While researching much about the Mongols, there is one common factor whenever it came to Chinggus. He would always decimate every living thing in a city that defied him. Kublai being Mongol as well, I would imagine that he would do the same. Kublai was still very different as far as the Khans went before him obviously adopting much of the Chinese life style. I would not be surprised if this portion is true. Thanks guys.
He would always decimate every living thing in a city that defied him.
For the most part, this is unsubstantiated. Cities that did not surrender were typically sacked (not specific to Mongols). You'd have a hard time convincing troops to stick for weeks or months around a city and possibly die just to conquer a city for the greater good. They expected a fair share of loot. It is quite unlikely that there was any kind of attempt to eradicate cities, namely because those cities all continued to exist and become parts of the Mongol empire. The sources for full-city slaughters are dubious and unreliable. Part of it may just be propaganda (as cities hearing they'll get culled should they fight may surrender more easily).
From The Mongol Empire [2014] (p. 85), discussing the taking of Merv :
Juvaini's figure actually understates : 7000 x 300 makes 21000000. So 1.3 million is more than possible, and in far less time than in any of the foregoing examples.[...]
[...]Gibbons concludes, naming French sources: 'The exact account which was taken of the slain amounted to 4347000'.
But are these figures accurate?
It's instructive to look at the fate of Merv as recorded by Juvaini after the massacre. One million three hundred thousand was - [p. 86] supposedly - everyone. This was in February 1221. Yet in November of the same year, rumours of resistance sparked a rebellion.[...] How to resolve these discrepancies? There was no census, and all numbers are little more than guesses. But here's a thought. In the early twentieth century the area covered by Khwarezm - roughly Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, eastern Iran and western Afghanistan - held about 3 million people in all, against a current population of the whole region of about 30 million. So if Juvaini is correct, assuming numbers were then much the same as they were a century ago, the Mongols killed the whole population of their new domain. But obviously they didn't. Even in the most extreme cases, the cities went on operation, with rebellions crushed, armies raised, taxes paid and reconstruction undertaken. So the assumption must be wrong. More work is needed. Perhaps all we can do is assume a higher level of population and a lower level of death - something like 25 per cent of 5 million, a level that would allow a crushed and [p. 87] brutalized society to continue life, of a sort, and recover with the passing years.
The allegation you make on Chinggis is not nearly true. He would not decimate every city that defied him. Would many die? Oh yes. Would they all? Oh no. u/zsimmortal explains this well.
But yes, both Chinggis, Ogedei, Kublai, and the other few Great Khans who conquered China always spared the carpenters, engineers, and of all things, actors. Apparently the Mongols quite enjoyed entertainment.
So yeah, this statement by Kublai is entirely true. If you want more information on the authenticity of the Marco Polo miniseries, I recommend this article.