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.

cadbren wrote:

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.

you do reliaize we are talking about the guy wiped out half the population of china right?

Why are you addressing this to me? I thought it obvious that I know what Temujin and his merry band of psychos did.

cadbren wrote:Why are you addressing this to me? I thought it obvious that I know what Temujin and his merry band of psychos did.

Yes, but you didn't really address my argument. You went off on your own tangent, where Ghengis was actually an enviromentalist.



Besides, Khorne is all about the blood flowing. I don't think Gas Chambers quite fit the rule.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

cadbren wrote:Why are you addressing this to me? I thought it obvious that I know what Temujin and his merry band of psychos did.

Yes, but you didn't really address my argument.

Your argument was that people being rounded up and killed in a building was somehow different from people being killed in their own homes. It's irrelevant as the end result is that they're still dead.

You went off on your own tangent, where Ghengis was actually an enviromentalist.

Why not, Hitler was a vegetarian and modern greenies love Stalin and other commie mass murderers. Does that have a point either? Not really, I just felt like putting it in there.

Besides, Khorne is all about the blood flowing. I don't think Gas Chambers quite fit the rule.

Hitler didn't attack other nations with gas chambers, he sent his armies into them with good old guns and bayonets.

cadbren wrote:Your argument was that people being rounded up and killed in a building was somehow different from people being killed in their own homes. It's irrelevant as the end result is that they're still dead.

No, my argument was that no genocide had ever been do so systematically, so effectively, so extensively, that the targeted minority could actually have been entirely wiped out if it had continued. Indusrtialising the process of genocide had never been done before, and it put it on a whole other level.

Why not, Hitler was a vegetarian and modern greenies love Stalin and other commie mass murderers. Does that have a point either? Not really, I just felt like putting it in there.

Right, I don't want to get into Ghengis Khan being an Mongolian Captain Planet, becuase that's way OT. It's also ridiculous.

Hitler didn't attack other nations with gas chambers, he sent his armies into them with good old guns and bayonets.

And now you're no longer talking about genocide.

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.

CSM Codex says "during the Middle Ages". The Middle Ages were a bit longer than 50 years, especially considered that part of the time period between 1500-1550 might not even be Middle Ages, depending on which historian you ask.

romegamer wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

DrChaos wrote:

Shady Pigeon wrote:

purplefood wrote:it could just as easily be any other leader in a time of war.

This is the problem - the description could apply to dozens of people. The one I've heard most put forward is Ghengis Khan. Appeals a bit more to me from the point of view that Khan was a warrior himself, rather than a political leader (though again, I don't think the description makes any reference to Doombreed's previous form actually doing the killing him/herself - rather being 'responsible' for it).

hitler was a soilder himself in WW1
kind of, he was a runner for the 16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment and was wounded few times and had awards for bravery.
so he could be classed as a 'warrior'

Hitler was more than just a runner, he was a full soldier before that and won many medals.

The fact of the matter is that GW hasn't and won't specify who Doombreed was before. If they ever were to, Stalin, Hitler and other political despots are ruled out due to a negative image they have generally. As Khorne rose around the middle-ages, it rules out anyone before that. It would also likely be someone with a better known profile, which would rule out the lesser known Warlords like Moctezuma, although he logically fits very well. After that, it narrows down to a select few, which includes Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, all of which are fairly well known and are likely simply due to the novelty. I vote Genghis Khan. He was ruthless, blood-thirsty, but also a proven general as well as warrior. When he conquered the Russian steppe and stormed Kiev, he put wooden planks over the bodies of captured Russian generals and princes and slowly crushed them to death by eating dinner on top of them.

I am a history major and all the reading I have ever done on the subject indicates that Hitler was never more than a company runner. He was decoerated for bravery, yes, because he was wounded, but I have never seen anything to indicate he would personally have any blood on his hands. I dont recall the name of the book, im sure I could find it if I had to, but here is a readable article from a reliable source. I would show you a scholarly journall too, but you have to be enrolled at a school that subscribes to them to read the internet link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/16/new-evidence-adolf-hitler

so.........was i right?
not that it matters really, what exactly is a runner btw?

He ran packages and messages between command posts when there was no other way to relay them.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

cadbren wrote:
You went off on your own tangent, where Ghengis was actually an enviromentalist.

Why not, Hitler was a vegetarian and modern greenies love Stalin and other commie mass murderers. Does that have a point either? Not really, I just felt like putting it in there.

Hitler was not a vegetarian, it is a common piece of mis-knowledge.

'modern greenies'? don't quite know what tiny group you are talking about, but if you ask most people about Stalin, you won't get many positive opinions of him.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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.

CSM Codex says "during the Middle Ages". The Middle Ages were a bit longer than 50 years, especially considered that part of the time period between 1500-1550 might not even be Middle Ages, depending on which historian you ask.

SO its genghis khan.

No, it's most likely him, but there is no confirmation.

Nice theory, I can totally see where you're coming from, but it could be any one, from the past, or even the future.

The year 3000 is still a long way from 40,999.

Anyone after about 1500, up to when Doombreed led his Black Crusade, or his first appearance in Liber Chaotica. It's still likely to be someone from our past, pre-gunpowder probably.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

cadbren wrote:Your argument was that people being rounded up and killed in a building was somehow different from people being killed in their own homes. It's irrelevant as the end result is that they're still dead.

No, my argument was that no genocide had ever been do so systematically, so effectively, so extensively, that the targeted minority could actually have been entirely wiped out if it had continued. Indusrtialising the process of genocide had never been done before, and it put it on a whole other level.

sure it was genocide, but from memeory at the end of the war it was like a self inflited genocide, hitlers forces were being wiped out faster than they could pull the trigger

Tyranic Marta wrote:sure it was genocide, but from memeory at the end of the war it was like a self inflited genocide, hitlers forces were being wiped out faster than they could pull the trigger

Germany's forces were completely wiped out in the end, but Hitler wasnt doing so badly at the start of the war. He had basically all of Europe, and if it werent for the fact that he opened a 2 front war with Russia he most likely would have won.

:nodding:
well said

cadbren wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

cadbren wrote:Your argument was that people being rounded up and killed in a building was somehow different from people being killed in their own homes. It's irrelevant as the end result is that they're still dead.

No, my argument was that no genocide had ever been do so systematically, so effectively, so extensively, that the targeted minority could actually have been entirely wiped out if it had continued. Indusrtialising the process of genocide had never been done before, and it put it on a whole other level.

And I disagree, the Albigensian crusade and other campaigns against non-Catholic christians in Europe during the Middle Ages were designed to wipe them out or at least force them back into the main church.

The complete anhillation of these people through such methods was never a feasible goal in the time frame (and they also had another goal than their extermination). Sure, plenty of people died, but the method undertaken by Nazi Germany could very well have wiped out the Jewish race in a matter of years.

History is rife with such genocides, I'd also include the depopulation of the Scottish Highlands during the clearances. The only novel difference with the jews was that the Europeans under the lead of the Germans conducted a pogrom against the jews on a larger scale than any that had gone before and that it happened after the Industrial Revolution. I don't consider that a unique thing, simply a product of timing.

Bollocks, there have quite a few genocides since the Industrial Revolution. The exterminations in Germany was the first, and only, case of Genocide being Industrialised though. It's not a matter of timing, it's a matter of method. And it could also be considered a matter of goals. Most cases of genocide point to an attempt to cull or pacify a population through bloody retribution, there are few cases of genocides that I can definitely point out that the extermination of the targetted race was the sole goal, rather than taking or preserving territory/wealth/slaves/resources.

I'm arguing this from a comparative positive in that I'm comparing the actions to those of the past, you appear to be making a moral judgment as though this was the first time one group has tried to do away with another. My point is that it is the first obvious instance of an industrialized power doing this and that the industrial part of it was merely a result of them being an industrial power and not because they wanted to specifically industrialize mass murder. No one talks about the industrialized killing of civilians as a result of carpet bombing do they but the process is the same.

I'm not approaching this from a moralistic stance at all. People have been killing each other en masse for a long time now. I'm just pointing out the uniqueness of the Holocuast. There really isn't anything else in history that quite matches up to it, not in body count but in the way it was executed. Soviet Russia was an industrial power, and it also committed acts of genocide. But it didn't industrialise the process.

And carpet bombing civillians, which I would still consider a war crime, is not genocide.

EDIT: Unless you were killing civilians for the sake of them being civilians of a particular race/nationality/group, rather than these civilians getting cuaght up in an act of war. And it still wouldn' have meant it was an industrialised form of genocide.

Hitler didn't attack other nations with gas chambers, he sent his armies into them with good old guns and bayonets.

And now you're no longer talking about genocide.

Of course I am, you are the one who suggested that Hitler was all about gas chambers and therefore had nothing to do with blood being shed. Hitler was the leader of a nation that went to war, whatever went on in the camps was a sideshow to the war, not the other way around. In that regard he could be seen as a warlord albeit stretching the term. I don't regard him as the person in question but dismissing him because Khorne isn't into gas chambers as you suggested is not actually relevant given the massive war that was being waged at the time.

I'm just pointing out that the genocide of the Jews wouldn't have necessarily contributed to Hitler's ascension into Daemonhood. (It's... something special to be able to say that sentence and remain on topic ).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BluntmanDC wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

cadbren wrote:
You went off on your own tangent, where Ghengis was actually an enviromentalist.

Why not, Hitler was a vegetarian and modern greenies love Stalin and other commie mass murderers. Does that have a point either? Not really, I just felt like putting it in there.

Hitler was not a vegetarian, it is a common piece of mis-knowledge.

'modern greenies'? don't quite know what tiny group you are talking about, but if you ask most people about Stalin, you won't get many positive opinions of him.

Mixed qoutes.

History is rife with such genocides, I'd also include the depopulation of the Scottish Highlands during the clearances. The only novel difference with the jews was that the Europeans under the lead of the Germans conducted a pogrom against the jews on a larger scale than any that had gone before and that it happened after the Industrial Revolution. I don't consider that a unique thing, simply a product of timing.

Bollocks, there have quite a few genocides since the Industrial Revolution. The exterminations in Germany was the first, and only, case of Genocide being Industrialised though. It's not a matter of timing, it's a matter of method. And it could also be considered a matter of goals. Most cases of genocide point to an attempt to cull or pacify a population through bloody retribution, there are few cases of genocides that I can definitely point out that the extermination of the targetted race was the sole goal, rather than taking or preserving territory/wealth/slaves/resources.

Bosnia? Tibet? Sudan? Iraq? Iran? Jerusalem?

Pick one

Tyranic Marta wrote:

History is rife with such genocides, I'd also include the depopulation of the Scottish Highlands during the clearances. The only novel difference with the jews was that the Europeans under the lead of the Germans conducted a pogrom against the jews on a larger scale than any that had gone before and that it happened after the Industrial Revolution. I don't consider that a unique thing, simply a product of timing.

Bollocks, there have quite a few genocides since the Industrial Revolution. The exterminations in Germany was the first, and only, case of Genocide being Industrialised though. It's not a matter of timing, it's a matter of method. And it could also be considered a matter of goals. Most cases of genocide point to an attempt to cull or pacify a population through bloody retribution, there are few cases of genocides that I can definitely point out that the extermination of the targetted race was the sole goal, rather than taking or preserving territory/wealth/slaves/resources.

Bosnia? Tibet? Sudan? Iraq? Iran? Jerusalem?

Pick one

I don't recognise Jerusalem. It has a long history, after all. As for Iraq and Iran, they're also ancient. Are you reffering to Saddam's gassing the Kurds, or Alexander's purge of the Persian nobility?

Tibet = Territory
Bosnia = Very complex, lower levels were religously driven, overall theme was 'cleansing' or securing territory.

Yes, you could say that the people participating in these wanted their victim's race to be wiped from the face of the Earth, but it was always mixed up with wealth or inequality at its roots, such as Rwanda, where the Hutu working-class majority believed the Tutsi's (who made up a larger amount of the middle/upper class) were behind a conspiracy to take over the country. The massacre that followed could be described as a class upheaval (if you can stomach the murder of 800,000 people by calling it that), rather than a quest for racial purity. This is the difference, often genocides are born out of fear or retribution, the moments where it's about 'racial purity' are few and far between.
The Final Solution was much more concentrated in it's roots, driven by the desire for racial purity.

I dont give a damn whether you dont recognise them or not, genocide has been a part of the modern world, just because you dont recognise it doesnt mean it diddnt happen

And you say Tibet was over territory? it doesnt have anything to do with China shutting down the Dali Lama and removing him from power bedfore they invaded? That they crushed their religious system? That countless people, innocents died

what about the amritsa massacre, Mahatma Ghandi called for a peaceful protest and i dont know the exact number but over 200 people were shot, innocents all of them, in cold blood.

What about the recent war crimes tribunal about that turd of a man who sieged that town in northern europe and deprived them of thier basic human rights for years before rocketting them to death

No genocides? Pffft, just because you cant see them, i repeat, because YOU cant see them, doesnt mean they arnt there

Tyranic Marta wrote:I dont give a damn whether you dont recognise them or not, genocide has been a part of the modern world, just because you dont recognise it doesnt mean it diddnt happen

And you say Tibet was over territory? it doesnt have anything to do with China shutting down the Dali Lama and removing him from power bedfore they invaded? That they crushed their religious system? That countless people, innocents died

what about the amritsa massacre, Mahatma Ghandi called for a peaceful protest and i dont know the exact number but over 200 people were shot, innocents all of them, in cold blood.

What about the recent war crimes tribunal about that turd of a man who sieged that town in northern europe and deprived them of thier basic human rights for years before rocketting them to death

No genocides? Pffft, just because you cant see them, i repeat, because YOU cant see them, doesnt mean they arnt there

<comment removed>

I haven't said that there havn't been any genocides in the modern world, I'm saying that there hasn't been a genocide quite like the Nazi Holocaust.

i think we are muxing words here.

Genocide-the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

genocide =/= mass killing. While both are bad genocide is the utter destruction while mass killings are that but to a lesser degree and likely localized. Ceases to be mass killing when it is no longer a localized event.

And i am not using websters dictionary again since genocide was apparently first used in 1944.

Tyranic Marta wrote:I dont give a damn whether you dont recognise them or not, genocide has been a part of the modern world, just because you dont recognise it doesnt mean it diddnt happen

And you say Tibet was over territory? it doesnt have anything to do with China shutting down the Dali Lama and removing him from power bedfore they invaded? That they crushed their religious system? That countless people, innocents died

I don't think you understand the timeline of China re-annexing Tibet and when the Dalai llama left the country.

what about the amritsa massacre, Mahatma Ghandi called for a peaceful protest and i dont know the exact number but over 200 people were shot, innocents all of them, in cold blood.

That isn't "genocide".

What about the recent war crimes tribunal about that turd of a man who sieged that town in northern europe and deprived them of thier basic human rights for years before rocketting them to death

"The Dude who did this thing in that place". Geez, do you even read what you're writing?

No genocides? Pffft, just because you cant see them, i repeat, because YOU cant see them, doesnt mean they arnt there

Just man up and admit that you don't even know what "Genocide" means. That you chose examples that were categorically NOT genocides kinda shows it.

Not that the rest of the thread is better. I'm surprised no one has mentioned Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, East Timor etc.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Tyranic Marta wrote:I dont give a damn whether you dont recognise them or not, genocide has been a part of the modern world, just because you dont recognise it doesnt mean it diddnt happen

And you say Tibet was over territory? it doesnt have anything to do with China shutting down the Dali Lama and removing him from power bedfore they invaded? That they crushed their religious system? That countless people, innocents died

what about the amritsa massacre, Mahatma Ghandi called for a peaceful protest and i dont know the exact number but over 200 people were shot, innocents all of them, in cold blood.

What about the recent war crimes tribunal about that turd of a man who sieged that town in northern europe and deprived them of thier basic human rights for years before rocketting them to death

No genocides? Pffft, just because you cant see them, i repeat, because YOU cant see them, doesnt mean they arnt there

You're an idiot. Or you've misread my post.The latter is much more likely.

I haven't said that there havn't been any genocides in the modern world, I'm saying that there hasn't been a genocide quite like the Nazi Holocaust.

Actually, given the examples he employed, the former is all but certain.

I'm inclined to say so myself, but there's a rule against that.


Besides, there's greater idiocy in the OT on a daily basis.

Thread closed due to far, far too much rudeness and general pointlessness.