NationStates Jolt Archive

I just want to see manyy peoples perspectives on who was the worst. This opinon can vary to alot of things. I just was interested in who was thought of as the worst of the worst. If you don't know who some of these people are I there is a site called www.moreorless.au.com Although Osama and Pablo arn't there they should be.

I wanted to fit a few more bastards in there but the poll would not allow so many choices. If you wanted to know Just ask or I might put them in my next poll.

Pol-Pot.

He was the worst.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"America is the most ass-kickin' country around, I don't care what you say!"

This shouldn't be in II, it should be in the General Forum.

This shouldn't be in II, it should be in the General Forum.

dude, im cool with all them... they aint THAT bad...

well of couyrse the worst was Adolf Hitler

well of couyrse the worst was Adolf Hitler

dude, im cool with all them... they aint THAT bad...

One word for you insane.

Oh and for The IB United Nations he was suposed to be on the poll but I did not have anough room. The origonal list was the guys I listed above, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Ante Pavelic, Francisco Franco, Benito Mussolini and Pablo Escabar.

...

Well in terms of body bags I believe Stalin killed considerably more than Hitler did. Hitler is only though of as the de facto Evil Genius because 1) He lost WW2 and 2) he attempted to exterminate the Jews for really no reason. Mao Zedong may of killed more than both of them inadvertantly with his stupid "Giant Leap Forward" that ended up causing 20 million people to die of starvation if I remember correctly. Pol Pot killed about a million or so, same for Saddam (as best we can figure) so they rank lower on the Evil-o-meter.

Well in terms of body bags I believe Stalin killed considerably more than Hitler did. Hitler is only though of as the de facto Evil Genius because 1) He lost WW2 and 2) he attempted to exterminate the Jews for really no reason. Mao Zedong may of killed more than both of them inadvertantly with his stupid "Giant Leap Forward" that ended up causing 20 million people to die of starvation if I remember correctly. Pol Pot killed about a million or so, same for Saddam (as best we can figure) so they rank lower on the Evil-o-meter.


that is correct. Stalin is the worst one of them all.

Pol-Pot.

He was the worst.


I agree.

Obviously guys like Stalin get the prize for sheer number of kills, but then again, they were somewhat distanced and shielded from the attrocities they ordered, and never fully saw first hand the suffering they caused. It could be argued, that psychos who stab someone fifty times then eat their liver, are worse than a dictator who just signs death warrants. Hitler, Stalin et al were just armchair mass-murderers.

Obviously guys like Stalin get the prize for sheer number of kills, but then again, they were somewhat distanced and shielded from the attrocities they ordered, and never fully saw first hand the suffering they caused. It could be argued, that psychos who stab someone fifty times then eat their liver, are worse than a dictator who just signs death warrants. Hitler, Stalin et al were just armchair mass-murderers.


good point.

I would have to say Hitler is the worst. Stalin, sure, could be argued for as he killed the largest number of these (I believe)...but then, numbers aren't nearly everything. Stalin, O Glorious Communist Comrade, killed everyone equally without regard to race, religion, or hair color...Hitler on the other hand, systematically tried to wipe off a people from the face of the Earth.

I would have to say Hitler is the worst. Stalin, sure, could be argued for as he killed the largest number of these (I believe)...but then, numbers aren't nearly everything. Stalin, O Glorious Communist Comrade, killed everyone equally without regard to race, religion, or hair color...Hitler on the other hand, systematically tried to wipe off a people from the face of the Earth.

Hitler
Due to the fact that he was focused on getting rid of a cultural group/s
Jews and to a lesser extent Roma better known as Gypsies

Hitler.

I say Hitler after reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and watching Shindler's List.

I think that stalin is more evil, in a sense, beacuse he got away with it. Think about it- Hitler was crushed, his nation devastated and divided by the victors. There were trials, executions, and some feeble sense of justice. Germans to this day are sorry for the actions that were committed before most of them were born. There is a real sense of "never forget" and the nazi regime will forever go down in history as evil personified. It doesn't bring the people back to life, but some attempt to do justice was made.

Stalin? Stalin died a winner. He died of natural causes, and was respected (although he was demoted from "god" to "national savior") in his homeland. The true extent of his crimes and excesses- the hunger famines, the great terror, the countless purges- would go mostly unknown or dismissed as anticommunist propaganda for some 30 years after his death, and even then, he mostly escapes the label of "satan personified" that was applied to his rival Hitler.

I think that the holocaust is horrific beyond most genocides beacuse of the psychotic ideology behind it and the cold ruthlessness with which it was carried out, but I do think that Stalin was the most chillingly evil.

He is the scariest beacuse he got away with it. Beacuse he made evil work. His famines and genocides kept him in power, the populace fearing him as if he was the god of the old testament, one instant away from deciding to go on a smite-fest.

Stalin also managed to make his people love him. To this day, some people in the former USSR remember him fondly. The facf that he was able to pull off his genocides and hide them from the world, and then live out his life, just sort of makes me feel dirty. I guess I wish that all genocidal tyrants ended up putting their pistols in their mouths in a ruined bunker....

oh, also- I've heard that, in person, Pol Pot was actually a really nice guy.

Without question, the answer is God.

How many have died in his name?

Without question, the answer is God.

How many have died in his name?

The question is did He WANT them to die. I'm sure God didn't approve of the Crusades or the Muslim terrorists today.

Damn, that list could be long as hell. Add some Roman Emporers, a few Persian kings, (Xerxes had a judge skinned alive for being corrupt and had the seat that the new judge sat on made of that skin as a reminder, what an irony!), Assyrians, Attila, any powerful leader alive before 2004 AD really. Power always meant "by the death of the prior"

any powerful leader alive before 2004 AD really.

Not quite. Well, maybe your right. As long as they have dictatorial powers, anyway.

Without question, the answer is God.

How many have died in his name?

I agree fully.

OOC: Considering that Stalin's idea to clear minefields was to send troops over them, well, that's pretty evil.

I just want to see manyy peoples perspectives on who was the worst. This opinon can vary to alot of things. I just was interested in who was thought of as the worst of the worst. If you don't know who some of these people are I there is a site called www.moreorless.au.com Although Osama and Pablo arn't there they should be.What do you mean by "worst of worst", do you mean biggest body-count, cruelist deaths or worst as in worst at killing. Like some kind of wannabe mass murder.... like I dunno... Me?

A. Wrong forum

B. Osama Bin Laden. I, with the exception of Idi, who I have never heard of, I think none of them were really that bad. Hitler just wanted a pure germany, he only killed them because it was the only viable way of killing them, and he was a great man in general. Stalin did what he did to purge his nation of plotters and made the nation that was most responsible for beating germany. Mao was bad, but he did it for the right reasons. Osama killed people in a different country, who were indirect casualties(not purposeful targets)... Thats worse than any of the others, imo.

I should say first I'm have seen and experienced both the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward first hand.

Mao wasn't the greatest leader of all time, that is almost universally acknowledged. However, to call him a mass murderer is certainly a misnomer. He didn't WANT or ORDER the deaths of that many Chinese.

He was...misguided. He was also an idedology-peddling poet who didn't understand how the Real World worked, thus these serious disasters.

FYI, I'd say from that list of worst mass murders, Hitler. Although I'd say Pol Pot if he was on the list, the deaths per capita were higher than in Hitler Germany.

Finally nitpicking matter, Osama bin Laden doesn't count if you're talking 20th Century. 9/11 was in 2001, and his kill-toll for the CIA in Afghanistan was not high enough to justify him as a mass murderer.

JiangGuo

A. Wrong forum

B. Osama Bin Laden. I, with the exception of Idi, who I have never heard of, I think none of them were really that bad. Hitler just wanted a pure germany, he only killed them because it was the only viable way of killing them, and he was a great man in general. Stalin did what he did to purge his nation of plotters and made the nation that was most responsible for beating germany. Mao was bad, but he did it for the right reasons. Osama killed people in a different country, who were indirect casualties(not purposeful targets)... Thats worse than any of the others, imo.


I would think that somebody with your post count would be better at trolling.

Never heard of Idi Amin? Really? How queer. He felled the British Empire, don't you know? (By being the second leader in his country after its independence. Interesting logic, true.)

It's odd that there are no Americans on the list, considering how many millions have been slaughtered by the US. More South East Asians were killed by Americans than by Pol Pot's regime, for example.

Still, per capita, as JiangGuo says, Pol Pot ranks rather highly. But then, he wanted to kill every Vietnamese person on earth...

There should probably be more reference to antiquity, but its hard enough to say how many people were killed last century, let alone centuries before.

In the end, I think I'd lean towards Stalin. Perhaps its just a grudge, but on top of millions of fairly direct killings at his order, he pretty much destroyed the global revolution and condemned tens of millions more to death at the hands of lesser villains such as [lengthy list of American names] and other crack pot sham-communist dictators.

Hmmm, Id say that Hitler was the worst...

Some 50 million people died because of WW2, directly or indirectly to Hitler...

Ah, but millions of those were killed by the Japanese, or by the Americans in Asia, most if not all of which would have happened without Hitler's involvement (since Japan invaded China years before Hitler was capable of invading... Luxembourg, let alone France or Russia).

Hitler killed around 6 - 10 million people. Nobody knows for sure just how many people died as a result of Stalin's purges, etc. The number is in excess of 20 million at least. And in China, well over 60 million were murdered for varying reasons, political beliefs, etc. Much the same as they were in Russia. Not to defend Hitler but Stalin and Mao make him look like a friendly guy. Especially Stalin.

And in China, well over 60 million were murdered for varying reasons, political beliefs, etc.

They weren't murdered for their beliefs, mainly they straved or froze to death. I'd know, I was there back then. (Yes, that makes me a very old sorta guy)

JiangGuo

But without us genocidal maniacs there would be no wars no jump in technological advancements, you should thank people like me.

yours truely,
Adolph Hitler

SERIAL KILLAZ ARE KOOL, WHATS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?

SERIAL KILLAZ ARE KOOL, WHATS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?

"I am most displeased with your performance, and thus, I shall wipe you off the map."

*A single ISD jumps in, and starts blasting this nation into slag. Followed up by a nuclear strike for good measure.*

Anyway, I'd say Hitler, for sheer murderous focus on the Jews. If I were Jewish in the 1930s, I'd be dead before the war was over. Scary.

Now, I wonder who's the worst leader on NS...

that is correct. Stalin is the worst one of them all.

Wrong, over 250,000,000 Chinese died under the rule of Mao Zedong, Stalin and Hitler only killed about 25 to 35 million combined! Before you morons go running your mouths check the facts, ask any historian, wait, thats me, Mao was the worst.

But without us genocidal maniacs there would be no wars no jump in technological advancements, you should thank people like me.

yours truely,
Adolph Hitler

Had he ever heard of the American Civil War? I know their was one controversial massacre by the south during that war but I don't know of any genociadl maniacs, and that was the birth of the Ironclad, you know, the Merrimak versus the Monitor, first time ever that two Ironclads fought in battle, it proved the viability of an all iron ship in warfare, oh, and it was the first war to use a repeating fire gun (gattling gun, came at end of war, was only used a handful of times) and the first use of breech loading weapons in a major war.

Ah, 250,000,000 dead. Well, that explains the massive population growth, I suppose. In some weird mirror universe, anyway.
America is prone to inflating its role in ironclad development, too. France and by far most significantly Britain were the driving forces behind the birth of iron warships.

Ah, 250,000,000 dead. Well, that explains the massive population growth, I suppose. In some weird mirror universe, anyway.
America is prone to inflating its role in ironclad development, too. France and by far most significantly Britain were the driving forces behind the birth of iron warships.

Ahh, but the Merrimack v Monitor battle finally proved to the world that wooden warships were on the way out. So while the English and French did much to develope the ironclad, it was popularized by the Americans.

Anyway, on NS I would have to say the worst mass-murderer is Lady Siri. Let me explain: Her almighty war fleets have lain waste to so many nations that counting them all is difficult. So that is millions dead right there, but then she professes to be a servant of good! (Although in her defense, many of the nations that she killed deserved it. But still, by her order, millions of innocent civilians have been killed. And to profess to be good with that much innocent blood on one's hands is insidious. At least Melkor and Metus come out and say they're evil.)

what about Slobodan Milosevic? He was pretty damn bad. But the worst was Der Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler.

Ah, 250,000,000 dead. Well, that explains the massive population growth, I suppose. In some weird mirror universe, anyway.
America is prone to inflating its role in ironclad development, too. France and by far most significantly Britain were the driving forces behind the birth of iron warships.

Fuck you buddy, that is the problem with people who live free they take it for granted. See, in communism you have almost no rights (have I lost you? Please try to keep up.) theoretically all people are equal but it is hard to put that into motion, Lenin had the right idea but then Stalin came in and corrupted the whole communism ideals. China has no freedom of the Press, so they were able to easily cover it up, when a series of damn burst in china the were able to cover it up for 6 weeks, millions had died and no westerners knew about it, and also, China, like India, was a agriculture country at the time and the US and her allies were not trading with China because they were not recognised as the rulers of China, so large families were needed to work the farms, that is why the population explosion still took place even though 250,000,000 had died, that includes all of the following:
Deaths during Chinese civil war (Before and after WWII)
Deaths at birth
Deaths due to old age
Deaths due to natural disasters
Deaths due to man made disasters
Deaths in the Korean War
Many other sub categories, the point is, under Mao's rule 250 Million chinese died, many due to starvation and the five year plans which ended in disaster for China and caused China to break it's associations with the Soviet Union. I saw it on the History channel when they asked this very question, who was the most evil ruler in History? Most people thought it would be Stalin or Hitler, but wrong, Mao was responsible for many more deaths then the two combined. I did further research in school and on the internet, asked some professors of mine and what do you know, they were right, but remember this is an estimate, one of the lower ones too, I have seen as high as 280,000,000, but then again I also went to a chinese run site that had an english tanslator and it said that like the massacre at Tienamen square (I butchered the spelling, I hope you understand what I mean) it never happened. Oh well, who will believe, the free west or the communist east?

I'd say Idi Amin. He 'only' killed 400,000, but whereas Hitler, Stalin and Mao actually had ideologies and goals, Amin was just a volatile sadist.

West pacific, i really wouldnt preach that you are a historian when you can't even get right easy facts like about lenin.

Lenin was the one who set up the path for stalin to become a dictator. Trotsky was the only path towards non-dictatorship...

Mao Zedong . . . though Hitler was a racist scum and Stalin killed many more than him, they estimate this little commie killed around 100 MILLION!!!!!

I say Stalin. Some accounts place him at almost 50 million people killed.

He purged the communist party when he took power in 1928. The communist then lost something like 66% of its membership. He purged the military, the farmers, the workers "unions" and teacher associations in the education sector. He also attempted to eliminate the ethinc Chechens through mass deportation. And the Slasaks of Poland were also mass deported after WW2, because of constant rebellions and attacks. People weren't just killed by Stalin, they had their entire lives wasted by him and his attempts at populating the East and North of the Soviet Union. I know a polish man who spent 14 years in a mine without ever seeing the sun. He was caught in 1944 by Soviet troops in Warsaw and was sent to a mine...

Stalin's right hand man and KGB Director, Beria, also deserves a mention here. He was the one in charge of finding and executing the "enemies of the people". Some of the deeds he did himself and he's also rumoured to have been a sexual sadist.

Bin Laden doesn't deserve to be up there though. Didn't kill as many and wrong century.

Mao definitely should rank up there.

And if we go by percentage then Pol Pot should definitely be up there.

I think to determine the worst, you would have to examine motives, not numbers.

With all of these dictators, once they've acheived a certain number of deaths, it makes little difference whether it's twenty million, or fifty million. Those figures are more to do with the means at the dictator's disposal, the length of time he had to act, how many people were in the minority groups that became the target of his displeasure, and other such factors. They do not mean that if dictator A killed 5 million more than dictator B, then dictator A was obviously more depraved and psychotic.

Stalin once said, “A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”

Once they've killed a certain number of people, the actual figures become irrelevant; they're all as bad as each other.

I feel the need to make a statement here. I'm not sure I'm understanding why we're trying to determine who the worst mass-murderer in the 20th century world was. Even the murder of just one person is wrong. It shouldn't matter if Hitler was worse than or not as bad as Stalin. Murder is murder, whether it's one or one million.

Mao killed the most, all of the Big 3 of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler were all deluded by their beliefs. That dosen't exempt them from murder, however, so Mao gets my prize.

Most people believe Hitler is the worst because he massacred people for a reason (ableit an incredibly stupid reason with a basis founded on absolutely nothing), whereas Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot killed their OWN people for little or no reason, but killed a lot more. However, we Americans seem to be fine with that because, hey, Russia, China, and Cambodia were all commies and it meant we'd have to fight less of them if we went to war. But why isn't America as a whole on there? We like to think of ourselves as the great democratic nation with freedom and justice and equality for all and all that stuff, but... nearly wiping out the Native Americans, slavery, massacring 50,000 Filipinos after aquiring the Philippines in 1898 (a VERY little-known fact... it's very thoroughly covered-up), and also getting our noses into other countries' businesses to "preserve democracy"

Overall, however, I'd have either Stalin or Mao, for most of the reasons people have already mentioned.

Most people believe Hitler is the worst because he massacred people for a reason (ableit an incredibly stupid reason with a basis founded on absolutely nothing), whereas Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot killed their OWN people for little or no reason, but killed a lot more. However, we Americans seem to be fine with that because, hey, Russia, China, and Cambodia were all commies and it meant we'd have to fight less of them if we went to war. But why isn't America as a whole on there? We like to think of ourselves as the great democratic nation with freedom and justice and equality for all and all that stuff, but... nearly wiping out the Native Americans, slavery, massacring 50,000 Filipinos after aquiring the Philippines in 1898 (a VERY little-known fact... it's very thoroughly covered-up), and also getting our noses into other countries' businesses to "preserve democracy"

Overall, however, I'd have either Stalin or Mao, for most of the reasons people have already mentioned.

Stalin. Scary mofo

Because I know the exact numbers, I voted uncle Joe and not Adolf.
But when we see thye cold war, the US comes on a 6th place with Vietnam and all the other dirty places (I still include the USSR, I am neutral) with people like Johnson and Reagan (the genocide against the Nicaragua lefties: the Sandinists via the dead squads that act against the farmers). a lot of bad but the US stands before Russia in this..

BUT, we have to count the dead people in Chechnia in a few years to, don't forget. It is difficult to messure the deads from the cold war and compare them to Adolf, Joe, Pol Pot and others. But lets say that Truman had the best number in a second: Hirosjima and Nagasaki citizens...

BTW, I don't count the millions of death American natives because then the US would be the champ. I don't count them because 1 in 4 deaths natives died under EU rule, lets not forget that! The other 3 in 4 are on the behalfe of the US.But like said, I don't count those millions.. Difficulmty to blame the US for the deads when the US did not exist, of course lots of them killers became US citizens but I keep it on 1/4 and 3/4 because I believe in science and history, proven facts. bTW, for the deads in South america we can blaim the Spanish conquistadores...

Mao Zedong killed about 40 million through incompetence, so technically I suppose he isn't (as much) of a murderer, though he went in for the execution bit too.

Stalin killed about 20 million through political purges such as forced famines. Starvation isn't a very nice way to die, so I suppose he's not a nice chap at all. I'd put him at the top.

Hitler killed about 11 million political dissidents, Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, physically and mentally handicapped chaps altogether (that is, number of non-combatants or POWs he killed in Europe.) which places him a comfy second I think, and I suppose he could get extra points for expediency, covertness, and the nastiest ultimate goal.

If we're going for in your face hardcore and pointless evil, then I suppose second lieutenants Toshiaki and Takeshi of Rape of Nanjing fame, (who between them killed 211 refugees with katanas - can't remember who got what, only that one of them killed 105, the other 106,) rock out supreme, unless someone has any challengers? :D

Most people believe Hitler is the worst because he massacred people for a reason (ableit an incredibly stupid reason with a basis founded on absolutely nothing), whereas Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot killed their OWN people for little or no reason, but killed a lot more.

OK, but don't forget that most of the deads in the camps were GERMAN JEWS AND OTHER GERMAN MINORITIES. The German citizens suffered the most and had the most cassualties (appart Russia and no, not Polland= still less). Hitlers killed his OWN first, lots of German Jewish, Roma and other fought in the trenches of WWI and were killed by Hitler in the 40ties (no not 30ties, then it was not racial but more with dissabled aso.). The most deads citizens after Russian in WWII are in Germany because most of the dead Jews in, WWII had the German nationality....

Sad but true!

Yes, of course, Turman what a bastard, he killed over three hundred thousand innocent Japanese civilians, nevermind the fact that it was estimated that 1.5 million allied troops would die in an invasion of mainland Japan, and given the kill ratio of previous battles, I think a 1 to four kill ratio for the allies is very conservative, that leaves 6 million Japanese dead and 1.5 million British and American troops. So lets compare numbers, shall we.
Truman: Somewhere around 300,000 people, most likely higher, saved millions more though.
Idi Amin: 400,000 killed without any reason what so ever, just because they were not supportive of him.
Hitler: 14 to 25 million, mostly jews, homosexuals, and other unpure races.
Stalin: 20 to 35 million, possibly as high as ten million during WWII, had he not been willing to let all those people die Hitler would have defeated the USSR.
Mao Zedong: Atleast 100 million, most estimates are closer to 200 million.

So yes, Truman was an evil man, the US should be ashamed that he was ever President, we should denounce him and try to erase any signs that he was ever alive. Besides, I don't think of Stalin as the worst or even second worst, had he not done what he did the USSR would have fallen to the Germans in WWII.

Mao Zedong killed about 40 million through incompetence, so technically I suppose he isn't (as much) of a murderer, though he went in for the execution bit too.


I think that 40 million is somewhat overestimated but yes techincally it has to be be a match between Mao and Joe with Adolf at a desserved bronze medal and the US as a good 4th :wink:

, nevermind the fact that it was estimated that 1.5 million allied troops would die in an invasion of mainland Japan

Agree for most but this number is still not prooven (how could it be :? ) most serious and respected historians don't agree anymore with this propaganda. Japan, regarding it's resources could continue the war for approx, 32 (optimists)or 51 (negativists) days. Watch the literrature and the sites..
Above the nations we had this as study result after 50 years ... (US, EU, USSR, JAPAN, aso..)

I find it interesting that with over 100 votes, Osama still has none. Looks like he won't be staying first-class in Hell after all.

I should say first I'm have seen and experienced both the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward first hand.

:shock:

Mao wasn't the greatest leader of all time, that is almost universally acknowledged. However, to call him a mass murderer is certainly a misnomer. He didn't WANT or ORDER the deaths of that many Chinese.

He was...misguided. He was also an idedology-peddling poet who didn't understand how the Real World worked, thus these serious disasters.

FYI, I'd say from that list of worst mass murders, Hitler. Although I'd say Pol Pot if he was on the list, the deaths per capita were higher than in Hitler Germany.

Finally nitpicking matter, Osama bin Laden doesn't count if you're talking 20th Century. 9/11 was in 2001, and his kill-toll for the CIA in Afghanistan was not high enough to justify him as a mass murderer.

JiangGuo

Good nit-picks.

Personally, I think that the people who knew what Hitler was doing, knew it was horrible, and did not stand up against him to stop it were the worst. How could they know, and let something like that go on???

Hitler killed about 11 million political dissidents, Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, physically and mentally handicapped chaps altogether (that is, number of non-combatants or POWs he killed in Europe.) :D

Wrong number, the Israeli government still agreeds with the number of 6 millions in the camps that include all minnorities. If they agree, we can say 6 million..

But I understand that you mix thinngs up,100.000's still died by the "Sondertruppe" that were active in the east. But as a historian , I have to correct you, alltough your feelings are good. You have got to be precise and devide the numbers of the camps, 6 million (latest studies altough show us about 4.35 million, we conclude this via gasschambercapacity/day/pro camp) and the people that were killed "in loco" like for example the approx. 69.000 killed at Kiev or the approx 91.000 killed in Riga by non Germans (the "innocent collaborator Baltics" that join the EU now) that found "Heil" in the new order and killed their neighbours (still a forgotten WWII topic...)

I agree that Hitler was the worst. There are certainly some good points being brought up for Stalin, and not really knowing who Mao is I can't pass judgment on him, but Hitler just completely creeps me out for destroying a specific group of people. Have any of you ever read Ender's Game? Hitler was basically trying for genocide, a cleansing xenocide from his point of view. I can understand, if not condone, a homicidal maniac on a killing rampage. But attempted genocide is a completely different thing. Especially since Jews were the group targeted - I mean, at my school this Passover, so many people brought matzo to school that 90% of everybody who wasn't Jewish was eating it anyway. I have good friends who are Jewish. To think that this dude, if he was alive today, would want them all dead. That's just creepy.

Mao was the communist head-honcho in China.
Personally, I think that the people who knew what Hitler was doing, knew it was horrible, and did not stand up against him to stop it were the worst. How could they know, and let something like that go on???
Kind of scary how evil people can be isn't it?

Yes, of course, Turman what a bastard, he killed over three hundred thousand innocent Japanese civilians, nevermind the fact that it was estimated that 1.5 million allied troops would die in an invasion of mainland Japan, and given the kill ratio of previous battles, I think a 1 to four kill ratio for the allies is very conservative, that leaves 6 million Japanese dead and 1.5 million British and American troops. So lets compare numbers, shall we.
Truman: Somewhere around 300,000 people, most likely higher, saved millions more though.
Idi Amin: 400,000 killed without any reason what so ever, just because they were not supportive of him.
Hitler: 14 to 25 million, mostly jews, homosexuals, and other unpure races.
Stalin: 20 to 35 million, possibly as high as ten million during WWII, had he not been willing to let all those people die Hitler would have defeated the USSR.
Mao Zedong: Atleast 100 million, most estimates are closer to 200 million.

So yes, Truman was an evil man, the US should be ashamed that he was ever President, we should denounce him and try to erase any signs that he was ever alive. Besides, I don't think of Stalin as the worst or even second worst, had he not done what he did the USSR would have fallen to the Germans in WWII.

Over 300,000? Certainly less than that. Between 103,550 and 224,863 would be more accurate. http://www.uic.com.au/nip29.htm

http://www.rerf.jp/eigo/faqs/faqse.htm#faq1

US casualty estimates, for both US and Japanese, have, at best, been subject to a great deal of question and exaggeration.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/invade.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

I must say it is fortunate that the US dis not follow through with plans to employ chemical weapons. (Interesting historical nate: the US was not a signatory to the Geneva Protocol until 1975 (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsp/gensig.html)).

Ehh, you guys make such a big deal out of killing people... Just as stalin said, one death is a tradgedy, a million is a statistic. Really, Stalin and Mao were trying to make their country, they werent targeting people to die just to kill them or anything, or not for the most part. Hitler was cleansing out a stain in the aryan race, and its only because it was the only viable plan(The madagascar plan wasnt viable by the start of the war). I, again, wont comment in Idi. I voted for osama because he killed with the intention of killing regular civilians because we represented a group. I suppose you could say the same of hitler, but he was thinking of the superiority of aryans more than the inferiority of the jews.

I had to pick Stalin because the Holocaust never happened.

How about Pinochet in Chile, just because we don't know what happened to all those people he "disappeared".

Without question, the answer is God.

How many have died in his name?

Yes.

New Auburnland Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:56 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I had to pick Stalin because the Holocaust never happened."


Of course the Holocaust happened. It's a well documented piece of history, and people like you who deny its existence are just plain ignorant. Does denying it ever happened make you feel better about something? Perhaps you are an american with a german sirname or something, I don't know, but you cannto seriously suggest that it never took place.

It is Stalin because he was paranoid and killed anyone against him. If you even thought of speaking against, you were killed. Plus he f***ed up Russia whereas Hitler (in a way) brought Germany out of a depression.

Everyone whines about the Holocaust and the Jews...not that it wasn't horrible, but it pisses me off when everyone just decided to forget that while the Holocaust took 6 million, Stalin killed 10 million Russians, and Communism has killed over 100 million worldwide...

What about The Jesus? The Jesus is pretty bad..!

but the Holocaust is more known cause Hitler was defeated and also because it was a blatent killing of all Jews, whereas Stalin killed the people against him.

Stalin & Hitler in my opinion....

I say Hitler...though it has been said, Stalin didn't target people on the basis of their race.

Hitler would undoubtebly have been worse in my opinion had the Axis won WWII.

If you don't know who some of these people are I there is a site called www.moreorless.au.com

Very Interesting site.

I have never seen Che Guevara and Winston Churchill on the same list of heroes ever before. Both great leaders in my book, but usually you love one but you hate the other.

I love unbiased sources :)

Hitler killed about 11 million political dissidents, Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, physically and mentally handicapped chaps altogether (that is, number of non-combatants or POWs he killed in Europe.) :D

Wrong number, the Israeli government still agreeds with the number of 6 millions in the camps that include all minnorities. If they agree, we can say 6 million..

But I understand that you mix thinngs up,100.000's still died by the "Sondertruppe" that were active in the east. But as a historian , I have to correct you, alltough your feelings are good. You have got to be precise and devide the numbers of the camps, 6 million (latest studies altough show us about 4.35 million, we conclude this via gasschambercapacity/day/pro camp) and the people that were killed "in loco" like for example the approx. 69.000 killed at Kiev or the approx 91.000 killed in Riga by non Germans (the "innocent collaborator Baltics" that join the EU now) that found "Heil" in the new order and killed their neighbours (still a forgotten WWII topic...)

It was only a minority of Baltics that collaborated - mostly ones classified as Aryan. My grandfather was Lithuanian and put into slave labour, and the same was true about most of his country.

there are a number of names not on that list. give george doublya another four years and he may try to join that club.

worst can of course be defined more then one way. number of persons killed, extremity of ethnic or other bias in doing so.

if we take in the larger scope of recorded human history we would have to add alixander the so called great who slaughtered all those people in afghanistan, pakistan and india.

several american presidents had a national policy of defacto genicide, it was never as overtly admitedly public knowledge at the time it was going on as hitler's death camps, against the indiginous cultures of north america.

i notice idi amin didn't get too many votes yet. well i don't think he came close to hitler or stalin. and i suppose there is a limit on how many options in a poll, but speaking of pols, pol pot gets a dishonerable mention, as does slovidon malosavich.

the latter papa shrubery could have been doing something about instead of make a whoopdie do of playing footsie with kernal irakk, which was going on simultanious with iraq one.

bin laudin is of course a piker in that company, if he belongs in it at all except as a face on a dartboard.

hussain of course did a number of naughty things, at least he is accused of doing so by the u.s. government and corporate controlled media.

skelletons in closets are often the coin of political power building and that is one reason i don't see the concept of soverignty as anything to brag about.

there is a lesson to be learned though. and that is that we could be living in a very different kind of a world. one where incentives to commit attrocities weren't being created.

it may be worth thinking about
what kind of cultural values and personal priorities it would take to actualy not creat them.

i've given a great deal of thought to this, and spread my own conclusions far and wide.
but i also know how inneffective 'preaching' can often be, so i leave it this time up to those who have a conscounse to do their thinking

i'll give you a hint though:
there is no magical idiology, form of government, economic theory nor system of belief that will automaticly do the job, but there IS a way, and it is mostly painless and in and of itself inhibits no real gratification

=^^=
.../\...

He's banned beards, honoured melons and offers dental advice. Is this
the world's craziest dictator?

By Justin Huggler, Asia Correspondent

14 April 2004

He has banned beards and listening to car radios, and instituted a
national holiday in honour of a melon. Now the world's craziest
dictator has identified a new and pressing danger to his people: gold
teeth.

It was atone of the interminable events in his honour that the
President of Turkmenistan, Saparmurat Niyazov, turned to the young
student from an agricultural university reading an address praising her
President and told her to get her gold teeth removed and replaced with
white ones. "Here's the health minister, himself a dentist," he told
the unfortunate woman. "He will give you white teeth."

The great dictator did not stop there. He had some remarkable advice
for the people of his former Soviet republic on how to avoid losing
their teeth. "I watched young dogs when I was young," he said. "They
were given bones to gnaw. Those of you whose teeth have fallen out did
not gnaw on bones. This is my advice."

Gold teeth are popular in the desert country where, despite the health
minister's credentials, dentistry standards are poor and many lose
their teeth young. But they are expected to disappear in coming weeks:
tips from Mr Niyazov are regarded as law.

This sort of eccentricity is becoming the norm under Mr Niyazov, who
prefers to be known as Turkmenbashi, "Leader of the Turkmens". In many
ways he is the classic dictator. Turkmenistan is littered with gold
statues of him, including a giant revolving one in the capital,
Ashgabat. He has appointed himself "president for life", and his rule
is absolute.

But in Mr Niyazov's case this has meant his country of five million
isforced to live under some of the weirdest laws of our times. Two
months ago he used another television appearance to ban beards and long
hair for men. Opera and ballet are not allowed, because Mr Niyazov
decided they were unnecessary. He has changed street names in Ashgabat
to numbers, and forced his ministers to take part in a 36km "health
walk".

Surreally, he has followed in the footsteps of the fictional dictator
in Woody Allen's movie Bananas, to redefine the ages of his citizens.
Adolescence now lasts until 25, youth doesn't end until 37, and old age
starts at 85.

Last year Mr Niyazov instituted a holiday in honour of the muskmelon, a
relative of the watermelon, complete with lavish festivities, and
ordered that everybody take part. "This godsend has a glorious
history," national television announced. "Our great leader, who has a
great love of his nation, has brought the name of the tasty melons to
the level of a national holiday."

Behind the craziness, say human rights groups, lurks a deeply
disturbing state. "Turkmenistan only makes the news because of these
zany stories, but it is also an extremely repressive country," John
MacLeod, of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, said.

The United Nations Human Rights Commission is due to vote this week on
a resolution condemning Mr Niyazov, saying his rule is based "on the
repression of all opposition political activities". It expresses grave
concern over "arbitrary detention and imprisonment ... suppression of
independent media ... restrictions on the exercise of freedom of
thought ... discrimination against ethnic Russian, Uzbek and other
minorities".

His regime did not just prevent dissent, Mr MacLeod said, it demanded
constant loyalty. Schoolchildren were forced to study the Ruhnama, a
weird stream-of-consciousness book by Mr Niyazov, full of disjointed
pseudo-philosophy and slogans.

The apparatchik was in charge of the central Asian republic from the
mid-1980s under communist rule, and easily took power when the country
became independent in 1991. Since then he has ruthlessly removed
potential rivals, to the extent that observers say he is without
competent advisers, isolated from reality. He has visited the same fate
upon his country, maintaining wary relations at best with neighbours
and regional powers.

Mr Niyazov has also mismanaged the economy to the extent that it
remains mired in poverty despite vast reserves of natural gas. But
while the West has long been prepared to turn a blind eye to Mr
Niyazov's excesses as companies compete for a planned pipeline to
export gas through Afghanistan, observers say Mr Niyazov may have
overreached himself in turning on the Russian minority, banning dual
citizenship. Moscow is believed to be irritated.

REIGNS OF TERROR

Cambodia's Pol Pot

Executed Cambodians who wore glasses or spoke a foreign language.

Abolished money, religion, private property, hospitals and schools in a
bid to return to 'year zero'.

Roman Emperor Nero

Made many attempts on his mother's life - finally succeeding - and
staged musical contests from which no one was allowed out for any
reason while he was performing.

Libya's Muammar Gaddafi

Deported half the Palestinian refugees and told them to walk back to
Palestine.

Uganda's Idi Amin

Wanting "a black man's country", Amin expelled the country's 40,000 to
80,000 Indians and Pakistanis. Rumours surrounding Amin included
charges of keeping severed heads in a freezer.

He's banned beards, honoured melons and offers dental advice. Is this
the world's craziest dictator?

By Justin Huggler, Asia Correspondent

14 April 2004

He has banned beards and listening to car radios, and instituted a
national holiday in honour of a melon. Now the world's craziest
dictator has identified a new and pressing danger to his people: gold
teeth.

It was atone of the interminable events in his honour that the
President of Turkmenistan, Saparmurat Niyazov, turned to the young
student from an agricultural university reading an address praising her
President and told her to get her gold teeth removed and replaced with
white ones. "Here's the health minister, himself a dentist," he told
the unfortunate woman. "He will give you white teeth."

The great dictator did not stop there. He had some remarkable advice
for the people of his former Soviet republic on how to avoid losing
their teeth. "I watched young dogs when I was young," he said. "They
were given bones to gnaw. Those of you whose teeth have fallen out did
not gnaw on bones. This is my advice."

Gold teeth are popular in the desert country where, despite the health
minister's credentials, dentistry standards are poor and many lose
their teeth young. But they are expected to disappear in coming weeks:
tips from Mr Niyazov are regarded as law.

This sort of eccentricity is becoming the norm under Mr Niyazov, who
prefers to be known as Turkmenbashi, "Leader of the Turkmens". In many
ways he is the classic dictator. Turkmenistan is littered with gold
statues of him, including a giant revolving one in the capital,
Ashgabat. He has appointed himself "president for life", and his rule
is absolute.

But in Mr Niyazov's case this has meant his country of five million
isforced to live under some of the weirdest laws of our times. Two
months ago he used another television appearance to ban beards and long
hair for men. Opera and ballet are not allowed, because Mr Niyazov
decided they were unnecessary. He has changed street names in Ashgabat
to numbers, and forced his ministers to take part in a 36km "health
walk".

Surreally, he has followed in the footsteps of the fictional dictator
in Woody Allen's movie Bananas, to redefine the ages of his citizens.
Adolescence now lasts until 25, youth doesn't end until 37, and old age
starts at 85.

Last year Mr Niyazov instituted a holiday in honour of the muskmelon, a
relative of the watermelon, complete with lavish festivities, and
ordered that everybody take part. "This godsend has a glorious
history," national television announced. "Our great leader, who has a
great love of his nation, has brought the name of the tasty melons to
the level of a national holiday."

Behind the craziness, say human rights groups, lurks a deeply
disturbing state. "Turkmenistan only makes the news because of these
zany stories, but it is also an extremely repressive country," John
MacLeod, of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, said.

The United Nations Human Rights Commission is due to vote this week on
a resolution condemning Mr Niyazov, saying his rule is based "on the
repression of all opposition political activities". It expresses grave
concern over "arbitrary detention and imprisonment ... suppression of
independent media ... restrictions on the exercise of freedom of
thought ... discrimination against ethnic Russian, Uzbek and other
minorities".

His regime did not just prevent dissent, Mr MacLeod said, it demanded
constant loyalty. Schoolchildren were forced to study the Ruhnama, a
weird stream-of-consciousness book by Mr Niyazov, full of disjointed
pseudo-philosophy and slogans.

The apparatchik was in charge of the central Asian republic from the
mid-1980s under communist rule, and easily took power when the country
became independent in 1991. Since then he has ruthlessly removed
potential rivals, to the extent that observers say he is without
competent advisers, isolated from reality. He has visited the same fate
upon his country, maintaining wary relations at best with neighbours
and regional powers.

Mr Niyazov has also mismanaged the economy to the extent that it
remains mired in poverty despite vast reserves of natural gas. But
while the West has long been prepared to turn a blind eye to Mr
Niyazov's excesses as companies compete for a planned pipeline to
export gas through Afghanistan, observers say Mr Niyazov may have
overreached himself in turning on the Russian minority, banning dual
citizenship. Moscow is believed to be irritated.

REIGNS OF TERROR

Cambodia's Pol Pot

Executed Cambodians who wore glasses or spoke a foreign language.

Abolished money, religion, private property, hospitals and schools in a
bid to return to 'year zero'.

Roman Emperor Nero

Made many attempts on his mother's life - finally succeeding - and
staged musical contests from which no one was allowed out for any
reason while he was performing.

Libya's Muammar Gaddafi

Deported half the Palestinian refugees and told them to walk back to
Palestine.

Uganda's Idi Amin

Wanting "a black man's country", Amin expelled the country's 40,000 to
80,000 Indians and Pakistanis. Rumours surrounding Amin included
charges of keeping severed heads in a freezer.

Yugolsavia, here is the topic again...

there are a number of names not on that list. give george doublya another four years and he may try to join that club.


I'm violating my cow not to post in the General forum again, but I previously posted in this thread, so I don't care that much.


I was wondering how long it would take for people to try to to turn this in to another Bash-Bush thread.

there are a number of names not on that list. give george doublya another four years and he may try to join that club.


I'm violating my cow not to post in the General forum again, but I previously posted in this thread, so I don't care that much.


I was wondering how long it would take for people to try to to turn this in to another Bash-Bush thread.

OOC
One third (or more) of the world already do it everyday. Join in with the majority if you want.

JiangGuo

Stalin was the worst mass-murderer in the history of the world. i cant recall the number of people killed in his purges, work camps, and prison camps; but it was at least twice as many as hitler killed.

and no, you cant justify all those deaths just because he brought his backward country into the 20th century. japan did the same without genocide.

also, Genghis Khan is up there too. per capita he might have killed around what hitler did.

hitler killed far less then what was believed. in american schools, people are taught that 6 million jews were killed. actually i think its around 2 million. that does not make it better, genocide is genocide.

Ya, japan killed millions of chinese civilians instead of japanese :P

too lazy to check if this already happened:

Bush

(someone had to say it :D

there are a number of names not on that list. give george doublya another four years and he may try to join that club.


I'm violating my cow not to post in the General forum again, but I previously posted in this thread, so I don't care that much.


I was wondering how long it would take for people to try to to turn this in to another Bash-Bush thread.

OOC
One third (or more) of the world already do it everyday. Join in with the majority if you want.

JiangGuo

Maybe it's just me but 1/3 isn't a majority.

there are a number of names not on that list. give george doublya another four years and he may try to join that club.


I'm violating my cow not to post in the General forum again, but I previously posted in this thread, so I don't care that much.


I was wondering how long it would take for people to try to to turn this in to another Bash-Bush thread.


Liberals always do.