• 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
aberrant85

aberrant85

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
594
Reaction score
209
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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?
 
I'll take Hitler for $50, aberrant. Nobody in a political argument is ever accused of acting like Genghis Khan.
 
Hillary Clinton for the win.
 
Who cares?

At their level of bad personage, comparisons break down.

It frankly doesn't matter who was worse...they were both that bad for everyone...except their lackeys.
 
Hitler. At least Khan had better facial hair.
 
Chingus gets credit for managing to find a way to kill people on an industrialized scale in an unindustrialized society. That much is certain.

The sheer brutality of the terror tactics utilized by the Mongol hordes has honestly never been matched. Even in comparison to many of the crimes of the Nazis and Soviets, the atrocities carried out by Genghis Khan and his descendants were absolutely appalling.

Genocide, rape, torture, slavery, human shields, child soldiers, collateral damage, civilian casualties, biological warfare, etca - you name it; the Mongols did it all, and on a scale that wouldn't be seen again until the mid twentieth century.

Hitler, on the other hand, is mostly remarkable for taking a civilized society and somehow managing to con everyone in it into behaving like fanatical bloodthirsty barbarians. The level of lunatic despotism with which he was able to rule a supposedly "democratic" society simply hadn't been seen before, and hasn't been seen since.
 
Last edited:
I believe Kublai Khan killed even more than his grandfather. As well as Hitler too.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Chingus gets credit for managing to find way to kill people on an industrialized scale in an unindustrialized society. That much is certain.

The sheer brutality of the terror tactics utilized by the Mongol hordes has honestly never been matched. Even in comparison to many of the crimes of the Nazis and Soviets, the atrocities carried out by Genghis Khan and his descendants are absolutely appalling.

Genocide, rape, torture, slavery, human shields, child soldiers, collateral damage, civilian casualties, biological warfare, etca - you name it; the Mongols did it all, and on a scale that wouldn't be seen again until the mid twentieth century.

Hitler, on the other hand, is mostly remarkable for taking a civilized society and somehow managing to con everyone in it into behaving like fanatical bloodthirsty barbarians. The level of lunatic despotism with which he was able to rule a supposedly "democratic" society simply hadn't been seen before, and hasn't been seen since.
Click to expand...

The thing is, everyone is a bloodthirsty barbarian to some degree, and civilization is what holds the worst examples of this in check. Hitler tapped into Germany's inner barbarian and used it to gain power.
 
Last edited:
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...

Until now. Your side terrorizes Americans like Genghis Khan terrorized villages.
 
Genghis Khan was an awesome person. People can want to be like Genghis Khan without being considered a freak. Anyone who wants to be like Hitler is an ass-hole.

You can't have a mustache like Hitler. Anyone with Khan's mustache is awesome.

You certainly can't name a kid Hitler. Anyone named Ghenghis is assumed to be a badass. Anyone named Khan is DEFINITELY badass. Look at Star Trek.

And if you want to be a failed painter like Hitler you'll be given funny looks. If you want to be a barbarian like Khan that's kinda cool.

Nobody wants to go to "Hitler Grill". What the hell would they serve you? Meanwhile...

View attachment 67156741
 
Last edited:
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...
I'm just curious what prompts such polls as this? Who thinks in these terms, wondering who's the greater of two evils... more importantly, why?

Meh; I just don't get it. :thinking
 
I'd say the Charlie Chaplin mustache impersonator. Mainly for the reason that what the Nazi's did was so recent, that the world was completely different and that something like that was becoming less and less common.

In Khan's time, his activities were far more common and we, as a species, were still trying to rise above being savages, and doing it very slowly I might add.
 
EdwinWillers said:
I'm just curious what prompts such polls as this? Who thinks in these terms, wondering who's the greater of two evils... more importantly, why?

Meh; I just don't get it. :thinking
Click to expand...
This is just unfounded suspicion, but I suspect that people who think in these terms are inclined towards agreement, or agree with, what Hitler did.

Edit: And by couching the discussion in these terms, can say "well he wasn't THIS bad".
 
reinoe said:
Genghis Khan was an awesome person. People can want to be like Genghis Khan without being considered a freak. Anyone who wants to be like Hitler is an ass-hole.
Click to expand...

Eh... Give it a couple of centuries.

Sadly, today's monsters are often tomorrow's legends.
 
soccerboy22 said:
So a machine gun is to you what a bow and arrow was to Khan?
Click to expand...
In this day and age, Genghis Khan would nuke any city that defied him, or, if a city surrendered, enslave everyone with tracker-equipped exploding neck rings, have his troops rape all the women (and in this case, "women" would probably include any female over 12) and kill people at random in various brutal ways. Or not at random, but equally brutal.
 
The Mark said:
This is just unfounded suspicion, but I suspect that people who think in these terms are inclined towards agreement, or agree with, what Hitler did.

Edit: And by couching the discussion in these terms, can say "well he wasn't THIS bad".
Click to expand...

I voted Hitler, because I am more familiar with what he did...my grandfather left me his Reader's Digests of those years... although Khan killed more people on a percentage basis of the population. I'm personally glad both are dead!

Greetings, The Mark. :2wave:
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom