The Romans, including Caesar, utilized genocidal tactics (most famously in the third punic war), but are often idolized. Genghis Khan also committed genocide against his enemies, completely destroying cities and their populations. In more recent times, dictators such as Stalin committed genocide as part of solidifying their rule. Why is it that, in the public consciousness, we idolize some historical conquerors who committed mass murder and genocide, but readily recognize how bad the Nazis were?
Is it because of the industrial nature of the holocaust? It's more direct impact on the lives of people in modern western countries (many people know/knew people who either fought against the Nazis or became victims of the holocaust)? It just seems weird to me that we seem to look up to conquerors who caused enormous destruction or even genocide (Caesar, Alexander the great, Genghis Khan, Chin, etc), glossing over the destruction they caused, yet we don't do the same for the Nazis.
Edit: Just to be clear, this isn't diminishing the horrific crimes of the Nazis, but rather asking why we diminish the crimes of others that are of a similar nature.
The word "Genocide" does not describe what Chinggis Khan did. He did not wantonly destroy an entire race of people because he blamed them for the ills that the Mongols faced nor did he set out to exterminate an entire race. Even action that he took was a political manoeuvre meant to both strike fear in the heart of his enemies and to make it easier for him to conquer territory.
His crimes are greatly exaggerated mainly for political propaganda or often enough, to showcase what a terrible ruler he was and to rile up Muslims to fight against him. The most outrageous originator of this period was Minhaj Siraj Juzani in his Tabakat-i-Nasiri: A General History of the Muhammadan Dynasties of Asia who is often credited with stories such as during a sack of a central Asian city he separated women into two groups and told them to fight each other, the winning group would be freed. As both of the groups fought, the enjoyed it and subsequently got bored and killed both groups.
Yes, the Mongols did wipe out certain cities from the face of the earth, but this was mainly done once in a region to scare the rest. But you have to remember that Chinggis often had courtly members and trusted administrators who would limit the amount of destruction caused by the Mongols because they knew wealth, apart from looting cities, had to be built on the back of a strong economy which involved the existence of cities. The role of these administrators can be seen throughout his interactions with both China and the Khwarazamshah and especially afterwards. Secondly, the role of Chinggis Khan in the west, especially in Central Asia is as a reaction to the violent way in which the Khwarazam Shah had treated members of Chinggis's party, which was also composed heavily with Persians and other Muslims who were primarily traders. It was never instigated by Chinggis Khan alone.
There is no doubt that the Mongols did cause mayhem and mass murder but genocide was not their forte. There never set out to wipe an entire race from existence nor did they selectively target people for extermination.
Sources: