Is Doombreed Hitler?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**GoDz BuZzSaW**

purplefood wrote:Nah Mat is totally the Changeling...
"We are in your base re-writing your background"

True Dat

**Asherian Command**

purplefood wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
purplefood wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
purplefood wrote:Okay now he is definately one of the top if not THE top mass murderers in history...
That said... the Black Plague could be said to have spurred medical advances that otherwise would not have happened.

Hitler did too. He caused a huge leap in technology every single mass murderer has caused some type of technological advance.
JAck the ripper, political advance by sending everyone to australia for fun!

Genghis beats hitler any day.

Conflict brings advances. It's human nature...
The body count isn't as necessary... though it does speed up the process.
If Hitler hadn't started WWII then i doubt we would have advanced as far as we have now...

Yeah hitler, but he is not Doombreed. or DoomBread.

Actually it's DOOMBREAD!
Hitler probably isn't Doombreed no...
Khan seems like a good bet for it...

How about Judas?
has anyone considered the master of betrayal?
Judas?

Matt WArd is a changeling

**purplefood**

Asherian Command wrote:
purplefood wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
purplefood wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
purplefood wrote:Okay now he is definately one of the top if not THE top mass murderers in history...
That said... the Black Plague could be said to have spurred medical advances that otherwise would not have happened.

Hitler did too. He caused a huge leap in technology every single mass murderer has caused some type of technological advance.
JAck the ripper, political advance by sending everyone to australia for fun!

Genghis beats hitler any day.

Conflict brings advances. It's human nature...
The body count isn't as necessary... though it does speed up the process.
If Hitler hadn't started WWII then i doubt we would have advanced as far as we have now...

Yeah hitler, but he is not Doombreed. or DoomBread.

Actually it's DOOMBREAD!
Hitler probably isn't Doombreed no...
Khan seems like a good bet for it...

How about Judas?
has anyone considered the master of betrayal?
Judas?

Matt WArd is a changeling

I doubt it...
Judas tipped off the Romans for money...
The man has no honour and got others to do his work. Definately not Khorne material...
Also he isn't a warlord and didn't even try to commit genocide... though Christianity has had a good try over the ages...

**4M2A**

purplefood wrote:
Nah Mat is totally the Changeling...
"We are in your base re-writing your background"

**Platuan4th**

purplefood wrote:
I doubt it...
Judas tipped off the Romans for money...
The man has no honour and got others to do his work. Definately not Khorne material...
Also he isn't a warlord and didn't even try to commit genocide... though Christianity has had a good try over the ages...

Actually, he tipped off the PRIESTS and was rewarded with money(he didn't ask for payment), not the Romans. As well, he did it not as a betrayal, but to save his homeland(Jesus' followers were pushing for rebellion, which would have destroyed the region as seen when the Hebrews DID rebel). And if you're a Christian, he was also carrying out his ordained part in the death of Jesus.

So in truth, NOT going to the priests would have been a betrayal, by not doing what he was supposed to.

Only if you restrict yourself to the books chosen for the Bible do you get the story as Judas was a traitor to Jesus because MONEY.

**Tyranic Marta**

Its still not Khorny......

**cadbren**

Vulpes89 wrote:Well i looked it up on the lexicanum and it said he commited a genocide on a wide scale.

i think that re-enforces the Hitler idea a little more.

Not really, the mongols under Genghis killed a greater percentage of the earth's population than the nazis. Julius Caesar committed genocide against the Gauls, Tamerlane wiped out the Avars amongst others, the Turks carried out two genocides against the Armenians and at least one against the Greeks. History is full of genocides and mass murders, we only hear about Hitler these days - Stalin killed more for instance.
Since then there have been genocides in Serbia, Bosnia, Congo, Zaire, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Sudan (that I can think of) and there will be more in the future. So take your pick, there are plenty of warlords, dictators, religious leaders to choose from.

**Tyranic Marta**

GENGIS!!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry just had to put it out there

always been a fan of da mongols and Parthian tactics

**Emperors Faithful**

Platuan4th wrote:
purplefood wrote:
I doubt it...
Judas tipped off the Romans for money...
The man has no honour and got others to do his work. Definately not Khorne material...
Also he isn't a warlord and didn't even try to commit genocide... though Christianity has had a good try over the ages...

Actually, he tipped off the PRIESTS and was rewarded with money(he didn't ask for payment), not the Romans. As well, he did it not as a betrayal, but to save his homeland(Jesus' followers were pushing for rebellion, which would have destroyed the region as seen when the Hebrews DID rebel). And if you're a Christian, he was also carrying out his ordained part in the death of Jesus.

So in truth, NOT going to the priests would have been a betrayal, by not doing what he was supposed to.

Only if you restrict yourself to the books chosen for the Bible do you get the story as Judas was a traitor to Jesus because MONEY.

Which book does it say Judas betrayed Jesus to save his homeland?

cadbren wrote:
Vulpes89 wrote:Well i looked it up on the lexicanum and it said he commited a genocide on a wide scale.

i think that re-enforces the Hitler idea a little more.

Not really, the mongols under Genghis killed a greater percentage of the earth's population than the nazis. Julius Caesar committed genocide against the Gauls, Tamerlane wiped out the Avars amongst others, the Turks carried out two genocides against the Armenians and at least one against the Greeks. History is full of genocides and mass murders, we only hear about Hitler these days - Stalin killed more for instance.
Since then there have been genocides in Serbia, Bosnia, Congo, Zaire, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Sudan (that I can think of) and there will be more in the future. So take your pick, there are plenty of warlords, dictators, religious leaders to choose from.

Nazi Germany should still be viewed as unique though. They were the first, and fortunately so far the only, case of someone actually industrialising genocide.

**4M2A**

EF- The sytle the Nazis used may have something to do with the technology available to them. Most large scale genocides happened hundreds of years ago. Tracking, capturing and handling such large numbers of people just wouldn't have been possible. They would have had to use soldiers to track down each person. There haven't been any other way. The Nazis are the only modern group to try a large Genocide. Being a powerful country also makes a large difference. They had the control and influence to make the process possible.

If any of the other leaders had the ability to commit genocide like the Nazis they would have done. It wasn't a concious decision not be as effective as possible.

**hemingway**

Vlad Tepes!

**Emperors Faithful**

4M2A wrote:EF- The sytle the Nazis used may have something to do with the technology available to them. Most large scale genocides happened hundreds of years ago. Tracking, capturing and handling such large numbers of people just wouldn't have been possible. They would have had to use soldiers to track down each person. There haven't been any other way. The Nazis are the only modern group to try a large Genocide. Being a powerful country also makes a large difference. They had the control and influence to make the process possible.

This isn't true. There are plenty of modern cases of genocide in the previous century. That the Nazis committed genocide isn't unique. That they did it on a level never before imagined, using a systematic process that could have evntually actually have lead to the extermination of a whole people (other genocides tend to be harsh, yet not as well planned or executed) is what is unique.

If any of the other leaders had the ability to commit genocide like the Nazis they would have done. It wasn't a concious decision not be as effective as possible.

Not really. Other countries, especially at the time, fully had the means to commit the same act as the Nazis. But no-one, not the even the Russians or Japanese who did commit genocide during the war, had tried (let alone succeeded) in utilising such an extensive and effective method of doing so.

**4M2A**

I was talking about GK or some of the other more Crazy leaders. If Genghis had the ability to commit genocide like the Nazis he almost certainly would have done. While quite extreme (even in terms of genocidal groups) the Nazis weren't that special. There have been groups as obsessed with Genocide as the Nazis- they just haven't had the ability to so effectively exterminate people.

The Nazis were more effective than others but that is more down to being well planned and trying to be more effecient than having worse feeling towards the group they intended to destroy. Chaos is about the intention not just the act. The Nazis intentions weren't any worse than other people who committed Genocide they were just better at it.

**Emperors Faithful**

4M2A wrote:I was talking about GK or some of the other more Crazy leaders. If Genghis had the ability to commit genocide like the Nazis he almost certainly would have done. While quite extreme (even in terms of genocidal groups) the Nazis weren't that special. There have been groups as obsessed with Genocide as the Nazis- they just haven't had the ability to so effectively exterminate people.

I don't think Genghis Khan would have done so, unless it suited him somehow to systematically wipe out a particular ethnicity. His aim was conquest. The Nazi's aim was also conquest, but the genocide of the jews had little to do with that.

The Nazis were more effective than others but that is more down to being well planned and trying to be more effecient than having worse feeling towards the group they intended to destroy. Chaos is about the intention not just the act. The Nazis intentions weren't any worse than other people who committed Genocide they were just better at it.

I haven't said that Nazi Germany should be remembered becuase they were just more hostile to the Jews than than other genocidal powers. I said Nazi Germany was unique becuase they were so frightenly effective in exterminating thier hated race, far more so than any other genocidal power.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, thought you were talking about Grey Knights for a second. It's a little scary tht it's still applicable.

**the color purple**

4M2A wrote:I was talking about GK or some of the other more Crazy leaders. If Genghis had the ability to commit genocide like the Nazis he almost certainly would have done. While quite extreme (even in terms of genocidal groups) the Nazis weren't that special. There have been groups as obsessed with Genocide as the Nazis- they just haven't had the ability to so effectively exterminate people.

The Nazis were more effective than others but that is more down to being well planned and trying to be more effecient than having worse feeling towards the group they intended to destroy. Chaos is about the intention not just the act. The Nazis intentions weren't any worse than other people who committed Genocide they were just better at it.

You really shouldn't post about academic subjects unless you know what you're talking about. This applies to the whole thread really, popular history and totally false assumptions to the extreme.

**4M2A**

And you shouldn't assume no one knows what they are talking about.

**Emperors Faithful**

And you shouldn't assume that he's assuming that you're making assumptions.

..right?

**iproxtaco**

Well as far as I've read about and been taught about Genghis Khan, he didn't have the intention of wiping out a certain race. Whilst The Mongol Empire managed to conquer the largest single land mass empire yet seen, killing countless millions, they didn't discriminate against race or religion anywhere near as much as Hitler.

**4M2A**

They didn't try to wipe out civilian groups but they did go very far when it came to wiping out groups that opposed them.

**iproxtaco**

Yes of course, but it wasn't motivated, as far as I know, by a hatred of the race and more by the fact that they were The Mongols enemies.

**Raulmichile**

Moses is a good candidate.

Recent studies (Bible sotries apart) mark him as a great warlord, brilliant tactician and a genocide, exterminating whole settlements and even one of their own tribes. He ended being killed by his own people because of his ruthlesness. Very Khornate for me.

**scubasteve04**

iproxtaco wrote:Well as far as I've read about and been taught about Genghis Khan, he didn't have the intention of wiping out a certain race. Whilst The Mongol Empire managed to conquer the largest single land mass empire yet seen, killing countless millions, they didn't discriminate against race or religion anywhere near as much as Hitler.

How many Jews or Allies did Hitler kill by his own hand? Im pretty sure none. Hitler was a politician and a leader, but not a warrior. Khorne would have no interest in him. Tzeench would have more interest in hitler than Khorne.

Ghengis Khan was a great warrior, and a great bringer of violence. He is the perfect servant for Khorne.

**Henners91**

Hitler dinnae ride a horse or kill people himself. Genghis did. Genghis wins.

**Asherian Command**

Raulmichile wrote:Moses is a good candidate.

Recent studies (Bible sotries apart) mark him as a great warlord, brilliant tactician and a genocide, exterminating whole settlements and even one of their own tribes. He ended being killed by his own people because of his ruthlesness. Very Khornate for me.

WHAT? Noooo Moses died of old age.

**Devastator**

Asherian Command wrote:WHAT? Noooo Moses died of old age.

That is what THEY want you to think.

**Chowderhead**

Devastator wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:WHAT? Noooo Moses died of old age.

That is what THEY want you to think.

No, that's what happened.

The Gods became self aware around 1500-1550. Moses, our prophet, was born in the time of the Egyptians.

**Omegus**

"They" being Moses. Watch out, he's right behind you!

**King Pariah**

Brother Captain Andrecus wrote:
Varrick wrote: Seeing as as started above Khorne hates the weak, tricksters, schemers, and would never elevate a non warrior. Hitler was at best a courier or a runner or something; low combat doubt he ever killed someone.

HHitler was not a warrior, he WAS a trickster, a schemer, a politician and a coward. Khorne would never even give him the time of day.

Actually, what most people don't know about Hitler is that he WAS a warrior. He was a WWI veteran. He had amazingly good luck in the trenches. There was one time when he was eating lunch in a particular trench, and he heard a voice saying to him "get up and go over there". So he got up, left the trench, and not three minutes after he was gone, the trench was blasted apart by an artillery shell. I also remember reading that on the first day that his regiment, the List Regiment, were deployed at the front, Hitler was one of the few survivors of a bad shelling that blew apart most of his platoon.

Hitler was also a talented and effective soldier. He reveled in warfare and bloodshed. While other men in the trenches expressed a desire to return to their homes and families, Hitler absolutely loved the frontlines. He eventually became a message runner, which, contrary to what you appear to think, was an incredibly dangerous job. Hitler enjoyed putting himself in danger. He would ask other message runners to give him their messages so that he could deliver them, and they were more than happy to do it.

There are stories claiming that Hitler captured something like 17 prisoners all at once on one occasion, while in the process of running a message along the frontlines. He was a very good shot as well, and while I doubt he ever bothered to take a killcount, he certainly would have shed blood in defense of his trench. He was delighted by the bloodshed and violence all around him, and he was one of few German NCO's to receive an Iron Cross 1st Class (which some think he did not entirely deserve) as well as an Iron Cross 2nd Class. I think the 2nd Class Iron Cross was for rescuing a wounded officer caught in no-man's land (no mean feat) and the 1st Class Iron Cross was for delivering a very important message through dangerous terrain. (Which in and of itself would not entitle him to an Iron Cross. Maybe that was the same incident as the 17 prisoners thing, I'm not sure.)

Anyway. My point is that Hitler was actually a very good soldier. He was also violent, bloodthirsty, insanely charismatic and dangerous on a colossal scale. When he spoke in public, he would whip himself up into a mad frenzy. It's said that he would sometimes lose as much as five pounds a night by getting so animated during his speeches. To me, that sounds like someone driven violently mad by a love of warfare and bloodshed. So, would Khorne look down with pleasure on Hitler?

Maybe. After all, Hitler was regarded as a good soldier by his commanding officers. He was a schemer (though his propaganda ministers did a lot of the scheming for him...), but he slaughtered millions and soaked the fields of Europe with the blood of innocents. Sounds pretty Khornate to me.

Right when I was going to whip out all that info I see this ^

Thanks though.

**Omegus**

All that crap has been invalidated as propaganda. Someone already posted the appropriate links previously in this thread.

**cadbren**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Nazi Germany should still be viewed as unique though. They were the first, and fortunately so far the only, case of someone actually industrialising genocide.

The means may have been unique but that is all. The Mongols appear to have been some early form of extreme environmentalists. They viewed civilisation as a plague that was a blot on the landscape. As a result of their ignorance/point of view they wiped out millions for simply living in cities; they depopulated vast areas of asia.
The lighting campaign across the plains that wipes out all the little villages on the way is one form of genocide. Another is taking the food supply so that those who grew it have nothing left to eat because of politics or business; that happened in Ireland during the potato famine and in Russia and the Ukraine when the communists took over. Certainly the English had no problem with Ireland being depopulated as it saw the people as a threat, Ireland had 8 million people at the time, over a hundred years later and it still only has 4 million and is weaker politically because of that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chowderhead wrote:
Devastator wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:WHAT? Noooo Moses died of old age.

That is what THEY want you to think.

No, that's what happened.

The Gods became self aware around 1500-1550. Moses, our prophet, was born in the time of the Egyptians.

I think Moses still lives, he just changes his name from time to time, at one time he was known as Elvis Presley, true story.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Omegus wrote:All that crap has been invalidated as propaganda. Someone already posted the appropriate links previously in this thread.

People are going to play match up with what they know so as Hitler is the big bogey man in history class these days it's no surprise that people are going to think it has to be him as he's the only one they know about. I'd like to think that 40K fluff is a little less generic than that AND that it can go beyond what we currently know and have "history" from our future - ie stuff that happens between now and the Age of the Imperium.