbers, but the Mongols still killed a lot higher percentage. Interestingly enough both the Mongols and the Nazis had a particular love for murdering Russians.
Btw. I’m very happy that I learned a new term the other day: “Mongol revisionist” “Mongol apologist” for someone who tries to whitewash the Mongol history. I suppose they could also be called “Mongol Holocaust Deniers.”
GK won. Hitler lost. If Hitler had won I’m sure his, or at least of Germanic stock, would be a lot more common in 800 years.
I wonder which one was the better orator?
:mad: No, dammit! That’s not a topic for a “Which was worse?” thread! That’s a topic for a Thunderdome “Who would win?” thread!
The reason why I chose to do evil was because I know that GK would wipe the floor with good ol’ Adolf.
Have to plug Dan Carlin’s “Harcore History” series, Wrath of the Khans–it’s more or less exactly about this, or at least exactly about the Khannish side of it.
So make your case.
BTW, Hitler bathed regularly.
cite?
Wait, what? Where on earth do you get the idea that many of the casualties of World War II were actually the victims of communist purges? WWII wasn’t even in the right decade, most of the victims of Stalin were killed in the 20s and 30s, and the communists didn’t win the civil war in China until 1949.
GK created an empire in a few decades which spanned about 24million km2.`
Hitler exterminated a couple million Jews annexed Poland, northern France and Czechoslovakia and then occupied them, until he soundly had his ass whooped by the allied at which point he offed himself.
Not really much of a competition.
And it doesn’t really make the case that GK was more evil than AH-it just suggests that he was more successful.
Don’t make this debate personal, please. Stick to arguing the facts.
Oh yeah? You know who else bathed regularly?
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the first use of the “you know who else?” meme used on Hitler.