Alexander & Hitler

I was reading an article comparing Alexander the Great to Adolf Hitler the other day. I think it was deliberately a controversial juxtaposition, but it made me think.

I, like most people I suppose, regard Hitler as failed human being, a perpetrator of unthinkable evil, and a monster.

I regard Alexander as the greatest general who ever lived. I am aware that he committed what I would think of as war crimes against civilian populations at times, that he committed acts of personal murder, and that he was a conqueror and aggressor in war.

But I judge Alexander by the context of his time. In a time of conquest and constant war, he was simply better at it than anyone else around. Is it fair to judge him this way?

Or is a killing a killing?

Is killing civilians an equal moral crime whether it is the sacking of a Persian city or the wholesale destruction of people in has ovens on the basis of religion or ethnicity?

_

I cannot equate Alexander and Hitler (and in the end of the article I was reading, nor could the writer)... but it made me think that a lot of the historical people I admire (William of Normandy, Alexander, Hernan Cortes) to put it lightly, are men who had blood on their hands. Can the context (Cortes brought death to the Aztecs, but some degree of increased freedom to the subjected tribes, William DID have a legitimate claim to the throne of England and Harold WAS a usurper) and the accepted morality of their time mitigate it?

 

I think we would be remiss to not note that most everyone filed under admirable is someone who never fought on the wrong side of/lost a war in your direct cultural antecedents. Is there any doubt that if the South had won the American Civil War, Americans would be singing the praises of Jefferson Davis rather than Abraham Lincoln?

Basically, nobody likes a loser.

 

Josef Stalin was a winner. At a terrible cost, but the Soviet Union was really the force upon which the Nazi's broke themselves, yet the West remember his as a monster (although in Russia I think he is viewed with some degree more of ambiguity)

 

Also, the dead don't write history books.

 

The big difference between Hitler and all the other leaders who have been labeled mass murderers is scale and method. Hitler is unique in that his method of purging was industrial in scale and execution. His ethos resulted in a (dis)assembly line of death. Nobody else has ever, nor in my opinion ever will, accomplish this again.

 

To a certain extent, Hitler was the product of the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles. The onerous war repayment requirements were such that Germany's devastated economy couldn't even make the interest payments, let alone ever get out from under the the debt. The other harsh terms restricting the military, and the loss of traditional German lands (at least in their minds) cultivated a sense of outrage and persecution among the German population. Yes, the GERMANS thought they were persecuted as a people. It wasn't that hard for them to see the treatment they imposed on Jews, Gypsies, the handicapped, and other groups they didn't like as just being the same as was imposed on them from outside. This is not an excuse, nor a justification; just an explanation of how Hitler could find fertile ground for his hatred and bigotry.

Had Germany been treated more like Japan in the Instrument of Surrender in World War II and later the Treaty of San Francisco, it's unlikely that he could have as easily risen to power, although the point is moot.

Alexander's "atrocities" were far less horrific in terms of the standards of the day. Warfare was far more personal, hand-to-hand, without weapons of mass destruction, so the killing of an unarmed civilian was easier to see as simply removing a potential enemy conscript, and ensuring that as you went past, there was no potential army to rise up behind you.

For sheer brutality, I think historically, Genghis Khan's sacking and decimation of Samarkand would be hard to top. But few would argue that he wasn't one of, if not the greatest, conqueror of all time. History is written by the winners, and Alexander and Khan won. Hitler didn't.

 

To a certain extent, Hitler was the product of the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles. The onerous war repayment requirements were such that Germany's devastated economy couldn't even make the interest payments, let alone ever get out from under the the debt. The other harsh terms restricting the military, and the loss of traditional German lands (at least in their minds) cultivated a sense of outrage and persecution among the German population. Yes, the GERMANS thought they were persecuted as a people. It wasn't that hard for them to see the treatment they imposed on Jews, Gypsies, the handicapped, and other groups they didn't like as just being the same as was imposed on them from outside. This is not an excuse, nor a justification; just an explanation of how Hitler could find fertile ground for his hatred and bigotry.

Had Germany been treated more like Japan in the Instrument of Surrender in World War II and later the Treaty of San Francisco, it's unlikely that he could have as easily risen to power, although the point is moot.

Alexander's "atrocities" were far less horrific in terms of the standards of the day. Warfare was far more personal, hand-to-hand, without weapons of mass destruction, so the killing of an unarmed civilian was easier to see as simply removing a potential enemy conscript, and ensuring that as you went past, there was no potential army to rise up behind you.

For sheer brutality, I think historically, Genghis Khan's sacking and decimation of Samarkand would be hard to top. But few would argue that he wasn't one of, if not the greatest, conqueror of all time. History is written by the winners, and Alexander and Khan won. Hitler didn't.

 

Maybe its just because I don't know as much about Genghis Khan, but I never viewed him as anything other than a Warlord and butcher.

People like William and Alexander has a basis for what they did (maybe not a justified one, but a basis none the less), I have never seen that Genghis Khan was motivated by anything but plunder and violence. I would be more inclined to connect the Mongol massacres to those of Pol Pot or Hitler than other "conquerors"

 

Strange - if you like a well written, readable and informative book then look up "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World". You get a more rounded picture of one of the real genius leaders of history. He is in a league of his own. Maybe he could share some of the accomplishment level with Julius Caesar. Not sure off hand who else that I've heard of that had that particular combination of personal ambition and true positive uplift of the general populace interest, coupled with administrative gifts and pure ruthlessness.

IMHO the rest of the crew who's names have come up in this thread were lacking in one respect or another when it comes to a balanced accomplishment of their goals. Hitler was less a failed human being than a gifted charismatic with a deeply flawed ideology. I'm sure that if his crew had managed to hang on in Europe, and eventually write their own winner's history, there would have been a cleaning up/reappraisal of him the same way Joseph Stalin has been reassessed in the former USSR. They both were freakishly paranoid, calculatingly murderous sociopaths who were directly responsible for the deaths of millions of their own people in order to fulfill their agendas. Mao is in there with them. Shaka. Leopold of Belgium. Alexander was driven by personal ambition and had absolutely no long-term agenda other than being a hero on the scale of those he revered in Homer's epic poems. True, Genghis Khan took the populace of whole cities and drove them before his armies to act as living human landfill in moats around cities he planned to attack. Indeed he stated that he never doubted for a moment any of his actions, and never regretted any of his deeds. But he did have an enlightened master plan to increase the general well-being of the population when his military goals were reached, and he did surprisingly well when it came to fulfilling those goals. Alexander's empire fell apart upon his death (a wonderful fictionalized telling of his life and death is found in books by Mary Renault, a brilliant historical novelist - notable Funeral Games). Contrast that to the fact that there were elements of the Golden Horde extent for a thousand years after the death of Genghis.

Strange you mention William and Harold. I admit I have a romantic streak that wishes Harold hadn't been whipsawed by Tostig and Harold Hardrada. He probably could have kicked William's ass at Hastings if he hadn't fought a hard battle against Hardrada and then had to make a forced march to meet William. I also bet there was something smoky about that oath William declared he swore and then broke. I truly believe that was a Big Lie along the lines of Weapons of Mass Destruction that led to the USA going into Iraq for the second time. True William was also a gifted and highly ambitious man. I admit I hate the way he steamrolled the locals after crushing Harold at Hastings. But in his defence he was an invader who had to solidify his rule. Sort of the way the Spaniards ground down the people of Central and South America in the 15 and 16 hundreds. Nasty stuff, that.

On a side note. Yes, the Spaniards turned the New World into a horror show. But how much worse could things have been if the Aztecs and Mayans had held the Spaniards off, and even travelled back east across the ocean to take names and kick ass in Europe? Those old school American Indians wanted regular humiliating, horrific blood sacrifices just to keep the sun coming up in the morning. Strong enemies made better sacrifices. They would have gleefully slaughtered their way right through to China given the chance. There's an alternative reality to give me the shivers! Look at what the drug gangs are doing right now South of the Border. And the locals in those areas believe in burning people alive, or burying them alive, as forms of just punishment instead of going through the official court system. That is the culture that Spaniards such as Cortez and Pizarro first subjugated.

 

Khan set up the greatest empire in history (in terms of sheer area), and one of the most civilised ever in terms of consistency of treatment of the populace. True, there was slavery, and other inhumanities that were normal for the period, but his government bureaucracy rivalled today's in it's complexity, and far outstripped today's in it's efficiency. For the time, it was an absolute marvel that he could keep something that vast together.

Khan was an incredible military leader, but far from paranoid. He gathered some of the greatest military minds in world around him (including my personal favourite, Subotai), and gave them surprising independence of action without fear. He instilled a loyalty in his close companions that Hitler would have envied. Brutal, yes; relentless, yes; fair, definitely; but all by the standards of the day. If someone did today what he did then, they would indeed be placed in the Hitler/Pol Pot class. His greatest atrocity was the decimation of the towns that opposed his march on Samarkand, but the caliph had committed the absolute worst insult possible to a fellow ruler... killing an ambassador and cutting of the beard of 2 others (even beyond the Middle Ages, abusing a man's beard was considered a heinous crime).

And to show the extremity of the brutality of Khan's response, despite what even my college history prof thought, decimation does NOT mean killing one in ten... it means killing 9 in 10, reducing the population to one-tenth of what it was. He only had to do it once; sort of like dropping an atomic bomb. And Khan didn't decimate a second city. Atrocity is in the eye of the winners, I guess.

 

In terms of Hastings... Harald didn't have to rush headlong into William's trap, and may people apparently counseled him not to. Even if he had waiting one more day for reinforcements it could have made the difference. Or he could have withdrawn to London and known that William could never have taken it. Every day he stayed without settling the matter made William weaker and Harald stronger.

But William goaded him into rash action through committed atrocities against the civilian population, through his public taunting.

Its one of the things that is frighteningly modern about him (the other being how much he understood the power of information - Doomsday and all that). Even his enemies accepted he was a devoutly religious man, but in order to win he was prepared to set his solider's loose on a campaign of rape and pillage. He was capable of actions that he himself found morally disgusting in order to win, and he did them somehow with a clean conscience.

Much earlier than you would think possible, he seemed to understand that the ends always justify the means (and I dont necessarily believe it myself, but William certainly would have dropped the atomic bombs on an already beaten Japan too)

_

And I kind of agree with Kramus about Cortes. The Aztecs were not much better than him, and were hated by all of the other nearby tribes. I think Pizarro was just a gangster and I dont think any more of him than I do Al Capone or Carlo Gambino, but Cortes really did believe in a higher purpose of what he did. I saw a documentary once where they described him as "capable of looking death in the eye without flinching"... I dont know if its the sort of characteristic that would make someone a likeable guy to have a beer with, but I admire him in a way.

 

I had a conversation once with an individual who stated that he had great respect and admiration for the likes of Sadaam Hussein and Hitler. I will be honest at the time I was left so speechless I was unable to continue the conversation. I had to ponder it for a few days and even contemplated cutting off my relationship with this particular individual as I was troubled that his values were completely conflicted with mine.

Some days later I reopened the conversation as I just felt I had to get the the bare bones of the matter. I learned that the respect and admiration was due to the great charisma that the two had shown. Giving it some thought, I can't disagree with it but morally it is impossible to wrap my head around using the words respect or admire upon such infamous characters.

 

Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler are pretty different.

You could argue Hussein was a "strong man" (the US certainly did when he was fighting Iran and the west was arming him to drop nerve gas on Kurdish rebels)

To me Hitler does stand unique in terms of the scale of deliberate murder of civilians.

Yes, Hussein used the instruments of a police state. So did Franco, so did Pinnochet, and others we still call friends.

Saddam was a crook who used violence to keep the peace and rob his people. He did not build anything like Auschwitz, and more Iraqi civilians died of violence in the civil war that followed his death than in the years of his mis-rule.

_

And to be clear I am not in any way stating that I support men like Pinnochet and Hussein. But they are not Hitler's.

_

And I don't consider Cortes charismatic at all. It was simply his toughness I admired. I kind of look at him the same was as you can speak of the Romans in classical times. The reason they won was that they did not understand defeat. Both of them (Rome frequently) suffered losses that any contemporary would have considered a defeat and would have crawled away from. But men like Cortes attacked relentlessly until all opposition was crushed, no matter what the cost / which is how I think of the Roman empire in its prime also.