Why don't people think of Genghis Khan, Hernan Cortes, and Napoleon Bonaparte as being as evil as Hitler...

Why don't people think of Genghis Khan, Hernan Cortes, and Napoleon Bonaparte as being as evil as Hitler? They killed way more people relative to the time.

They are all cunts. Except for Napoleon of course. (Maybe) Did he actively seek out to cull enemy peasantry? Or is it the casualties of combat personnel?

Genghis Khan is not considered as evil as Hitler simply because Persians, Russians and Arabs are not the ones controlling western media and academia.

not every person is equal sorry m8s. multiple every victim by a factor of that persons worth and i think you'll understand the whole hitttler shit, plus it was sensationalised by modern communication and technology

Most people that know of Genghis Khan understand he is one of the most evil people to ever live.
That being said, if a group of people would submit to Genghis peacefully they were fully allowed too, and their lives would be spared.
However, if a Jew just peacefully submitted to an SS battalion they'd still be going to a camp. Same as if one tried to fight off the SS.

Cortes and Napoleon don't compare to either one of those two however.

Not to mention that the colonial era of Spain was 400 years, Hernan only lived 40 years. Unless you are implying that every Indian that died was killed in that specific 40 years.
For Napoleon, a lot of those deaths were from the French themselves. Not to mention percentages are an outright meme in the first place.

As for the Mongols, that number is actually on the low estimate, most people say around 60 million for Genghis Khan's conquests.

>someone who's victims are still alive is hated more than someone who's victims have been dead for centuries

It's a complete mystery...

>shit peddling illiterate heebs from the ghettos of Lithuania were more valuable than Persians or Chinese
Hi rabbi

Because Genghis Khan didn't kill people based on on racial purity theory but rather on whether they would bow down to him or not.

He practice meritiocratic system and loyalty system.

>only 360 people were alive at the time of Ghengis Khan
Wow... he really killed a lot of people

he was the poster boy for the axis and im talking FVEY anglo-germanics and such

>Because Genghis Khan didn't kill people based on on racial purity theory
This is irrelevant and I cringe whenever this shit is brought up. What does it matter what I murded you for? You're still dead either way.

Misquote?

It wasn’t exactly peaceful. The Mongols would often issue terms of surrender to enemy occcupants promising a safe escort out of the city only to brutal murder them as soon as they surrendered. Even after the conflict was over, the mongols would systemise an ethnic hierarchy based on whether they were “Northern” or not.

Of course, contexts mattered.

kin-selection

time obviously even though ww2 kill count is pretty good in so few years

Cortés killed very few people and saved the natives from the cult of the devil sponsored by the Aztecs. Cortés is a hero and he should be treated as such

Misquote?

wei?

>"b-b-but I was elected King of Bohemia by rioting Protestants..."
>36% of the population of Germany later
>"Oops"

The people who were killed under Genghis Khan, Cortes and Napoleon all died a long time ago and weren't able to spread guilt propaganda about how their genocide was literally the worst thing that happened. Give it a century, or two and the masses will no longer care about the lolocaust.

People say he was just an idiot but he got 8 million people killed for having the political instincts of a mule.

t. Spanimoor

Because none of them are white

They were not crybabies like Hitler and followers.

Be coherent or stop replying to me you schizo.

You dont have to approve of all of their actions to appreciate some of their contributions.
Genghis was an maniac but he made silk road incredibly safe, supposedly you could walk alone with bags of gold and no one would bother you. This made trade between continents much more fluid.
You can appreciate Cortes for his contributions to exploring new world and bringing stuff into europe, you don't have to like him for contributing to downfall of native american civilizations.
Napoleon introduced shitload of great laws, something known as Napoleonic code and many countries still use it to this day. He also became a national hero to many countries because he was the person to liberate them.

Stop crying about muh morals when it comes to history and it will make this subject more enjoyable. As i said, learn to take a perspective.

It matters because it serves no practical purpose, and the Nazis despite desperately losing a war choose to continue genocide. Winning was lost, but at least we killed as many of these undesirables as possible.

>"reply to me i want attention"
>you're the schizo

that's also how many people lived in kiev after mongols were done

Cortes did nothing wrong, he liberated the poor natives from Aztec tyranny.

give it 50 years and he'll be thought of in the same way.

You've got it backwards, Hitler isn't demonized because he was (particularly) evil, he's (particularly) evil because he's demonized. There isn't a massive media complex that keeps Genghis, Napoleon, or Cortes very much alive in popular memory and emphasizes that they were the worst thing to ever happen to humanity.

Dschingis Khan opened up more trade between east and west
Cortez killed the aztecs and stole their gold with some natives and spreads xtianity
Napoopan fought to consolidate France's power and autistically tried to retake Haiti
Hitler invaded countries,killed kikes,gypsies,homos and masons

Absolutely improbable.

Because most people know fuck all about history that isn't present in pop culture.

>all war casualties are their fault because they lost

>The only white man was a good boy

and why is that?