• 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
Gaius46 said:
Thanks for the information. Not knowing much about that period of time my initial reaction was to assume that his actions probably weren't out of step with the times.
Click to expand...

I think an appropriate question to ask about the nature of their evils is their intent. Khan seemed mostly motivated by ambition, while Hitler was mostly motivated by hate. However, does a less hateful nature diminish the impact of Khan's actions?

I think of a character like Norman Bates from Psycho, who had a gentle demeanor and then killed without mercy, incapable of feeling. While somewhat sympathetic, he was nonetheless evil incarnate.

The fact is that Hitler perfectly reflects our cartoonish idea of evil personified: a person that lives and breathes hatred and is motivated by horrible desires. He of course was evil. The truth is, though, that many other kinds of evil exist in different forms that are not so black and white to us.
 
aberrant85 said:
I think an appropriate question to ask about the nature of their evils is their intent. Khan seemed mostly motivated by ambition, while Hitler was mostly motivated by hate. However, does a less hateful nature diminish the impact of Khan's actions?

I think of a character like Norman Bates from Psycho, who had a gentle demeanor and then killed without mercy, incapable of feeling. While somewhat sympathetic, he was nonetheless evil incarnate.

The fact is that Hitler perfectly reflects our cartoonish idea of evil personified: a person that lives and breathes hatred and is motivated by horrible desires. He of course was evil. The truth is, though, that many other kinds of evil exist in different forms that are not so black and white to us.
Click to expand...

Can't say I agree. The cartoonishly evil torturous deaths prescribed by Genghis as mentioned by DDD goes well beyond ambition to pure sadism. He was undoubtedly a psychopath in charge if an army.
 
But Hitler was a vegetarian. So he couldn't have been ALL bad.
 
DDD said:
Genghis Khan had a wooden structure whereupon victims such as princesses would be put beneath at a certain back braking angle. Then he together with his generals would step up and have a feast on top of this structure. Their weight would put pressure to such an angle that the princesses' back would be broken. This is a "honorable" bloodless death according to Mongols of the time. It is reserved for higher ranks.

This is Genghis Khan participating in death by torture. Hitler may have ordered but he did not participate himself. Among other forms that I heard was putting tied POW's on a bag surrounded by cats. Then they would hit the cats from outside and the cats would scratch the POW's to inside the bag of death.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Just saw this thread, and I don't think it's been pointed out that some of you may be dissing your direct ancestor. 1/200 men (and presumably, women) are direct descendants of GK, and if your direct ancestors are originally from the area where GK rules, it's about a 10% chance.


So somebody on this thread might be dissing great- great- grandpa.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/g...ect-descendants-of-genghis-khan/#.UoaVlY29LCQ
 
Ben K. said:
Can't say I agree. The cartoonishly evil torturous deaths prescribed by Genghis as mentioned by DDD goes well beyond ambition to pure sadism. He was undoubtedly a psychopath in charge if an army.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can believe he took pleasure in torturing people, but I just wonder if he conquered the world so he could do it or if he just found that to be a perk of the job.
 
aberrant85 said:
Yeah I can believe he took pleasure in torturing people, but I just wonder if he conquered the world so he could do it or if he just found that to be a perk of the job.
Click to expand...
I think he probably considered it a requirement of the job. Remember, we're talking a brute among brutes - he had to be brutish in order to keep them in line.
 
Another example of a different kind of evil to Hitler's would be Eichmann, who seemed to have little personal investment in carrying out the holocaust but did so blithely under the impression that that's what a good soldier would do, and took pride in his efficiency.
 
tacomancer said:
The real question is whether Khan was a conservative or libertarian

:2razz:
Click to expand...

Say what? Cmon now.....everybody knows Khan drank that Tea, why do you think they call it Red Cha. :mrgreen:
 
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...
After watching the other side of Hitler in a series on youtube "Hitler - greatest story never told" I am convinced that Hitler was NOWHERE as bad as Zionist media makes him out to be. not perfect, but not any worse than Zionists considering the situation not told on MSM
 
Risky Thicket said:
I'll take Hitler for $50, aberrant. Nobody in a political argument is ever accused of acting like Genghis Khan.
Click to expand...

Probably because they know less about him, his victims, and methods. But the amount of people he killed, as a percentage of the global population, is pretty staggering and was no stranger to systemic slaughter of innocents, nor genocide
 
Threegoofs said:
Just saw this thread, and I don't think it's been pointed out that some of you may be dissing your direct ancestor. 1/200 men (and presumably, women) are direct descendants of GK, and if your direct ancestors are originally from the area where GK rules, it's about a 10% chance.


So somebody on this thread might be dissing great- great- grandpa.


1 in 200 men direct descendants of Genghis Khan - Gene Expression | DiscoverMagazine.com
Click to expand...

rape-rape is a marvelous thing. despite involving lots of rape, dude must have been packing some serious lube and ****-heat
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
rape-rape is a marvelous thing. despite involving lots of rape, dude must have been packing some serious lube and ****-heat
Click to expand...

That's all speculation.

All we can really know for sure is that he had some good swimmers...
 
Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin was far worse than Hitler
and who gives two hoots about what happened
at the beginning of the 13th century?

Besides the 3rd world war fought with nooclear weapons
will have a casualty count that dwarfs all that came before?
 
AngryOldGuy said:
Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin was far worse than Hitler
and who gives two hoots about what happened
at the beginning of the 13th century?

Besides the 3rd world war fought with nooclear weapons
will have a casualty count that dwarfs all that came before?
Click to expand...
History hints at what we ought to avoid. That's reason enough to care about the 13th century, even if only a little.

I will repeat: Khan, Hitler, Stalin, and so forth, were the leaders of groups which caused harm on such a scale that all scales become useless.

After the first few hundred thousand deaths or so (way before that really), there's no point in counting anymore, because whoever is in charge of the madness has entered evil overlord status and must be stripped of all power by any means possible.
 
AngryOldGuy said:
Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin was far worse than Hitler
and who gives two hoots about what happened
at the beginning of the 13th century?

Besides the 3rd world war fought with nooclear weapons
will have a casualty count that dwarfs all that came before?
Click to expand...

There are some that would take that a step further and ask why things that happened a hundred years ago would matter. Not saying that is you, but some say to me. To those who do say it however, I would remind them of the inconvenient fact that Germany was a democracy before Hitler, hell, they voted him into office. Perhaps we should be a little cautious in thinking that our nice safe democracies can't ever change.... food for thought.
 
The flimsy argument used by people who think Hitler was the worst tyrant is that he killed people solely based on their race and therefore was the most evil. In the end, what does it really matter if people are murdered because or their race, religion, because they won't submit to the government's plan of collectivization, or because they happen to be living in a city that some warlord wants to conquer? Such crimes should be condemned regardless of the reasoning behind them.

I would say Khan was worse than Hitler simply because he killed more people. Most Western leftists love to keep the attention focused on Hitler, because that way they don't have to be reminded of the atrocities that leftist dictators like Stalin and Mao committed. I consider myself a socialist, but I despise communism and communist crimes. And if you ask me, Pol Pot deserves the title of the most brutal, sadistic leader in history. He practically took Cambodia back to the stone age with his barbarism.
 
Graffias said:
And if you ask me, Pol Pot deserves the title of the most brutal, sadistic leader in history. He practically took Cambodia back to the stone age with his barbarism.
Click to expand...

given the size of his population and access to resources, Pol pot accomplished alot. I think he killed of a 1/4 of his entire population. Definitely an over achiever when his crimes are taken in context
 
Graffias said:
The flimsy argument used by people who think Hitler was the worst tyrant is that he killed people solely based on their race and therefore was the most evil. In the end, what does it really matter if people are murdered because or their race, religion, because they won't submit to the government's plan of collectivization, or because they happen to be living in a city that some warlord wants to conquer? Such crimes should be condemned regardless of the reasoning behind them.

I would say Khan was worse than Hitler simply because he killed more people. Most Western leftists love to keep the attention focused on Hitler, because that way they don't have to be reminded of the atrocities that leftist dictators like Stalin and Mao committed. I consider myself a socialist, but I despise communism and communist crimes. And if you ask me, Pol Pot deserves the title of the most brutal, sadistic leader in history. He practically took Cambodia back to the stone age with his barbarism.
Click to expand...

A socialist eh? I look forward to our debates.... that is all. You can go back now.
 
Cyrylek said:
Genghis Khan was the strongest, smartest brute in a world of brutes.

Hitler (just like Lenin, Mao, et al, let's not leave poor little Addie all alone) had inherited a civilized nation with a long tradition of humanism and tolerance - and turned it into a genocidal nightmare.

Not even close to a contest.
Click to expand...

They were tolerant of certain groups before hitler, but the jews not so much. They weren't being driven off and killed, because unprecedented inflation hadn't occurred yet. Hitler took advantage of the long-festering hate.
 
chromium said:
They were tolerant of certain groups before hitler, but the jews not so much. They weren't being driven off and killed, because unprecedented inflation hadn't occurred yet. Hitler took advantage of the long-festering hate.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Gotta go with Hitler. Two reasons.

1. The Mongol conquests were a lot longer than Khan's life. He didn't do all that killing himself. Hitler did all that in a few years.

2. Believe it or not, not everything was bad under the Mongols. They tended to kill ****loads when they came in, of course, but once the territory was settled as theirs, they weren't a bad empire to be under. They were incredibly religiously tolerant as well. Hitler? Yeah, not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom