-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 14178)
  2.   Help
  3. (for post and file deletion)
/hi/ - History and Culture
  • Supported file types are: JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 480 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2018-08-24 Show/Hide Show All

We are in the process of fixing long-standing bugs with the thread reader. This will probably cause more bugs for a short period of time. Buckle up.

There's a new /777/ up, it's /Moldy Memes/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

The Supreme Evil Historian 14/02/26(Wed)19:05 No. 14178
14178

File 139343794817.jpg - (346.11KB , 1600x1200 , dr-evil.jpg )

In modern culture Hitler is used as the epitome of evil, many will even consider the mere fact that he liked something as a basis of slander (i.e. Hitler was/liked X, therefore; X = Evil). His legacy will far outlast Bin Laden/Hussein and many others.

But who came before him, who held the gold standard prior to him taking it? And who was before that? Who's names have manifested evil on a scale unprecedented before them?


>>
Historian 14/02/26(Wed)22:14 No. 14179

You're kind of spoiled for choice there, Dude.

Alexander the Great wiped out entire cities and depopulated whole districts, as did Julius Caesar, Attila the Hun, and the Grandmaster of Terror himself, Genghis Khan. Tamerlane, the great inheritor of Genghis, was just as bloody-handed. Russia gave us Ivan the Terrible, another perpetrator of murder on a grand scale. England produced Oliver Cromwell, who was no slouch at the game; killing two million Irish with broadswords and matchlock muskets (based solely on the fact that they were Catholic) could not have been an easy task. Normandy's William the Bastard depopulated the entire district of Yorkshire because the Saxon nobles there refused to accept him as their King.

The entire nation of Assyria was founded on this same concept; kill your victims until the survivors are too terrified to continue resistance against you. And, yes, I know that I am failing to mention many, many men who deserve a place in this list; Mullah Mohammed Omar of the Taliban continues to use this historic model, with some success, to this day.

Focusing on the historic period before Hitler ignores one important fact, however; the two greatest mass-murderers in human history came during Hitler's own time and just after: Stalin and Mao. These two murdered more people than all the other great mass-killers of history combined, including Hitler himself. Anybody who wants to claim the title of History's Greatest Mass Murderer has his work cut out for him if he wants to top those two.


>>
Historian 14/02/27(Thu)03:23 No. 14181

>14179
You misunderstand. I'm not asking who the worst people are in history, I'm asking who was considered the worst person in history prior to Hitler.


>>
Historian 14/02/27(Thu)16:21 No. 14184

In a 1000 years of Germans still exist when that time comes they will look at Hitler as some national hero just like we norse look at the vikings today.


>>
Historian 14/02/27(Thu)20:46 No. 14185

>>14181

Oh; in that case, I will go with Napoleon Bonaparte. During the period of his dominance he was viewed by his fellow Europeans as a completely inhuman monster.

Of course, the French will probably not agree with my reasoning.


>>
Historian 14/03/02(Sun)00:20 No. 14189

Would Stalin and Mao only get silver medals in evil?


>>
Historian 14/03/03(Mon)10:20 No. 14191

Well, that's the story of civilization OP.

Anyway we're seeing this effect already. When you look at modern descriptions of, say, Genghis Khan, or Alexander for instance, they're usually described as harsh but brilliant military minds and leaders with grand big-picture/long-term pictures and great uniters of cultures. Because that's true in some amount too. And yeah, sure he had to kill "a lot" of people, but they brought security and literacy and trade and commerce etc to everyone afterward, hey, you gotta crack a few eggs, right?

Thing is though, if you were actually there at the time, or even within who knows how many generations of then, none of those grandiose visions would have had much value to you when your family was thrown in the 43rd wall of bloody bodies 50' high surrounding the burning city you had been living in up til now. The word Genghis would have made the light in which we cast the word "Hitler" look brilliant and sparkly by comparison.

So I think, since "Hitler" as a punchline has become a cliche, it will be overblown for a while yet and then wind down a bit as time goes on. We're already seeing some mainstream historians being more reasonable about their portrayal of him as a master of villainy and evil, because as they dig in, reality reveals more simply an opportunist caught up in an increasingly desperate and a misguided act to fix his country, seriously in over his head militarily with no idea what he was doing as a leader of people, and an angry failure at pretty much everything he ever did. And that's not even his sympathizers, which, if you consider how few of them there would have been in 1946, are obviously increasing in number. Eventually, the hundred million or so dead people will be seen as just another cost of getting where we are today.

That's sort of the catch to human civilization though. It was forged in great spastic, violent leaps and lurches at a time, separated by long periods of status quo ho hum same old same old. Usually at the helm of change were bold and brutal leaders who didn't mind upsetting the apple cart, usually by wiping out however many millions of people didn't want to go along with the plan, and who were hated and then later appreciated from a comfortable enough distance.

There are probably better character names to throw around than "Hitler", closer in time like the African & Armenian genocides, or closer in distance to some Native leaders who waged war terrible war for fucking centuries, but... well to be honest, we don't really value either of those peoples history as worth learning about, or even really those peoples as humans worthy of living. Ask a group of "historians" sometime about what they know of the history of the country they live in. It starts with the arrival of the Europeans. Ignorant and indifferent to the rest. Kinda pathetic...


>>
Historian 14/03/04(Tue)03:13 No. 14192

Napoleon, probably.

I don´t know when exactly his reputation turned from "Monster" to "One of the greatest conquerors ever", but people didn´t exactly like him in the new age period.


>>
Historian 14/03/06(Thu)21:03 No. 14196

Hitler wasn't special. All of Europe was a fascist hotpot at the time. Everyone thought Hitler was great until he started stealing countries the other powers wanted influence over. "Peace for our time" wasn't some great scam the evil fascist Hitler pulled on poor, bleeding heart liberal Chamberlain. The only reason we are being forced to remember Hitler as evil today is because he was such a clever asshole and tricked the to-be Allies so hilariously, they still live with the blood shame.

>>14179
> These two murdered more people than all the other great mass-killers of history combined, including Hitler himself.

When you say mass-killer(murderer), I assume you mean people dying as a more or less direct consequence of their policy decisions, and not personally and physically killing people? Because then you might wanna look at WW2 death toll statistics and reconsider.


>>
Historian 14/03/30(Sun)07:01 No. 14236

>>14192
What did Americans think of Napoleon? they benefited from him by the Louisiana Purchase, anyone in France would either be bitter about him anyways



[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]



Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason