>Hitler won't be remembered like Genghis Khan because he lost and his reign led to Germany's destruction
But what about Charles XII? People still lionize him even though he lost and his reign led to Sweden's destruction
Hitler won't be remembered like Genghis Khan because he lost and his reign led to Germany's destruction
Brody Walker
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Blake Parker
Perhaps because he wasn't a raging cunt
Charles Long
Napoleon lost too, and he's still seen as a great conqueror
Hitler gassed the kikes, that's why he's hated
Parker Morgan
Hitler was motivated by a shitty lunatic ideology that any reasonable person should find repulsive.
Napoleon was an asshole who did a whole lot of damage, but he was at least ostensibly motivated by a palatable set of ideals, and the Napoleonic Code and other reforms did a lot to modernize European law.
Luke Hughes
What the fuck are you talking about. Genghis Khan is despised in China. You can piss off Chinks by literally saying to them that you are a huge fan of genghis khan.
Elijah Nelson
Genghis Khan was like 2000 years ago
nothing he ever did is relevant today
On the other hand, Hitler's workings are still very much relevant. Even victims of his are still alive
Juan Campbell
??? He was attacked over and over. Did you expect him to roll over like the many kings before him?
Evan Young
>But what about Charles XII?
I've never heard shit about hom outside historical circles and didn't even know Sweden was once a major military power until I started to really get into history. So give Hitler 300 years and I bet he'll be in a similar boat...then again maybe not, there is napoleon after all.
Dylan Wood
>nothing he ever did is relevant today
Most of China is descended from his incessant fucking.
Liam Brooks
Because unlike the other people you mentioned, Karl XII fought a DEFENSIVE war against Denmark-Norway, Russia, The Commonwealth etc.
Ultimately, he lost because of his greed when he tried to march on Moscow. I'd say he's fondly remembered, especially by nationalists, because he defended Sweden for 18 years until he died.
Carter Carter
>Sweden
>nationalists
Liam Johnson
Hitler killed god's chosen people. Know your place, goy.
Cooper Peterson
they do exist
Jaxon Brooks
Hitler was 90% retard 9% dumb luck 1% good ideas.
The others all died hundreds or even over a thousand years ago and although there is decent knowledge of them, nothing approaching how in depth Hitler and his, what I can only describe as "antics" are covered. We know he was a raging fool, we have transcripts of all his insane ideas, his foolish gambles, and his wrought arrogance. We know he was an idiot. We can only speculate on how sound Napoleon's march to Moscow was in his own mind.
Anthony James
>We can only speculate on how sound Napoleon's march to Moscow was in his own mind.
Actually we don't need to speculate at all, as Napoleon marched to Moscow faster than Hitler's army did and actually took it.
Leo Lopez
doesn't make it a great idea though
Easton Clark
>not knowing about the glory of sweden
en.wikipedia.org
Nathan Hall
He didn't march on Moscow, he marched on the charred remains of Moscow, as half his army was reduced to a casualty either by being dead, wounded, sick, or starving at that point.
Now in hindsight we can say invading Russia was real dumb of him. But did he know just how bad an idea it was? How badly did he underestimate Russia, and in what way?
We know exactly how badly Hitler underestimated Russia. There are audio logs of him basically saying to his generals: "What the shit, we've destroyed like 20,000 different vehicles in 6 months. We don't even have 20,000 vehicles, and they still keep making more tanks and trucks, how badly did intelligence fuck up, guys?"
William Smith
Maybe in fairy tales.
Eli Mitchell
did russia put all their force on manufacturing just like USA did.
Pumping out machines like it was yesterday
Nicholas Howard
I think you mean Kublai Khan, but he is kinda idolized in China too. There are even a Chinese drama about Kublai
Blake Martin
Citation needed
Nicholas Smith
No, Russia put all its factories to work on manufacturing unlike the US did. The US provided the Russia with much of its non war related material like food, radios, telephone lines, hell they increased Russia's train stock by 20%, the Russians built basically no trains during the war, they mostly only built direct war stuff like rifles and tanks and ammo.
The US had much of its production committed to war production, but also produced a staggering amount of goods necessary for the successful waging of a war even if said goods like food and clothes don't actually kill the enemy. Russia was facing severe issues producing tertiary goods in WW2 and in general, was having issues feeding everyone. This was the most crucial part of Lend Lease. Not the tanks and planes, but the spam and spanners sent over. It allowed Russia to go balls deep making tanks without having people starve to death or run around naked.