Will Hitler be seen in a more positive way in the far future?

Status
Not open for further replies.
christos200 said:
First, at Genghis Khan's time, in the 13th century, it was accepted that an army could massacre the population of a city that resisted thehm. It was something accepted, not the exception. For example, let's see how the good Christian Europeans massacred the citizens of Jerusalme in the First Crusade:
Click to expand...

I really doubt that proves it was accepted. The massacre of Jerusalem is one of the incidents known for it's bloodiness, it's known because it was an exceptional incident.

Secondly, even if it was accepted, it's at best an excuse you can allow to Genghis Khan.

christos200 said:
Also, there is something you seem not to understand. Historians have to judge events by their effects, not by their morality. The conquests of Genghis Khan were brutal. But their effects were mostly good:
---
So, Genghis Khan's influence was more good than bad. So, he is Great. And this is not based on moral standars (which should not affect a historian), but on his influence on the world. Which was mostly good.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that historian's job is not to evaluate on scale great - non great, but on influential - non influential.

Also, I don't think you're omitting moral consideration above. Already that you speak of "the good" G.K. did suggests it. Your just omitting a part of it, namely killing people. In essence you're saying that reviving trade, unifying China etc. weight more than the human lives he ended.
 
Yes, it did. Because it indirectly helped in starting the era or Colonization, because unifying China did in the end more good to the Chinese people than bad (without unification, China mighht have been still divided or would have become a colony), because his conquests allowed the exchange of ideas between East and West and because he revolutionized military thinking.
 
... uh, dude. China was unified prior to the Mongol irruption under the Song dynasty.

I agree with christos200. Historians have to judge events by their effects, not by their morality. So for example, while the conquests of Adolf Hitler were brutal. But their effects were mostly good: genocide became bad; Europe gave up war; America saved Europe from the Communists something the decadent Europeans could not do for themselves; had good economic policies and was strongly opposed to animal cruelty! He legacy is truly a good one. Ditto for Ataturk.
 
Something you do not seem to understand is that in the 20th century, genocide was something that was considered cruel and inhuman. In the 13th century, the massacre of civilians by conquering armies was something that was accepted by the society of that time.

But sure, post stupid jokes, ignore history, and just rant about your hatred against Genghis Khan.
 
I'm content with 4/5. How about you?
 
Sure, whatever you believe. If you want to believe anti-Mongolian propaganda and ignore historical facts, it does not matters to me. Why should someone bother with one random guy in the internet when people from universities and scholars say the truth.
 
I hate all Mongols with a passion because Mongols eat yaks, and I love yaks, and yaks are cool and death to Mongols! Also unnamed scholars and people from universities (LIKE ME! :3) think Chinggis was like the awesomest person ever and united China (he didn't) and did other cool stuff like spur colonization a couple of centuries down the track because there had never been such a thing as East-West trade prior to the Pax Mongolica (what nonsense) and because Mongols are the awesomest thing and because historians have to judge historical figures on their effects which makes Uncle Adolf like the bestest person in the world because he loved dogs and stuff!3213123213@!31 :crazyeye: :smug: :crazyeye:

Also the Armenian genocide is anti-Turkish propaganda and why should I care what you think when people from universities and scholars say the truth. Also the holocaust is a lie cooked up by the Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy to smear Uncle Adolf and to justify American dominance of the world. And like it never happened and why should I care what you think when people from universities and scholars say the truth.
 
Sure, continue to ridicule yourself.
 
one of the more stupidier facts of history is that Nazis knew the Prussian Officer caste saw them as temporary expedients and there was to be a showdown in the future and one Turkish officer was already in Germany for chemical warfare training during the Munich Putch and it would take more than a starship captain to prove that the Nazis were enemies of Turkey long before they were of France or Poland .

atatürk has been dead since 1938 , how sad that it's already 2013 and Turks are still kicking . Or that the Greeks -on a higher level than gaming forums- see it fit to reach out to less acceptable types of Germans to wear out Merkel's assault .

and this post was supposed to be directly under #87 ...
 
Just to reiterate: I have an ulterior motive for besmirching Chinggis Khaan because I <3 teh yaks.
 
Sure, if you want to act like a clown, you are doing a very good job. Guess who is on my ignore list?
 
If there was no east-west trade prior to Chinghiss, this makes the Book of Kells a certified, proven Miracle, right?
 
I never said that there was never West-East trade before Genghis. Chinese goods were found in the former Roman Empire. I said that Genghis Khan managed to increase East-West trade, which had suffered since the Barbarian invasions. First read, then comment.
 
Hunnic invasion of India? Turkic takeover of Northn China? Conflict between Byzantium and the Arabs?
 
christos200 said:
Something you do not seem to understand is that in the 20th century, genocide was something that was considered cruel and inhuman. In the 13th century, the massacre of civilians by conquering armies was something that was accepted by the society of that time.
Click to expand...

I don't think you've established this yet. You mentioned a case where civilians were massacered. One case doesn't yet mean that it was a general habit, even less that it was accepted by society. If what I've read is correct, Saladin was quite put off by those events even hundred years later, and intended at first to do the same.
 
Trust a Greek to call Turks and Arabs barbarians.
 
Masada said:
I agree with christos200. Historians have to judge events by their effects, not by their morality. So for example, while the conquests of Adolf Hitler were brutal. But their effects were mostly good: genocide became bad; Europe gave up war; America saved Europe from the Communists something the decadent Europeans could not do for themselves; had good economic policies and was strongly opposed to animal cruelty! He legacy is truly a good one. Ditto for Ataturk.
Click to expand...

How is it consistent to ignore the question whether a historical figure's actions were "good" or "bad", and then talk about whether they had "good" or "bad" consequences? That's not an avoidance of moral judgements, it's just a decision to make consequentialist moral judgements. If you're going to allow the language of "good" and "bad" into the writing of history at all, I don't see why it should be limited to events and not actions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The_J
April Fool's: 2K buys Paradox, Millennia is the "next civ game in development"
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Quintillus
Quintillus
PDX Firefly
  • Sticky
Millennia | Future Ages & Update 0
Replies
0
Views
528
PDX Firefly
PDX Firefly
C
Civilization 4 Bingo: A different way to play the game?
Replies
1
Views
1K
Cuthraxys
C
innonimatu
Oppressive empires - a false argument of liberals?
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
3K
Angst
Angst
SaboteurINT
More AI Units in the game - better game
Replies
5
Views
2K
Shirotora Kenshin
Shirotora Kenshin
Top Bottom