• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who's worse: Genghis Khan, or Hitler?

Who's worse: Genghis Khan, or Hitler?

  • Total voters
    48
joko104 said:
I dunno. Europeans seemed to most refine the most horrific ways to torture people to death. Literally came to declare they had turned it into a science.
Click to expand...

If by Europeans you mean Hitler's Gestapo (just to stick to the point) then that may be so. Genghis Khan had the largest harem on earth. But Genghis Khan was a rapist also. In fact this caused him his life for it is said that one sex slave princess of his actually castrated him so as to stop Genghis Khan from continuously raping her.

Hitler on the other hand either urinated or dropped feces on his "partners."
 
Risky Thicket;1062545768[B said:
]I'll take Hitler for $50, aberrant. Nobody in a political argument is ever accused of acting like Genghis Khan
Click to expand...
[/B].
Click to expand...




Excellent answer, I believe that you hit the nail on the head.
 
aberrant85 said:
Having lived so historically recently, Hitler is rightfully held up as the height of evilness of mankind. Go back some 700 years, though, and Genghis Khan fit that description just as well. Both men are similar, having wrecked havoc on the population of Eurasia in a relatively brief, swift reign of terror.

While WWII was the deadliest war in history, with between 40 and 72 million deaths, the Mongol conquests come close, having result in between 30 and 70 million deaths. And by worldwide population, the Mongol conquests were much deadlier, 17% vs. 1-3% of living people having been killed.

List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Each man committed genocide on an unprecedented scale, but today Genghis Khan enjoys an amount of notoriety, akin to that given to Alexander the Great.

So is one man more evil than the other? And if so, who?
Click to expand...

Barack Hussein Obama. The others actually had some level of a functioning brain and they also stood by what they believed and stood up to their enemies instead of apologizing to them and kissing their asses.
 
Cyrylek said:
Nobody says there was perfect harmony. But the Jews lived - and prospered, many of them - in Germany and Austria, benefiting the "natives" as well. The Nazis had introduced an ideology that made further co-existence impossible. (The Commies farther east did pretty much the same, only emphasizing the imaginary "class" over the semi-imaginary "race").

And by the way, the hyperinflation had nothing to do with any of it. It was over by 1923.
Click to expand...

scientific antisemitism certainly predates the nazi party. One of it's major early proponents was Wagner
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
scientific antisemitism certainly predates the nazi party. One of it's major early proponents was Wagner
Click to expand...

Of course, but it was nether mainstream nor politically powerful.

The first man to preside over the parliament of the newly united Germany was an ethnic Jew - Eduard von Simson.
 
DVSentinel said:
Innocence, as well as someones humanity is often a mater of perspective and opinion, not an absolute.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. No one murdered by Stalinists, for example, was innocent: they all shared the unforgivable original sin of belonging to the wrong "classes": aristocracy, merchants, bourgeoisie...Of course, to keep feeding the meat grinder, the familiar "classes" had to be supplemented with new inventions, like "kulaks" ("rich" peasants) and "podkulachniks" (sub-kulaks: peasants who could not be considered rich by any stretch of imagination, but had to be killed anyway) and certain ethnic groups (Chechens, Kalmyks, Crimean Tartars...)
 
I think they were both guilty of "run amok" jobs programs for their minions. Both evil. In a foot race, I'd bet on Genghis Khan. In an art contest, I'd bet on Hitler. In a beauty contest, I'd favor the hairball, but I have some personal prejudice in such a matter. Both would have made great religious leaders and still would have managed to decimate millions of blasphemers. Ya' just can't hold natural talent back.
 
Cyrylek said:
Absolutely. No one murdered by Stalinists, for example, was innocent: they all shared the unforgivable original sin of belonging to the wrong "classes": aristocracy, merchants, bourgeoisie...Of course, to keep feeding the meat grinder, the familiar "classes" had to be supplemented with new inventions, like "kulaks" ("rich" peasants) and "podkulachniks" (sub-kulaks: peasants who could not be considered rich by any stretch of imagination, but had to be killed anyway) and certain ethnic groups (Chechens, Kalmyks, Crimean Tartars...)
Click to expand...

I never claimed that my point of view would be the same as the Stalinist were, in fact, a very large number of my post hint or directly address the dehumanization of the left in preparation of killing large numbers of them when a civil war breaks out. Of course Stalins victims were "innocents" the weren't socialist. While not my first choice, I would still support and agree with a anti-socialist genocidal program in the US.
 
DVSentinel said:
Innocence, as well as someones humanity is often a mater of perspective and opinion, not an absolute.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




The millions of people who were slaughtered by Mao Zedong and Stalin were killed for political reasons, not because they were guilty of any crimes.
 
Hitler is the clear winner. Kahn was a ruler in more primative times, and his actions were considered normal for a leader.
 
Are we becoming sick as a society ?
That little bit about our President from a "DVS"... disgusting.
How about a thread on people who do good, rather than evil, or who are strangely perceived by conservatives..
Pollyanna
Jesus
Gandhi
and a billion others ...nameless.......my grandmother....
Hitler, Khan, Stalin, Mao, the Devil.....should be nameless
 
aberrant85 said:
Having lived so historically recently, Hitler is rightfully held up as the height of evilness of mankind. Go back some 700 years, though, and Genghis Khan fit that description just as well. Both men are similar, having wrecked havoc on the population of Eurasia in a relatively brief, swift reign of terror.

While WWII was the deadliest war in history, with between 40 and 72 million deaths, the Mongol conquests come close, having result in between 30 and 70 million deaths. And by worldwide population, the Mongol conquests were much deadlier, 17% vs. 1-3% of living people having been killed.

List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Each man committed genocide on an unprecedented scale, but today Genghis Khan enjoys an amount of notoriety, akin to that given to Alexander the Great.

So is one man more evil than the other? And if so, who?
Click to expand...



Genghis Khan was largely a product of his time and environment, which was a rough and violent era we would consider very barbaric and brutal.


Hitler was an aberration of his era and culture. Germany was a civilized nation, amid Western Civilization, where such things were very much on the decline and viewed with moral horror, rather than biz-as-usual.


Therefore Hitler gets my vote as worst. Genghis was just doing what everybody else did, only "better". Hitler went against the tide of his civilization and culture to return to a level of barbarity that should not have been seen in that time and place.
 
DDD said:
So to summarize Atilla the Hun was of Mongol Turkic origin (453 A.D). So was Genghis Khan (1200 A.D). Then there was the Ottoman Empire for 500 years starting from 15th century.

Three Mongolian-Turkic waves towards Europe. Perhaps one empire lay the initial grounds for the other.
Click to expand...

cengiz was half turk half mongol

being a turkey is not easy!:lol:
 
Goshin said:
Genghis Khan was largely a product of his time and environment, which was a rough and violent era we would consider very barbaric and brutal.


Hitler was an aberration of his era and culture. Germany was a civilized nation, amid Western Civilization, where such things were very much on the decline and viewed with moral horror, rather than biz-as-usual.


Therefore Hitler gets my vote as worst. Genghis was just doing what everybody else did, only "better".
Hitler went against the tide of his civilization and culture to return to a level of barbarity that should not have been seen in that time and place.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Hitler offered the German people a better life and gave them and a lot of other people something mighty close to Hell on earth.

He was a con man, like a lot of other politicians on this planet right now and in the past.

Hitler was only able to do his evil because enough people believed the lies that he told.

If enough people in Germany had said no to him they could have changed history, but they didn't.
 
Last edited:
 
Gaius46 said:
The question I would ask you is was Khan's behavior out of step with how conquering armies of the time acted? I don't know, but would suggest if he acted more or less like most conquerors of his time it would paint his actions in a
different light relative to Hitler.
Click to expand...

Armies of the time generally were not in the habit of rounding up the populations of towns they conquered and forcing them to march ahead of their forces as human shields in battle. They also were not in the habit of systematically exterminating the populations of cities that refused to surrender.

The Mongols would sometimes take a week or more to exterminate every man, woman, and child (minus useful persons like scholars, engineers, and whomever they might want to use in the role of the aforementioned human shields) after a major conquest. They corralled everyone up, gave their soldiers a quota for how many each person had to kill, and then got to work.

Sounds sort of familiar in a grotesque kind of way, no?
 
shrubnose said:
The millions of people who were slaughtered by Mao Zedong and Stalin were killed for political reasons, not because they were guilty of any crimes.
Click to expand...

All socialist/leftist are guilty of crimes against humanity, including slavery. They steal from people. They oppress a persons right to earn and gain from their own labors. The force millions into poverty.

If a person hires someone to oppress others, enslave other, murder others, they are still guilty of those crimes, even if it is a "government" that does the deeds for them. There is no such thing as an innocent, adult socialist/liberal/progressive/communist, etc. All of them, each and every one is guilty of crimes against humanity and because they are, they have given up any consideration of them being human.
 
DVSentinel said:
All socialist/leftist are guilty of crimes against humanity, including slavery. They steal from people. They oppress a persons right to earn and gain from their own labors. The force millions into poverty.

If a person hires someone to oppress others, enslave other, murder others, they are still guilty of those crimes, even if it is a "government" that does the deeds for them. There is no such thing as an innocent, adult socialist/liberal/progressive/communist, etc. All of them, each and every one is guilty of crimes against humanity and because they are, they have given up any consideration of them being human.
Click to expand...

the rich people never steal ?
 
Medusa said:
the rich people never steal ?
Click to expand...

No rich person is a liberal? Say Ted Turner, Steven Spielberg, all those who attend $10,000 a plate fund-raisers for the Dems? If some rich people were not apologist liberals, then the Dem party would have almost no money to run campaigns.
 
DVSentinel said:
No rich person is a liberal? Say Ted Turner, Steven Spielberg, all those who attend $10,000 a plate fund-raisers for the Dems? If some rich people were not apologist liberals, then the Dem party would have almost no money to run campaigns.
Click to expand...

they shouldnt apologize, they(very rich club) should stop exploiting the people
 
I like this. Who's worse? Lady Gaga, or Miley Cyrus? Alec Baldwin or Hulk Hogan? Obama or McCauliffe? Barry Manilow or Neil Diamond? Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden? Rancid pasta or ground worms? Well, the pasta and worms aren't people, but maybe we can match them up with some particularly disgusting people anyway.
 
Medusa said:
they shouldnt apologize, they(very rich club) should stop exploiting the people
Click to expand...

How do they "exploit" people? By giving them jobs? Giving them a means to earn their way in life? How do they steal from people?

You are aware that the vast majority of wealth in the world is tied up in Capital holdings, lot liquid assets, right? Ted Turner once tried to buy into something but needed a million dollars in liquid assets, aka, cash/money in the bank. Although a Billionaire on paper, he could not actually liquefy or get his hands on only a million dollars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom