[GovernmentShrinker]

I don't find this argument convincing. The Rwandan massacres of a few years ago (as well as many smaller rounds before that) were tribally/racially motivated, and just like the Jews and non-Jews in Germany, they had long been speaking the same language, intermarrying, etc. And Mugabe's violent expulsion of white people is racially motivated. And much of the dynamic behind the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, which killed hundreds of thousands, was also tribally motivated. Sure they all want to "consolidate power". And Hitler didn't??? Hitler and his henchmen were eager to kill anyone of any race, religion, or any other category, who opposed his grand plan, or who they even suspected might have an affiliation that would incline them to oppose the grand plan. And lots of stupid people joined his effort, because it made them feel a little powerful too -- same dynamic as in all the other mass slaughters. Hitler exploited a pre-existing undercurrent of suspicion and dislike of Jews, to acquire power. He picked the particular grand plan he did, because it was likely to work.

Evil tyrants will exploit whatever social undercurrents happen to be available -- racial, religious, economic, and any other kind of bias -- and kill as many people of whatever description as they need to, in order to get what they want, which is always power. It's always presented as a plan for utopia, in order to garner popular support. But somehow it always involves getting rid of huge numbers of people. "We'll have a perfect society, just as soon as we get rid of all the _______ (Jews, capitalists, intellectuals, Tutsis, whites . . . )."

North Korea is an unusual situation, in that the official ideology driving it is now based almost entirely on ethnic supremacy and ethnic purity, much as the official Nazi party line was. Although it originally seized power on a combination of Marxist-Communist and Korean nationalist ideologies, by rooting out and destroying landowners, the job was thoroughly completed early on, and in the absence of any landowners or non-Koreans to slaughter, the regime has maintained power by ruthless extermination of anyone who doesn't perfectly toe the line on the official road to pure-Korean utopia. In the absence of any real group to declare as the enemy, one was invented. Actually, multiple classifications of the enemy were invented, as described in this interesting article:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/testimony/oh20030605.htm
"then-president Kim Il-sung reported to the Fifth Korean Workers' Party Congress in 1970 that the people could be classified into three political groups: a loyal "core class," a suspect "wavering class," and a politically unreliable "hostile class." Individuals are further classified into 51 subcategories, such as those in the wavering class who had been landowners before the communists came to power, or those who had resided in the southern half of Korea before 1945."

If Hitler had managed to stay in power, in due course he would have ended up slaughtering at least as many "Aryans" as he did Jews.

[Inkie]

No, he would have gone through the Slavs (Russians) and other so-called sub-human races, and ended up annihlating his good buddies the Japanese. The only Aryans he would have killed would be any who stood up to him and questioned the genocide(s). He never would have killed any simply BECAUSE they were Aryan, as he would the others. Individuals or groups of individuals (such as a town that rebelled against him) would have had to actually do something that threatened his regime to be killed.