Hitlers legacy a few centuries from now

[Forsher]

You're a tell the rainforest tribe sort of person.

As I remember it, the idea is that once you know about the Holocaust (I believe the specific reference was Auschwitz) you cannot unknow it. This applies in terms of your own life but also in your attempts to understand the past. That you know, when you sit down to study the Holocaust or the Nazis, how it ends is a context you'll never be able to divorce yourself from and this is necessarily going to inform what you produce. It's particularly important to bear in mind that actors whose motives and behaviours you are trying to reconstruct weren't party to that information.

So basically this is an attempt at creating an unbiased view of their history or did I miss the point?

I still don't get it. Maybe I am not exactly sure at how this helps or I am the product of a different school of thought. I mean, acknowledging the past is not bad. Recognizing that something as tragic as the Holocaust happened is necessary. It doesn't mean your country is to blame about it right now. Dark passages in our histories need to be acknowledge, spoken of.

I've looked over the notes I made, and it appears I was actually confusing two separate points. The not wanting to burden her children with the knowledge and the subsequent understanding of humanity that implies actually was the point (my apologies Italios).

In this case I don't really sympathise with the viewpoint either for largely the same reasons you give but also because I generally disagree with ignorance is bliss... it generally does more damage in the long term (ignorance/blissful unawareness) that any short-term positivity just isn't worth it.

However, to defend why I am sympathetic to my confusion of two separate points. It's a form of anachronism. You just can't escape the knowledge that you have about where what you're studying ends up or what it ends up being, and this will inform your characterisation of the past to some extent that you just will never be able to acknowledge. That's problematic if you're writing history because as a historian you probably should be aiming, first and foremost, to generate an accurate characterisation of why and how the past you're looking at happened.

In a general sense, though, I would still disagree with this notion because not knowing about things like the Holocaust is bad, but it's not as simplistic an idea to reject it in the same manner as I would with the burden of knowing (largely because I see it as the burden of not knowing*).

*Perhaps not the best phrasing. That is, imagine you're some administrator in a particular context favourable to some negative outcome which you then learn is actually a negative outcome that people are experiencing/is happening. That's a burden knowing.

Dude, you talk to someone who was born in a rain forrest, they want air conditioning and a cool place to sleep.

It's a reference to a discussion over whether taking the blue pill (i.e. staying in the matrix) is a better idea. Is an isolated tribe/group/society in the Amazon better off knowing that everyone else's actions mean that their very existence is precarious or not?

It can, but doesn't exactly apply to every single person with minor/no impact on history. Say, Elliot Rodgers. We know what he did and there are multiple photos and news articles on the guy. We probably wouldn't know anyone who committed such a crime in the 2nd century AD, at least not more than a sentence or two on the person, unless the action had a bigger impact on a current event at the time, or if the person was notable for other reasons unrelated to it.

That's still someone who has done something, though. It's not a good something or, more to the point, a big something, but it's still a something.

I think, in general, historians in two hundred years will be fundamentally the same as historians now. That is, they want to know as much as possible. And I think they're still going to be largely frustrated by an inability to gain much insight into the people who don't "do" anything. It'd be easier to construct this than it is for us looking back at, say, 18th Century consumers (where we might, for sake of argument, use pottery to try and figure out if we talk about a distinct male and female consumer culture*) but it'd still be largely indirect.

Rodgers is actually an interesting case because, if I am remembering the details properly, that particular incident got heavily embroiled in the old internet feminists versus internet MRAs (not that you really need to specify that an online phenomenon is an online phenomenon) and this was reflected in at least some of the articles about Rodgers. But because this is still tied to a specific, if small (in the historical scheme of things**), thing you get a different looking context to what we see it as and, therefore, you'd draw a different conclusion.

*This is the sort of enquiry I imagine would happened. I know people study pottery from that era and I also know people are interested in that question (the text I read used probate inventories).

**Imagine a plane. If we put an object of significant mass in the plane it distorts the plane. Imagine that this is a metaphor for history.

In schools? Eh.
Only if they bare contemporary relevance to understanding why things are currently a bit fucked.

No.

History should be examined for its own sake. You're politicising things before you've even begun your analysis. This is particularly relevant if we want to talk about the Holocaust. Honestly, it's in some ways more depressing to read the likes of Steven T. Katz and Ward Churchill argue over what is and isn't a genocide (sorry, why the Holocaust is unique) than it is to read about the Holocaust.

Selection of topics in a school syllabus, for detailed treatment, should be linked with ideas like examining cause and effect, interest and academic appropriateness. For a knowledge of history the politicisation doesn't matter so much so selection on that basis is fine and, perhaps, better. (Knowledge of history is basically a quick causes, event, consequences treatment.)

He was a really, really smart man and excellent at manipulating people to his point of view, however he made a massive mistake my pursuing Anti-Semitic policies. He could've just deported them instead of kill them. Point is, he will always be remembered as a murderer and a maniac.

He didn't make a mistake in pursuing anti-Semitic policies. That would imply that Hitler's worldview was somehow divorced from his ideas about Jews. That would be a very wrong implication. It is also wrong to suggest that Hitler's variety of anti-Semitism was a strictly anti-Jew thing, Hitlerian anti-Semitism is both anti-Jew and pro-German (with what German means being related to his views on Jews).

Also, I'm not sure smart is quite the right word. Hitler had a lot of political intelligence; and even during the full-swing of the Holocaust political strategy actually affected Judenpolitik (see: Mischlinge and privileged marriages).

He was a really, really smart man and excellent at manipulating people to his point of view, however he made a massive mistake my pursuing Anti-Semitic policies. He could've just deported them instead of kill them. Point is, he will always be remembered as a murderer and a maniac.

The Nazis did deport or force people to flee. They then conquered the countries they deported people to, who also had large Jewish populations. The Final Solution was the inevitable result of Nazis expansionism and racialism.

Massuming murder wasn't an unfortunate side effect of Nazism, it was the whole point. Drang noch osten was based entirely on the conquest of "living space" in the east, and the extermination of their inhabitants to make way for German colonists.

It's not quite that simple. The Nazis really were satisfied with getting Jews out of the country prior to the War. Definitely by 1941, though, any ideas of deportation were intended to be, in the long term, lethal (and during 1941 these evolved into implementing a final solution that would be lethal in the short term) and very probably before that (maybe even from the very early days of the War).

Of course, Nazi ideas of Jewish emigration, even though they weren't always intended to be lethal, were always genocidal in nature.

God willing, he won't be forgotten and will remain in our zeitgeist until someone worse comes around.

Hitler's legacy, and that of fascism more broadly, was a lesson humanity should remember in its bones.

If WWIII ever happens, Hitler will be nothing but a ant.

WWI and WWII are quite different.

WWI ... no one's quite sure who the baddies are. I mean, probably the Germans, but we're not sure, eh?

WWII ... Hitler's the baddie.

It depends, in this view, on how such a war were to start (and, of course, on the character of the war).

To historians his military policies will be remembered as failures. But popular opinions of history aren't always accurate. A lot of people a hundred years from now might just see the borders of Nazi Germany and assume he was responsible. If they don't really study history they might never see a reason to change their opinion.

I mean a lot of people nowadays still think he pulled an economic miracle in the 1930s.

What you've got to remember, though, is that how people in two hundred years remember Hitler is not the way that we remember Hitler. I mean, my grandfather was in his teens for much of WWII... and there are lots of people whose grandparents were participants or victims of WWII... we are still very much talking about post-War generations.

In two hundred years people will remember WWII and Hitler much more through what historians have to say (although, obviously, ingrained cultural ideas are ingrained cultural ideas and these tend to last a long time). The historical opinion will be more influential.

I mean Macedon kind of shattered after Alexander the Great's death but people still remember him as a nation builder, as opposed to a fragmented civil war strained power vacuum builder.

Alexander is remembered as a general and an Empire builder... that's not the same as a nation builder.

[Risottia]

That's just because the Romans were more orderly than the Germans. Do you remember the Romans queuing for the public urinals, and how the Athenians looked at them?

Caligula may have been a dangerously unhinged murdering egomaniac with an unhealthy interest in his sisters, but at least the circuses ran on time!

What has Caligula ever done for us?

[L Ron Cupboard]

Chairman Joe Hitler, and his evil pet panda Mao Pot, will be used in tales to frighten children into behaving.

[Naushantiya]

Hitler was a remarkable man, now despite the popular opinion in the west he made some truly remarkable. I believe Hitler's greatest contribution was weakning the British, French and forces that held colonial holdings. Al tough, Germany lost the war, it's war made countries like British weaker. After WW2, Britain was broke thus it could no longer hold on to its vast empire. Leading to the decolonization of the world

[Luziyca]

It's unlikely that it will change all that much. He may have some good things mentioned (like first anti-smoking program and how he killed Hitler), but his sins greatly outweigh his good.

[The Sotoan Union]

and Genghis Khan brought peace and prosperity, he unified the peoples who lived in felt tents, introduced laws, enforced equality and changed the heavens themselves.

"Peace and prosperity."

[The Sotoan Union]

So basically this is an attempt at creating an unbiased view of their history or did I miss the point?

I still don't get it. Maybe I am not exactly sure at how this helps or I am the product of a different school of thought. I mean, acknowledging the past is not bad. Recognizing that something as tragic as the Holocaust happened is necessary. It doesn't mean your country is to blame about it right now. Dark passages in our histories need to be acknowledge, spoken of.

I've looked over the notes I made, and it appears I was actually confusing two separate points. The not wanting to burden her children with the knowledge and the subsequent understanding of humanity that implies actually was the point (my apologies Italios).

In this case I don't really sympathise with the viewpoint either for largely the same reasons you give but also because I generally disagree with ignorance is bliss... it generally does more damage in the long term (ignorance/blissful unawareness) that any short-term positivity just isn't worth it.

However, to defend why I am sympathetic to my confusion of two separate points. It's a form of anachronism. You just can't escape the knowledge that you have about where what you're studying ends up or what it ends up being, and this will inform your characterisation of the past to some extent that you just will never be able to acknowledge. That's problematic if you're writing history because as a historian you probably should be aiming, first and foremost, to generate an accurate characterisation of why and how the past you're looking at happened.

In a general sense, though, I would still disagree with this notion because not knowing about things like the Holocaust is bad, but it's not as simplistic an idea to reject it in the same manner as I would with the burden of knowing (largely because I see it as the burden of not knowing*).

*Perhaps not the best phrasing. That is, imagine you're some administrator in a particular context favourable to some negative outcome which you then learn is actually a negative outcome that people are experiencing/is happening. That's a burden knowing.

Dude, you talk to someone who was born in a rain forrest, they want air conditioning and a cool place to sleep.

It's a reference to a discussion over whether taking the blue pill (i.e. staying in the matrix) is a better idea. Is an isolated tribe/group/society in the Amazon better off knowing that everyone else's actions mean that their very existence is precarious or not?

It can, but doesn't exactly apply to every single person with minor/no impact on history. Say, Elliot Rodgers. We know what he did and there are multiple photos and news articles on the guy. We probably wouldn't know anyone who committed such a crime in the 2nd century AD, at least not more than a sentence or two on the person, unless the action had a bigger impact on a current event at the time, or if the person was notable for other reasons unrelated to it.

That's still someone who has done something, though. It's not a good something or, more to the point, a big something, but it's still a something.

I think, in general, historians in two hundred years will be fundamentally the same as historians now. That is, they want to know as much as possible. And I think they're still going to be largely frustrated by an inability to gain much insight into the people who don't "do" anything. It'd be easier to construct this than it is for us looking back at, say, 18th Century consumers (where we might, for sake of argument, use pottery to try and figure out if we talk about a distinct male and female consumer culture*) but it'd still be largely indirect.

Rodgers is actually an interesting case because, if I am remembering the details properly, that particular incident got heavily embroiled in the old internet feminists versus internet MRAs (not that you really need to specify that an online phenomenon is an online phenomenon) and this was reflected in at least some of the articles about Rodgers. But because this is still tied to a specific, if small (in the historical scheme of things**), thing you get a different looking context to what we see it as and, therefore, you'd draw a different conclusion.

*This is the sort of enquiry I imagine would happened. I know people study pottery from that era and I also know people are interested in that question (the text I read used probate inventories).

**Imagine a plane. If we put an object of significant mass in the plane it distorts the plane. Imagine that this is a metaphor for history.

In schools? Eh.
Only if they bare contemporary relevance to understanding why things are currently a bit fucked.

No.

History should be examined for its own sake. You're politicising things before you've even begun your analysis. This is particularly relevant if we want to talk about the Holocaust. Honestly, it's in some ways more depressing to read the likes of Steven T. Katz and Ward Churchill argue over what is and isn't a genocide (sorry, why the Holocaust is unique) than it is to read about the Holocaust.

Selection of topics in a school syllabus, for detailed treatment, should be linked with ideas like examining cause and effect, interest and academic appropriateness. For a knowledge of history the politicisation doesn't matter so much so selection on that basis is fine and, perhaps, better. (Knowledge of history is basically a quick causes, event, consequences treatment.)

He was a really, really smart man and excellent at manipulating people to his point of view, however he made a massive mistake my pursuing Anti-Semitic policies. He could've just deported them instead of kill them. Point is, he will always be remembered as a murderer and a maniac.

He didn't make a mistake in pursuing anti-Semitic policies. That would imply that Hitler's worldview was somehow divorced from his ideas about Jews. That would be a very wrong implication. It is also wrong to suggest that Hitler's variety of anti-Semitism was a strictly anti-Jew thing, Hitlerian anti-Semitism is both anti-Jew and pro-German (with what German means being related to his views on Jews).

Also, I'm not sure smart is quite the right word. Hitler had a lot of political intelligence; and even during the full-swing of the Holocaust political strategy actually affected Judenpolitik (see: Mischlinge and privileged marriages).

The Nazis did deport or force people to flee. They then conquered the countries they deported people to, who also had large Jewish populations. The Final Solution was the inevitable result of Nazis expansionism and racialism.

Massuming murder wasn't an unfortunate side effect of Nazism, it was the whole point. Drang noch osten was based entirely on the conquest of "living space" in the east, and the extermination of their inhabitants to make way for German colonists.

It's not quite that simple. The Nazis really were satisfied with getting Jews out of the country prior to the War. Definitely by 1941, though, any ideas of deportation were intended to be, in the long term, lethal (and during 1941 these evolved into implementing a final solution that would be lethal in the short term) and very probably before that (maybe even from the very early days of the War).

Of course, Nazi ideas of Jewish emigration, even though they weren't always intended to be lethal, were always genocidal in nature.

If WWIII ever happens, Hitler will be nothing but a ant.

WWI and WWII are quite different.

WWI ... no one's quite sure who the baddies are. I mean, probably the Germans, but we're not sure, eh?

WWII ... Hitler's the baddie.

It depends, in this view, on how such a war were to start (and, of course, on the character of the war).

To historians his military policies will be remembered as failures. But popular opinions of history aren't always accurate. A lot of people a hundred years from now might just see the borders of Nazi Germany and assume he was responsible. If they don't really study history they might never see a reason to change their opinion.

I mean a lot of people nowadays still think he pulled an economic miracle in the 1930s.

What you've got to remember, though, is that how people in two hundred years remember Hitler is not the way that we remember Hitler. I mean, my grandfather was in his teens for much of WWII... and there are lots of people whose grandparents were participants or victims of WWII... we are still very much talking about post-War generations.

In two hundred years people will remember WWII and Hitler much more through what historians have to say (although, obviously, ingrained cultural ideas are ingrained cultural ideas and these tend to last a long time). The historical opinion will be more influential.

I mean Macedon kind of shattered after Alexander the Great's death but people still remember him as a nation builder, as opposed to a fragmented civil war strained power vacuum builder.

Alexander is remembered as a general and an Empire builder... that's not the same as a nation builder.

Yes the historical opinion will always definitely be more influential. People always remember Robespierre as a complicated figure and not as a bloody tyrant. They also remember that the Native Americans had complicated societies of their own and weren't just hunter-gatherers that were "in tune with nature".

Also I know there's a difference between an empire back then and a modern nation-state, but that point was mostly semantics.

[Forsher]

Yes the historical opinion will always definitely be more influential. People always remember Robespierre as a complicated figure and not as a bloody tyrant. They also remember that the Native Americans had complicated societies of their own and weren't just hunter-gatherers that were "in tune with nature".

I smell misplaced sarcasm... "ingrained cultural ideas are ingrained cultural ideas"...

Also I know there's a difference between an empire back then and a modern nation-state, but that point was mostly semantics.

Maybe.

The thing with nation building, say, for instance 19th Century German nationalism is that you're incorporating everything into something that you see as one. That's what "nation" suggests (like a home vs a house in some ways), and therefore "nation building". Empire, though, can be distinguished in that the word implies a separation... the British Empire was Britain + possessions (which were on a continuum from places like New Zealand to places like Kenya*) not one huge Britain. There's a fundamental gulf between the two which has little to do with the difference between a modern nation-state versus a state.

Alexander is very much seen in the latter sense (perhaps there is room to argue that if you study him at school the impression you'd likely get is one that may well extend towards the former) which is interdependent with his status as a military mastermind (although, really, he gambled and won at times) but the fact he conquered an empire is not the most important part of that impression.

It is semantics in that "empire builder" still suggests an empire is built rather than "to the strongest" and disagreement over that point, but it's not semantics insofar as his reputation as an empire builder is, in some ways, really just an alternative point of view of the military leadership.

*As the term Mutiny suggests, India's relationship's a bit more complex and possibly doesn't fit on this continuum. It was treated like Kenya but it probably had a more emotional connection that was different to and, probably, more conscious than that between the likes of NZ (which, in all honesty, probably more go back to Britain than vice versa). That's why I didn't use India as an example when it is my "go to" bank colony example.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

So basically this is an attempt at creating an unbiased view of their history or did I miss the point?

I still don't get it. Maybe I am not exactly sure at how this helps or I am the product of a different school of thought. I mean, acknowledging the past is not bad. Recognizing that something as tragic as the Holocaust happened is necessary. It doesn't mean your country is to blame about it right now. Dark passages in our histories need to be acknowledge, spoken of.

I've looked over the notes I made, and it appears I was actually confusing two separate points. The not wanting to burden her children with the knowledge and the subsequent understanding of humanity that implies actually was the point (my apologies Italios).

In this case I don't really sympathise with the viewpoint either for largely the same reasons you give but also because I generally disagree with ignorance is bliss... it generally does more damage in the long term (ignorance/blissful unawareness) that any short-term positivity just isn't worth it.

However, to defend why I am sympathetic to my confusion of two separate points. It's a form of anachronism. You just can't escape the knowledge that you have about where what you're studying ends up or what it ends up being, and this will inform your characterisation of the past to some extent that you just will never be able to acknowledge. That's problematic if you're writing history because as a historian you probably should be aiming, first and foremost, to generate an accurate characterisation of why and how the past you're looking at happened.

In a general sense, though, I would still disagree with this notion because not knowing about things like the Holocaust is bad, but it's not as simplistic an idea to reject it in the same manner as I would with the burden of knowing (largely because I see it as the burden of not knowing*).

*Perhaps not the best phrasing. That is, imagine you're some administrator in a particular context favourable to some negative outcome which you then learn is actually a negative outcome that people are experiencing/is happening. That's a burden knowing.

Ok, that explains things way better.

[New confederate ramenia]

Hitler was a remarkable man, now despite the popular opinion in the west he made some truly remarkable. I believe Hitler's greatest contribution was weakning the British, French and forces that held colonial holdings. Al tough, Germany lost the war, it's war made countries like British weaker. After WW2, Britain was broke thus it could no longer hold on to its vast empire. Leading to the decolonization of the world

Terrible, but great.

[Iwassoclose]

Tell me, am I wrong in saying that Genghis made a proclamation that every country would be under his rule and if they decline they would be considered as a traitor and be treated as such.

Yes, you are wrong.

Geopolitical situations...you mean that Genghis got himself an army and went raiding and conquest?

"Got himself an army"

Jesus Christ

Tell me which other group before Genghis killed off double digit percentage of humanity.

15 million over 20 years > 10% of 350 million?

News to me.

Bukhara.

You mean the city in which even the most anti-Mongol of historians admit that he didn't butcher, and in which he fought a long siege against defenders in the citadel who didn't surrender?

Samarkland.

This the same city Juvaini said Genghis Khan didn't disturb the inhabitants of in any way?

Urgench.

This the same city that took six months to subdue?

Yinchaun/Western Xia.

lol

Edit; this is just a few.

Okay. One example. Now tell me how he conquerors Asia and the middle east twiddling his thumbs. You dont get a body count of 10-40million people not being aggressive.

It's very easy to build a large body count by responding with force when attacked.

Tanguts, one of the first group of people he conquered. His reasoning for their destruction, cause they didnt come when I told them to. Such reasonableness lol

His reason for deposing the nobility he had previously left in power was because they, as a vassal state, refused to send troops when Genghis Khan entered into a war against the aforementioned envoy slaughterers.

Try being a colonel in the US Army and refusing to send troops to Afghanistan. See how far that gets you.

Your response is just cringeworthy. You are not addressing any of my points except making half assed attempts at justifying his actions of his atrocities.

I know people like Genghis because he was a conqueror and so on but to actually meet someone who believes that he was a pacifist and non confrontational is like a whole new level.

[Naushantiya]

Hitler was a remarkable man, now despite the popular opinion in the west he made some truly remarkable. I believe Hitler's greatest contribution was weakning the British, French and forces that held colonial holdings. Al tough, Germany lost the war, it's war made countries like British weaker. After WW2, Britain was broke thus it could no longer hold on to its vast empire. Leading to the decolonization of the world

Terrible, but great.

Hitler was indeed a terrible man and he killed many people in his conquest but he saved a same amount of people, who would be killed by the British had the empire not fallen

[Cetacea]

Your response is just cringeworthy. You are not addressing any of my points except making half assed attempts at justifying his actions of his atrocities.

I know people like Genghis because he was a conqueror and so on but to actually meet someone who believes that he was a pacifist and non confrontational is like a whole new level.

Oh please! Conserative Morality showed you that your beliefs were wrong, if anything is halfassed its your response.

And noone said the Great Khan was a pacifist, he was an effective and ruthless military leader but his actions were appropriate to the times and circumstances he lived in and were certainly more enlightened and reasonable than many others of that time period.

Furthermore Genghis Khan was motivated by a desire for peace and unity, at least amongst those who dwelt in felt tents which was achieved by diplmacy as much as coercion. His attacks on the Xia and Jin were justified by the long history of interference, trade disruption, raids and slavetaking, whereas Khwarezm was due to killing of Mongol envoys. Indeed the message that was sent to Khwarezm shah read, "I am master of the lands of the rising sun, while you rule those of the setting sun. Let us conclude a treaty of friendship and peace."

When finally the Mongol Empire was in place the laws and courier routes established along the silk road facilitated peaceful trade and stability for a century afterward and it was said that "a maiden bearing a nugget of gold on her head could wander safely throughout the realm."

Genghis Khan was certainly not daisies and love hearts but he was certainly not a monstrous facist tyrant either

[Rio Cana]

Your response is just cringeworthy. You are not addressing any of my points except making half assed attempts at justifying his actions of his atrocities.

I know people like Genghis because he was a conqueror and so on but to actually meet someone who believes that he was a pacifist and non confrontational is like a whole new level.

Oh please! Conserative Morality showed you that your beliefs were wrong, if anything is halfassed its your response.

And noone said the Great Khan was a pacifist, he was an effective and ruthless military leader but his actions were appropriate to the times and circumstances he lived in and were certainly more enlightened and reasonable than many others of that time period.

Furthermore Genghis Khan was motivated by a desire for peace and unity, at least amongst those who dwelt in felt tents which was achieved by diplmacy as much as coercion. His attacks on the Xia and Jin were justified by the long history of interference, trade disruption, raids and slavetaking, whereas Khwarezm was due to killing of Mongol envoys. Indeed the message that was sent to Khwarezm shah read, "I am master of the lands of the rising sun, while you rule those of the setting sun. Let us conclude a treaty of friendship and peace."

When finally the Mongol Empire was in place the laws and courier routes established along the silk road facilitated peaceful trade and stability for a century afterward and it was said that "a maiden bearing a nugget of gold on her head could wander safely throughout the realm."

Genghis Khan was certainly not daisies and love hearts but he was certainly not a monstrous facist tyrant either

Concerning the blue part above, in the US Wild West the same could be said if you included a few things like -
Watch the first 2 1/2 minutes for the answer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBWRdI14BME

[Vissegaard]

Your response is just cringeworthy. You are not addressing any of my points except making half assed attempts at justifying his actions of his atrocities.

I know people like Genghis because he was a conqueror and so on but to actually meet someone who believes that he was a pacifist and non confrontational is like a whole new level.

Oh please! Conserative Morality showed you that your beliefs were wrong, if anything is halfassed its your response.

And noone said the Great Khan was a pacifist, he was an effective and ruthless military leader but his actions were appropriate to the times and circumstances he lived in and were certainly more enlightened and reasonable than many others of that time period.

Furthermore Genghis Khan was motivated by a desire for peace and unity, at least amongst those who dwelt in felt tents which was achieved by diplmacy as much as coercion. His attacks on the Xia and Jin were justified by the long history of interference, trade disruption, raids and slavetaking, whereas Khwarezm was due to killing of Mongol envoys. Indeed the message that was sent to Khwarezm shah read, "I am master of the lands of the rising sun, while you rule those of the setting sun. Let us conclude a treaty of friendship and peace."

When finally the Mongol Empire was in place the laws and courier routes established along the silk road facilitated peaceful trade and stability for a century afterward and it was said that "a maiden bearing a nugget of gold on her head could wander safely throughout the realm."

Genghis Khan was certainly not daisies and love hearts but he was certainly not a monstrous facist tyrant either

[The Sotoan Union]

Yes the historical opinion will always definitely be more influential. People always remember Robespierre as a complicated figure and not as a bloody tyrant. They also remember that the Native Americans had complicated societies of their own and weren't just hunter-gatherers that were "in tune with nature".

I smell misplaced sarcasm... "ingrained cultural ideas are ingrained cultural ideas"...

Also I know there's a difference between an empire back then and a modern nation-state, but that point was mostly semantics.

Maybe.

The thing with nation building, say, for instance 19th Century German nationalism is that you're incorporating everything into something that you see as one. That's what "nation" suggests (like a home vs a house in some ways), and therefore "nation building". Empire, though, can be distinguished in that the word implies a separation... the British Empire was Britain + possessions (which were on a continuum from places like New Zealand to places like Kenya*) not one huge Britain. There's a fundamental gulf between the two which has little to do with the difference between a modern nation-state versus a state.

Alexander is very much seen in the latter sense (perhaps there is room to argue that if you study him at school the impression you'd likely get is one that may well extend towards the former) which is interdependent with his status as a military mastermind (although, really, he gambled and won at times) but the fact he conquered an empire is not the most important part of that impression.

It is semantics in that "empire builder" still suggests an empire is built rather than "to the strongest" and disagreement over that point, but it's not semantics insofar as his reputation as an empire builder is, in some ways, really just an alternative point of view of the military leadership.

*As the term Mutiny suggests, India's relationship's a bit more complex and possibly doesn't fit on this continuum. It was treated like Kenya but it probably had a more emotional connection that was different to and, probably, more conscious than that between the likes of NZ (which, in all honesty, probably more go back to Britain than vice versa). That's why I didn't use India as an example when it is my "go to" bank colony example.

1) ?

2) Valid points.