Printable View
This can of blurs the line between backroom and the monestrary. It's discussing history but is fairly controversial. So Mods feel free to move this if you want.
The question of the thread was spawned from this podcast show. So what do Orgahs think does the host have a case?
Sorry I couldn't find a transcript.
:/ ...
Hitler was bad.
Alexander was good.
Based on their contemporaries.
Alexander was, lenient? He didn't smash cities at random, burning and looting (Gauls). Alexander killed thousands when it was the way to resolve problems.
Now we can talk, discuss, and not have to resort so such widespread violence.
Alexander the Great was a man of his time...a warlord like any other. He sought power; killing was one of the means to it.
Hitler's genocide is ideologically driven.
A hardcore pacifist can conceivably make a case from his or her viewpoint that Alexander is bad -- and any powerful rulers who engage in expansive wars are also bad. But in comparison to Hitler? What's that you* are smoking?
*podcast
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Hitler was not? Compared to most of his contemporaries, he wasn't much different.
Hitler was no different than most of the leaders that came before him, including Alex the Great and David of Israel - using war and extermination to further his goals. Its funny, most Jews and Christians do not even know that genocide is rampant throughout the Old Testament.
Hitler's problems are A) he lost and B) he lost at a time when much of the world was embracing ideas of compassion, human rights, ect; which made him not just a national leader who lost a war, but a "monster".
Ironically, most in the Western World who consider Hitler pure evil embrace and glorify their own rather sketchy past, whether it be the American cowboy, the British colonial soldier, or Napoleon.
One can't seriously say anyone was worse then Hitler. For Alexander to get as bad as Hitler he would have had some flimsy ideological reason and then proceeded to wipe out everyone from for example Eordaia, even though they were not enemies.
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/cityli...gs/great1.html
Something you may enjoy reading.
Actually he did. He ransacked at least 3 cities from Memory, as well as all the ones that weren't written about.Quote:
Alexander was, lenient? He didn't smash cities at random, burning and looting (Gauls). Alexander killed thousands when it was the way to resolve problems.
You're paying attention to a show called "hardcore history?" :inquisitive:
...No.
Extermination wasn't a unknown concept at that time, if usually restricted to all the male population of a city which failed to capitulate. Tyre is a shining example of Alexander's way of dealing with such cities. Not that he was the only one to do so.
OA
Did an ideological Alexander have all Persians killed on basis of their ethniticity? Was he hell-bent on establishing his own master race and preventing racial mingling? Did he make murder industrial? I think not. Certainly in the context of his time, he was no more or less lenient than contemporaries, and to judge his treatment of defeated cities on modern principles of compassion (which, as PJ points out, are a very recent development) is frankly absurd.
To be fair to Hitler, he would have been described as very evil in any lifetime, because genocide usually streched only to the male population (the females and children became slaves) and had in most cases a strategical reason ("oppose me and die" or "we want your land").Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
In Hitler's case it was also draining resources and the treatment of the population on the Eastern front did probably cost him the war (according to German intelligence, winning the minds of the people, that wasn't hard due to the hatred to Stalin, was the recommended action for victory. It would likely have created liberation movements that would have gone to war against Stalin).
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Yeah, 'cause Alexander, Caesar, Chingiz Khan or Napoleon deported civilians to death camps, whose main aim was to exterminate a population depending of its ethnicity, sexual or political orientation.
Or wait, they did not.
Even the worst conquerors, like Timur the Lame, are just kiddos if compared to Hitler. Yeah, some of them burnt down cities, slaughtered whole lot of innocent people*, but no one except Hitler did it for such silly reasons, and in such a crual way, period.
Timur the Lame killed thousands of people in a brutal way, because they bothered him and stood on his way. Hitler killed millions of people just because he thought they had no right to exist.
Comparing Napoleon, Alexander or whoever else to Hitler and saying "they're all the same, Hitler is just a poor guy, who lost a right war" is just either blatant revisionism, or the result of someone's lack of knowledge about Hitler, Napoleon and Alexander.
*Furthermore, those who brunt down whole cities and destroyed empires, are seen as particularly evil, even though they might have done a lot of positive things. This is quite obvious in Chingiz Khan's case, who is still seen as teh evil dude, even though he was one of the greatest political leader ever.
Oh, and FYI, ideas such as human rights and compassion were not created nor embrassed during the 20th century.
There's also the little fact Adolf was a raving nutjob - and his lunacy was of a particularly unpleasant form, what with all that racial supremacy stuff and glorification of warfare even in the face of the incredible carnage of the Great War. Alex at most was a megalomaniac, but otherwise sane enough and not meaningfully more vicious than was the norm those days (the top names in the wanton devastation category being probably the steppe nomads - also back then).
Did you miss the point where his genocide is done for ideological reasons?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
If you're a Jew, or a Gypsy, or a frickin' homosexual, no matter how much of an asset you are to the Great Nation, you're scumbag, sub-human, and therefore dead.
The warlords don't usually work that way. Serve them and they let you live, may be even get a share of the booty...
The less bloodthirsty ones would only require that you don't get in their way to live and may be even prosper. A far less "evil" sentiment compare to killing you because you are you.
I'm not even putting in the relative morality of each period into this consideration...and by all means that's a valid one to judge the performance of historical leaders.
Revisionism. If you're going to admire something in the German past please choose a topic more appealing than the unrecognized glory of Herr Hitler. They have a lot of things to be proud about you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Hitler's problem was not because he lost. Stalin won and won big and everyone with half a sense in 2007 don't go around praising Uncle Joe.
Heck, the Soviets themselves wasted no time dragging Uncle Joe through the mud the second he stopped breathing...
Does ideology really matter? The body count still piled up.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
It can be said that Hitler's ideology was that Germans were superior to the other peoples of the world and they and their culture should naturally dominate. The same can be said of Alexander, only about the greeks.
And lets not kid ourselves, history is full of leaders and nations who slaughtered simply on the basis of ethnicity. Take the Jews, for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Its obvious that you wouldnt bring the relative morality of each period into the discussion because, compared to his contemporaries, Hitler was rather common(Stalin and Mao ranking much higher on the evil scale by bodycount and some of the Western leaders coming in opposite).
The only thing somewhat special about Hitler is that his killings were done mostly based on ethnicity (not that Stalin and the others didnt do the same on occasion).
But what is really worse: a) Killing huge numbers of your own acknowledged countrymen, both in purges and through massive starvation campaigns and worse simply for your own power and greed or b) killing huge numbers of people you've diluted yourself into believing are traitors and subverters to the greater society?
I dont know if Hitler truly believed the Jews were traitorous and destructive to society (the great amount of critical resources he used to have them killed favors this), but if he did, wouldn't that make him less evil than the likes of Stalin and Mao, who killed many millions simply for their own lust for power? (Not that Hitler was above political killings.)
I know the tag and the Tiger can lead to certain conclusions, but I certainly do not admire Hitler. In fact, quite the opposite. Hitler ruined the last chance for a German superpower and took millions of fine and very admirable German soldiers with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
You'd be surprised how many people, especially russians, have a positive view of Joey... :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Hitler wasn't nuts, he was evil. There's a tangible difference.
Alexander the Great probably gets a lot better press because he was out conquering for and imposing a Western culture on distant Easterners. We (westerners) see more of our own culture in the Greeks than in the Persians. Also, I think he was more a product of his times (or acted more along acceptable social norms for the time) than did Hitler.
Of all the world leaders 1933 - 1945, only Hitler and Stalin went around killing their own people in any number. I'd say the systematic approach of either ruler is "worse" than Alexander's conquests.
Hitler's ideology was also centered around "removing" the Jewish problem. It's wasn't just "pro-German."
I don't know about the others but I'm pretty sure Hitler was both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Hitler, I think, started for the right reasons which I agree with but went power crazy. You know what they say about absolute power.
Alexander also started for the right reasons. A huge empire was continously threatening his peoples freedom, so he destroyed them. I'm sure I heard though that Alexander was very tolerent of the Asians he conquered and infact wanted a merge of the Greeks and the Asians. His generals where very much against this and hated the Asians, thinking they were lesser than the Greeks.
Anyway I don't think Hitler was always evil. He was driven by hate of the Jews because he seen them as invaders taking all the Germans jobs, Germans who fought in WW1. You can see similarities in Modern day Britain, with Asian immigrants.
I'll throw in my own opinions, and that is regarding the main question purly a matter of subjectivity. While the west adorns Alexander, if I've understood it right, and from what I've heard, in the east he is seen as a vile monster and butcherer. And so I will say that from my personal experience, Hitler was the worst of them. However I am also aware of my biased view and that other people, who historically had to feel the not so gentle side of Alexander, and probably were never touched by Hitler, likly have another opinion.
That is not to say that I can consider Alexander to be a "good guy". He was a person of his time, just like I belive that Hitler was a man of his, although neither of those can excuse the actions of either morally. I do not belive that either of them for long were primarly motivated by anything save the quest for power and glory, in which I think that Alexander took the leading in being lead, while Hitler most likly lisened to his hate to a larger degree. However one needs also to keep in mind that the people of yesterdays, both regarding the European 30s and 40s, but even more the ancient times, were vastly different from our own times in terms of ethic and moral views.
In short: Hitler was worse than Alexander, but that don't make Alexander a "good guy" in any way.
Hitler's ideology (a confusing illogical one at that) essentially states that the Jews must die. Jews and other undesirables.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Try read Mein Kampf and the hatred inside. He mixes and matches popular pseudosciences of the day -- Eugenics being an example -- and make unjustifiable statements like "the iron law of nature" and somehow came to the conclusion that the Jews must be exterminated.
Alexander was not one of them. In fact as far as leaders of antiquity go he was among the most cosmopolitan; if records are to be believed he was not as benevolent as, say, Cyrus the Great, but not exactly a racist like the rest of them ancient Macedonian folk.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Okay, so you want me to bring relative morality in? Very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Alexander: for much of history the idea of compassion, forgiveness, and tolerance relies mostly on the individual and not the social fabric of a society. While some are more tolerant than others due to various factors -- the size of the empire, the location being the "crossroads" of the world, various ethnicities and cultures mingling -- most aren't. From such a viewpoint Alexander's willingness to accept various cultures into his empire is admirable.
When his successors like Antiochus IV Epiphanes tries to overly "Hellenize" other peoples -- the process you attribute to Alexander -- they suffered rebellions as a result.
Is he a megalomaniac? Probably. One has to be at least slightly mad just to dare take the reins of power and ride on it like Alexander did. If anything the Persian national epic (whatsitsname?) regards "Iskander" as a great villain.
Hitler? Extremist scumbag. You yourself acknowledges the extent in which he sacrificed German military assets in pursuit of the genocide didn't you?
Who's here justifying Stalin and Mao?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
I'm not sure why Germany deserves an empire more than other nations, but point taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Same case of revisionism you're suffering from. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Watchman also pointed out the astonishing speed in which Khrushchev disengages himself from Uncle Joe's legacy even in the Soviet Union itself.
The Russians (well, some) dig Stalin because he was a Big Man who Made/Kept Russia Strong (or something - nevermind now that the man was Georgian... we're dealing with Stupid Nationalist Sentiment here; coherence is not required). For the exact same reasons they dig other murdering bastards like Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great, although if you ask me those two actually have more merit for it than Uncle Joe (not that they were any nicer, just that they were more personally competent).
What I really don't get is why Nicholas II is also "pop" (or was some years ago anyway), as that milquetoast idiot's sole claim to being more than a footnote is losing his life and empire to the Revolution...
:no:
Damn serf mentality. The place's still paying the price for not canning that antediluvian system before mid-1800s if you ask me.
yesQuote:
Was Hitler worse then Alexander the Great
That's not really an accurate assesment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Some people, like Beria (chief of the KGB) went from complete behind-kissers to the greatest critics of Stalin the moment he crooked. Kruschev falls in this catagory as well.
The rest of the party elite may have agreed in majority with Kruschev's decisions to stop the policies mass-murder and veneration of Stalin, but one of the reasons that the party forced Kruschev to resign was because he went to far in his criticism of Stalin's reign.
Well duh. It wouldn't do to make it look like the all-powerful Party had been wrong about something, no ? Shan't shake the common boat, even if you're the... whatwasthetitle... Premier?
One thing totalitarian systems have always been really lousy at is admitting their mistakes. Doubtless one reason why they've always been so incompetent.
I just pointed out the complete absense of any nuance in your original statement. People like Kruschev who "dragged Stalin through the mud" were ultimately sidetracked, people like Breznjev praised him and fared a lot better in the long run.
"Wasted no time" is a nuance methinks.
That one comment shows how little you know about the subject. If any Greek was ever enamoured with the Persian people and culture it was Alexander, for which I might add he was disliked among a number of his fellow Greeks. He formed army corps out of Persians, adopted Persian customs, intermarried his lieutenants with Persian wives... if you're going to attempt to justify Hitler's actions by comparison with other historical individuals you're going to have to do a lot better than this.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Enamoured enough to completely destroy it?
Alexander certainly had ambitions for himself and his people. If you're going to try and assert that he was not trying to create a new world order with the Greeks in charge, you're going to have to do a lot better than this.
Oh and..
You are either terribly bad at comprehension or a lier. Im thinking its the latter. :shame:Quote:
if you're going to attempt to justify Hitler's actions
Did you even read my post? More than enough of Alexanders actions show he certainly did not believe in natural superiority of Greeks or in Persians as some kind of Untermensch. Just a general list:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
- Alexander was not particularly brutal against Persians. His wrath had also been aimed at the Phoenicians in Tyre or the Thebans, and the Persians were treated no better or worse.
- He left a large number of Persian satraps in charge, who he apparently trusted as much as his Greek men.
- When having taken over the entire former Persian empire he appropriated a large number of customs from the Persian culture, ranging from style of clothing, court ritual, and past-times.
- If he attached any importance to his people I'd find it interesting to hear your views on arranging huge marriages between his lieutenants and local Persian noblewomen and himself marrying a Bactrian wife. Soldiers were likewise rewarded for intermarrying with the local population.
- Let alone the fact that Alexander had large numbers of Persians recruited into his army and trained to fight in the Makedonian manner. He saw them as equals and was rather surprised when his troops did not see them that way.
Looking at his companions and the common Greek, who did largely believe in Greek superiority, the difference becomes all the more striking, and I find the efforts you must go through to ignore that staggering.
You are either terribly misguided or someone seeking to justify Hitler. I'm hoping it's the former.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager