The swastika became the symbol of the Nazi party through the work of Aryan theosophists, who adopted the symbol as emblematic of the German people's supposed Aryan heritage. It was in use by various mystical and nationalist groups well before the start of the 20th century. There is no way the symbol was adopted from Hitler's (possibly fictitious) readings about Genghis Khan.

Hitler was nothing compared to Temajun. In fact Hitler lost more often than not. There is one person in history who never lost a streetfight. And that was Temajun.

Thanks for this, Andrew! As usual very interesting stuff you post.

I had reason to return to your article about John DeFrancis today and found this and took a trip down memory lane. Once upon a time I was running a mailing list with a rather impressive circulation - we are talking mid-90's! - and one day I got a subscriber from Ulan Bator! THAT was pretty exciting then, I can assure you! Almost like having Genghis Khan knocking on the door! :-) Today it is not much to get excited about, is it?

Since I get a pack of hoodlums breathing down my neck wherever I open my Big Mouth on the net - "Self-Promotion", "You don't know what you are talking about!" etc. in absurdum - I will refrain from posting a link to the blog page where I took the liberty to add a copy of your DeFrancis article. Search and thou will find. Keywords: Kanji Hanzi :-)

With a fur lined hunting cap

And like Hitler in the West

Has a few fruitcake fanboys

Tiny little impotent dots

Dispersed across a vast canvas

Of our world's richly diverse map..

Modern day historians disagree about what exactly the purpose of Genghis Khan's degradation and destruction were, but there's a VERY strong case to be made that it was a conscious and directed effort to strengthen trade routes in order to facilitate a greater flow of information and goods. There is also an argument to be made, based on Genghis' own statements and actions, that he understood the benefits that would be accrued by all if a trans-Asian trade route stretching into Europe were to be established.

The ideal of Genghis Khan as an uneducated barbarian and psychotic killer with no long-range dynastic plans or aims

is simply incorrect.

Furthermore when compared to the relevant ruling systems of his time, and in the immediate aftermath, it is questionable just how much worse living under Mongol rule was than say living under a murderous, tyrannical tsar in Russia.

The Mongols were brutal if you opposed them. And their initial taxes were insane. But for those who did acqueisce to Mongol rule, taxes generally fell to reasonable levels and the Mongols (especially under Genghis) were noted for leaving those who surrended virtually untouched AND for being strong allies. Genghis Khan almost always gave his enemies a chance to surrender before attacking cities. They often stored much of their treasure and wealth in these cities and freely spent it. These cities were not occupied by the nomadic Mongols and local governments were left in place so long as they didn't foment uprisings or oppose the Mongols.

Compare this with the traditional method of conquest in which the vanquished not only suffered the initial high taxation and death of a Genghis-like invasion, but ALSO permanent occupation, the stripping of their national identity and no requisite exchange of knowledge from other parts of the world.

The bottom line is: The world of Asia and the farthest reaches of Eastern Europe gained a great deal of wealth and knowledge during the conquests of Genghis Khan. There is a strong case to be made that had he lived, there would have been a trade route, with an exchange of unprecedented wealth, the likes of which the world has never seen. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing can be debated. But so can the legacy of Genghis Khan.

P.S. I agree Charlemagne is possibly the most underrated European leader of any time. Were it not for him Europe never would have survived the long chasm between the fall of the Roman Empire and the burgeoning Renaissance. It would have been thrust into a permanent Dark Age that made the one they DID survive seem like a holiday.

A friendly secular east Asian global dictator. I can't say I'm shocked by Salon.

The recent film "Mongol" gives a tiny bit of history about Genghis Khan. Evidently, Genghis was a 'progressive' comapared to the Khans' before him, as he forbid the killing of women and children, and wanted to unite all the family groups in Mongolia together, instead of routinly slaughtering each other.

Of course, if you were Chinese, not quite the same luck. The movie said he razed several oppressive Chinese towns. So the film shows him a bit like Hitler (after all, the Germans were the VICTIMS after WWI, right?) and a bit not. However, psychologically, you pull for Genghis in the film, and that can't be said for any Hitler movie!

Good post re Genghis Khan. Minor quibble here:

A couple of times the Horde didn't disband due to being stymied, it was because of the lucky break (to those the Mongol's were besieging) that was the receipt of news of the death of the Great Khan (Mongol law stated that all heirs to the throne/major military commanders & their troops had to return to Mongolia to take part in the funeral rites for the dead Khan & selection/confirmation of the new Khan).

I think both Genghis' and Batu's deaths saved various European/Middle Eastern kingdoms from their anticipated defeat by the Mongols (might be wrong on the names of the Khans, could have been Ogetai).

The point Andrew was making was that the 12th Century Mongols didn't really believe in nationalism or racial or religious bigotry. They were purely secular conquerers. As long as you paid your taxes they didn't really care what you looked like or who you prayed to.

But difference, I suspect, is really one of relative power. Just like the Neo-Nazi movement here and in Europe, this one is made up of people who feel disenfranchised by the ruling class or ecomonic elite. In this case the Chinese.