Was Alexander the Great worse then Hitler

[Ironside]

That was certainly true for a large proportion of the victims of the Nazi solution but there was also a significant minority (possibly several million) who were eliminated for non-genetic unacceptabilities. A few examples include mental disability, homosexuality, political beleif's, religious non-conformity, certain physical disabilties and various unacceptable lifestyle choices.

In total, jewish victims only accounted for just over half the total population who fell within the boundaries of the final solution, its just that their propaganda machine is far better at highlighting the persecution they sufferred than that concerned with the others affected.

The key aim of the Nazi policy was purification and that went far beyond the extermination of the jews. It was about conformance to an agreed cultural and genetic specification for all people of German descent.

But it's here were a part of the final solution was different from the brutalities before, the second part is how it was done (the industrial approach). And I'm not sure that all of the categories you mentioned weren't considered "genetical" by the Nazis.
The people that are eliminated due to opposition, always suffer if a brutal regime takes power. Grades of evil you know.

However, I personally don't think evil can be measured by the number of its victims, instead I would argue that exists as soon as the initial action is contemplated and becomes fact upon application to its first victim. Thus arguements such as 'the end justfy the means' cannot excuse evil acts.

That I can certainly agree with.

BTW for sheer brutal madness I would say that Pol-Pot isn't mentioned enough in this thread. I mean genocide, "starvation reforms" (=stupid reforms that causes massive starvation), and murderous paranoia after "traitors", in one regime... Can it get any worse?

[Didz]

But it's here were a part of the final solution was different from the brutalities before, the second part is how it was done (the industrial approach).

I'm not sure that the method used to implementent persecution actually makes that much difference to the victim. Whether ones children are killed with fire, sword, gas or smart bomb they're still dead and the person who ordered it is still evil in my opinion.

Is a person who kills a child through deliberate starvation any less evil that a person who throws them in a gas oven?

I don't think so.

This really hinges on ones definition of 'evil', and so far the best definition I've heard stated that 'A person is evil when they decide to do something which they know to be wrong, or omit to doing something which they know to be right and by so doing increase the suffering to others.'

Thats a pretty all encompassing statement, which at the time I heard it made me feel guilty enough to get in my car and drive 300 miles to visit my Mum rather than trying to think up contrived excuse not to.

[Ironside]

I'm not sure that the method used to implementent persecution actually makes that much difference to the victim. Whether ones children are killed with fire, sword, gas or smart bomb they're still dead and the person who ordered it is still evil in my opinion.

Is a person who kills a child through deliberate starvation any less evil that a person who throws them in a gas oven?

I don't think so.

While the method by itself usually doesn't matter much (it's usually meassured by the time of suffering before death, and as such would make gassing less evil than starving), it often reflects the intent and that matters massivly.