NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi Everyone!

I would like to discuss and post a poll on what you consider to be the ultimate act of mass killing ever committed.
I'll post a poll above and if the crime you think is the most evil and isnt on there, then post and tell us about it.

I would go for Stalins Gulags. Stalin killed about 70Million people in peacetime in the USSR. Any one who was even considered a class enemy was put into the camps and starved to death.

A lot of people may say that the Holocaust would be the most cruel and inhumane act of evil ever, being killed for being Jews. I was indeed bad and evil but it was not the most evil mass murder ever. There have been worse crimes committed than the Holocaust.

I would go for Stalins Gulags. Stalin killed about 70Million people in peacetime in the USSR. Any one who was even considered a class enemy was put into the camps and starved to death.

A lot of people may say that the Holocaust would be the most cruel and inhumane act of evil ever, being killed for being Jews. I was indeed bad and evil but it was not the most evil mass murder ever. There have been worse crimes committed than the Holocaust.



I voted Gulags. I don't think anyone can really know just how many people Stalin had "removed".

Christian crusades. The most horrid and longest reign of darkness this earth has ever seen and it continues to this day!!

I went for the Cultural Revolution, cause the way he created a climate of paranoia and fear and got everyone in society to mistrust and hate each other.

The gulag. They sent almost all war prisoners there to die. Also they sent so called "enemies of the Party" to the gulags. One wrong word and it was off to the gulags.

Christian crusades. The most horrid and longest reign of darkness this earth has ever seen and it continues to this day!!

don;t know when or where you live, but i've never killed anyone.

*picks up louspeaker*

Have any of you christians killed a muslim lately just becasue? No? OK....

Why nothing about what the Japanese did in China during the 1930's and WWII? Read 'The Rape of Nanking' if you don't know what I'm talking about.

And then there's the dropping of the Bomb on Hiroshima and Ngasaki.

don;t know when or where you live, but i've never killed anyone.

*picks up louspeaker*

Have any of you christians killed a muslim lately just becasue? No? OK....
Wasn't me sir (looks embarassed and shifty)

don;t know when or where you live, but i've never killed anyone.

*picks up louspeaker*

Have any of you christians killed a muslim lately just becasue? No? OK....

Just because you have not killed anyone does that equate that christians have not killed anyone.

I would say the mass executions of Native Americans by U.S. forces.

Well, muslims kill people everyday in the middle east, jews commit murder... come to think of it, people of all races and religions kill people from time to time, so I guess I just don't see your point.

don;t know when or where you live, but i've never killed anyone.

*picks up louspeaker*

Have any of you christians killed a muslim lately just becasue? No? OK....

Oh yeah I have german in me. Any germans out there kill any Jews lately just because? NO? OK...

its so hard to quantify evil

the holocaust is the "gold standard" for genocide. it was horrific, efficient, incredible numbers vs time frame ratio, and had great determination to get the job done even to some camp personnel delaying their escape in order to finish killing people.

stalin has great numbers but over a longer time frame. you didnt need to be an enemy of the state in any way, just the poor sot (and his family) who got fingered when no one else could be found. but i dont recall any stories of soviets tossing live babies into pits to avoid the waste of bullets. so it doesnt reach the same level of creepy evil

same with mao. most of his deaths really came from mismanagement during the great leap forward when he had to cover up massive starvation. the cultural revolution wrecked china for 25+ years and did end up with a goodly number of people killed but in my mind its more of a colossal evil mistake than planned genocide.

if you are going to include the crusades you may as well include any war of the same era, including the islamic conquest of north africa. it was a bad time to be alive.

i chose polpot because it creeps me out the most. maybe its because it occurred during my lifetime when i was young enough to think that "we must never let this happen again" meant something. that a peaceful people like the cambodians can sink to genocide really DOES mean that it could happen to anyone. the % of population is incredibly high, the horror factor is very high (stacks of skulls). i always think of the story of the doctor who was in the middle of an operation when the khmer rouge showed up. in order to survive he had to pretend that the surgeon (him) had already fled and walk out with his patient left on the table with his abdomen open.

i dont remember what the rest of them were.

Mao's killings. Just out of sheer numbers

The Holocaust is by far the most evil period of mass murder in history and is when the largest number of people were ever killed because of their race or religion. Stalin did send around 3 million people to labour camps due to his extreme paranoia and many of these people were killed and around 1 million people died as a result of Mao's cultural revolution but it is absurd to say that any of these things can come anywhere close to the mass murder of around 20 million people for no reason at all other than their ethnic background.

Oh yeah I have german in me. Any germans out there kill any Jews lately just because? NO? OK...

I think the point went way over your head. You claimed the crusades still go on today (or "the reign of darkness" somehow caused by the crusades even though they were largely a failure). No one has claimed the Nazi holocaust still goes on.

I had to choose other because they were all so horrid!
I hate the Crusades and Holocaust the most though, after that comes Mao and Stalin.

holocaust definatly

These are all horrible events. But I would say the most damaging was Stalin. He killed Russia's future. Look at what they are today. Imagine if he wouldn't have been around. Would probably be a world class economy.

I think the point went way over your head. You claimed the crusades still go on today (or "the reign of darkness" somehow caused by the crusades even though they were largely a failure). No one has claimed the Nazi holocaust still goes on.


Christians still slaughter and kill today in the name of their god. Do you deny this? The Crusades still go on to this very day. Shall I post the hundreds of articles refering to the current crusades?

Even President Bush called his war on Iraq a crusade. And I for one believe him he really thinks he is doing gods work.


The Crusades have never really ended just received less publicity to what they really are. The Zionists and the Muslims still battle for land to this day and the Christians are in the fray aiding the Zionists.

The bloodshed continues to this very day. Who will be killed in the name of God today??

Christians still slaughter and kill today in the name of their god. Do you deny this? The Crusades still go on to this very day. Shall I post the hundreds of articles refering to the current crusades?

Even President Bush called his war on Iraq a crusade. And I for one believe him he really thinks he is doing gods work.


The Crusades have never really ended just received less publicity to what they really are. The Zionists and the Muslims still battle for land to this day and the Christians are in the fray aiding the Zionists.

The bloodshed continues to this very day. Who will be killed in the name of God today??

Yes, please provide evidence that the pope is still calling for crusades today, I would like to see that evidence.

These are all horrible events. But I would say the most damaging was Stalin. He killed Russia's future. Look at what they are today. Imagine if he wouldn't have been around. Would probably be a world class economy.

As much as I hate Stalin I think that is nonsense. Although there was a terrible human cost to Stalin's policies it was he who turned a backward nation into a superpower with a powerful economy and nuclear weapons. It was only until the end of Communism when the economy began to collapse and living standards have greatly deteriorated in Russia over the last 15 years under capitalism.

Yes, please provide evidence that the pope is still calling for crusades today, I would like to see that evidence.


Sorry but the pope is no longer the authority.

Are you infering that only a pope can incite a "crusade"?

The Crusades were fought over the holy lands? True or false?

The Holy lands are still in dispute True or false?

Christians and Zionists still are allies against the Muslims in the dispute over the Holy lands. True or false?

The Crusades still continue. The pope is simply nuetered he is no longer a power force.

Sorry but the pope is no longer the authority.

Are you infering that only a pope can incite a "crusade"?

Since a crusade is nominally a holy war then it has to at least be a spiritual leader.

The Crusades were fought over the holy lands? True or false?

True, but this is relevent how?

The Holy lands are still in dispute True or false?

True, but this is relevent how?

Christians and Zionists still are allies against the Muslims in the dispute over the Holy lands. True or false?

True, but this is relevent how?

The Crusades still continue. The pope is simply nuetered he is no longer a power force.

All you've done is identified a few things that the conflicts then and now have in common whilst ignoring the actual reasons for the crusades and the conflict in the middle east now.

Stalin's.

Stalin had the bigger mustache.

Since a crusade is nominally a holy war then it has to at least be a spiritual leader.



True, but this is relevent how?



True, but this is relevent how?



True, but this is relevent how?



All you've done is identified a few things that the conflicts then and now have in common whilst ignoring the actual reasons for the crusades and the conflict in the middle east now.


Ok whatever you say. Like I said the crusades continue!! Which was my original point.

Even President Bush called his war on Iraq a crusade. And I for one believe him he really thinks he is doing gods work.


Did he promise salvation for those that fight (in a spiritual sence)? Does he have the authority to call a crusade? Was he not using the word for its rhetorical value (with a smigen of short sightedness and ignorance to the fact most react to the word 'crusade' negatively).

Ok whatever you say. Like I said the crusades continue!! Which was my original point.

Yet you have failed to identify the reasons and causes of the original crusades and shown how they mirror the reasons and causes of the current troubles in the Middle East.

You have also failed to show how the above points are valid and just not just coincidences.

As much as I hate Stalin I think that is nonsense. Although there was a terrible human cost to Stalin's policies it was he who turned a backward nation into a superpower with a powerful economy and nuclear weapons. It was only until the end of Communism when the economy began to collapse and living standards have greatly deteriorated in Russia over the last 15 years under capitalism.

Ahh yes the great communist economic engine. This is a great myth. There economy wasnt geared towards exports(excluding military weapons). They proved this when communism fell. There economy was shattered. It couldnt compete in world markets. There factories were outmoded/outdated and ill equiped.

Anyone can develop nukes. As proven by N Korea, Pakistan and others.

The reason that there standard of living deteriorated was that they had to conform with world standards. If communism never took power in the revolution. Assuming they would have been in a democracy. Russia would be a far different place.

Sorry but the pope is no longer the authority.

Are you infering that only a pope can incite a "crusade"?

Of course, this is true by definition. Crusades are holy wars called by the pope.

The Crusades were fought over the holy lands? True or false?

True

The Holy lands are still in dispute True or false?

False. The holy lands are in dispute, but they are not "still" in dispute. Adding the word "still" implies that the dispute never ended. It did in fact end until shortly after World War II and the creation of the state of Israel only 57 years ago. The current dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians has nothing to do with the crusades.


Christians and Zionists still are allies against the Muslims in the dispute over the Holy lands. True or false?

False. Christians do not have an official position on the issue. Perhaps you are confusing the United States with christianity. Appart from the United States there is virtually no one supporting the Israelis be they christian or otherwise.

The Crusades still continue. The pope is simply nuetered he is no longer a power force.

There are no organized "christian" soldiers involved in a holy war to take back the holy lands, so no the Crusades do not continue.

Are you infering that only a pope can incite a "crusade"?

No. I know of numerous "crusades".

The Crusades were fought over the holy lands? True or false?

False. Albigensian, Northern Crusades, Crusade against the Hussites
The Holy lands are still in dispute True or false?

Actually, the peace process was proceeding quite well, until the suicide bomber attack.

Christians and Zionists still are allies against the Muslims in the dispute over the Holy lands. True or false?

So you support the extermination of a nation and people?


The Crusades still continue.

Only to your extremely limited intelligence.

I would say all of the above and also include the Yugoslavia genocides, Sudan genocides and the Rwanda genocides which have as equally terrible. I'm not sure that 70 million people were killed by Stalin I think that's a exzageration. I would put it some where between 6-12 mil people were sent to the gulags. the rest probaly died during the great famines that hit the USSR during the 30's-40's

Christian crusades. The most horrid and longest reign of darkness this earth has ever seen and it continues to this day!!don;t know when or where you live, but i've never killed anyone.

*picks up louspeaker*

Have any of you christians killed a muslim lately just becasue? No? OK....

LOL!!!

Vangaardia, you're one sad character! :D

I picked Holocaust.

My personal order:
1. Holocaust
2. Crusades
3. Stalin
4. Bush's warmongering

(I don't really know much about the latter three in the poll.)

I voted Gulags, since killing someone is among the most evil thing to do and he killed the most.

I agree that the crusades are still going on in a way with american and british forces are in the middle east fighting muslims, claiming God is on their side. This war has just as much a point to it as the old crusades had, not much.

Its not exactly the same, but then again, the different crusades werent very similar either

These are all horrible events. But I would say the most damaging was Stalin. He killed Russia's future. Look at what they are today. Imagine if he wouldn't have been around. Would probably be a world class economy.

Get your facts right, regardless of how authoritarian and repressive his government was, Stalin industrialized Russia and got its economy booming, he was an incredibly tough leader who simply did not tolerate dissidents. At least he only killed people for the choices they made and not for what they were. As for the death figures in the USSR , they have been the subject of much debate and I think those who assume he killed around 10 million people are more than a little sick. What the Nazis did was far worse, not just because of their reasons for killing people, but also the way in which they killed them, the utter deliberateness and cold, ruthless sadism of it all and their complete contempt for human life, it's a perfect testament to just how utterly evil the Nazi ideology is.

I had to choose other as you have missed British/English Imperialism!! This would be 500 years of mass murder, genocide, enslavery, opression, robery and rape. I shudder to think on the exact numbers, but you only have to look at tazmania for the most chilling example.

All in the name of empire building!!

I had to choose other as you have missed British/English Imperialism!! This would be 500 years of mass murder, genocide, enslavery, opression, robery and rape. I shudder to think on the exact numbers, but you only have to look at tazmania for the most chilling example.

All in the name of empire building!!

It should be widened to European Empire Building.

Britain was hardly unique.

True, although the option for the spanish one was there.

Before people start saying *the crusade* was the worst ever attrocity, i think you should first look at the fact that it was a response to something that was just as bad. the muslims were invading christain land and if the christains put up any sort of defense, then their people were slaughted. another fact to look at, is that asia minor 500 years ago consisted of mainly greek nationals, yet now they are a minority. this hasn't changed at all either, since world war 1, the population of greek's in turkey has declined very fastly. although i don't condone everything about the crusades, it certainly wasn't *evil*. (except for the 4th, which didn't involve muslims, yet i doubt you were even talking about that one)

Rwanda should have been on the list. As genocide it was more ruthless and over a much shorter period of time than the holocaust. I voted for Stalin though as his reasons were far more insidious. Racial genocide is evil and wrong headed, but at least there is some kind of ideological belief, twisted as it may be, behind it. In Stalin's case it was a pure and simple ruthless demand to be obeyed absolutely. No ideological motivation whatsoever

cambodia

when you want to talk about sheer numbers, they are all pretty much equal.

it's the groups targeted that really matter, and in this case, pol pot was the worst.

the russians imprisoned political opponents

the germans killed whoever was not a white, straight, healthy, nazi

the crusades killed whoever was in their 'holy land'

not entirely sure about mao

the spanish killed in order to gain more land


in cambodia (and this is to the best of my recollection) pol pot believed that culture needed to start again from year zero.

as well as sending political opponents to slave labor and death, he executed anyone who was educated.

he knew that only the educated could overthrow the government, and killed the doctors, lawyers, philosophers, scientists.

killing people is bad.

bringing society and the pursuit of knowledge back to the dark ages is worse.

doing both is beyond incomprehensible

as well as sending political opponents to slave labor and death, he executed anyone who was educated.

Wasn't he a trained teacher?

Wasn't he a trained teacher?


yes


but of course, he was an exception.

he targeted not only political opponents, but anyone who could potentially create more political opponents.


if he eliminates all the educated except his most faithful, there is nobody to educate the masses into believing what he does not want them to believe

think of it as a monopoly of thought.

he is the only source of their knowledge and so they have nothing to believe but what he wants them to believe.

he didn't like literate people, who could potentially read foriegn books and get ideas about other ways of running the country

hitler destroyed the books

pol pot destroyed the people who could read them

I would say the mass executions of Native Americans by U.S. forces.

Over 90% of those deaths were caused by diseases from the old world. It was not the "mass execution" that people ignorant of history make it out to be.

I can't remember what it's called, but when India split into two countries(Pakistan and India), mass killings happened all the time. Hindus would march into Muslim villages and burn them to the ground, and then the Muslims would retaliate and burn down Hindu trains. Trains of Hindus leaving Pakistan for India would be stopped and everyone on board would be shot. When trains left India for Pakistan, the same would happen. In fact, one of my old teachers was a child on one such train, and she only survived by hiding under a seat and watched her uncle get his brains blasted out.

All of them.

I think that since the operative word in the poll was "evil," hitler's holocaust has to trump stalin's.

Stalin's was certainly worse, by any objective standard, but I think that hitler's, by virtue of its savage, purely sadistic and deliberate terrorization of foreign peoples was more 'evil.'

The systematic arrest quotas of the soviet police and other policies certainly resulted in more deaths, but where stalin killed even the executioners eventually, hitler glorified them.

It's a tie between the Assyrian and neo-Babylonian expansions. Both tried to slaughter absolutely everyone that they conquered. Little wonder why many historians say they were among the most violent societies to have ever existed. I wish I was an Egyptian rebel fighting the Assyrians, or a Persian soldier that destroyed the Babylonians. They committed the greatest crimes against humanity.

Get your facts right, regardless of how authoritarian and repressive his government was, Stalin industrialized Russia and got its economy booming, he was an incredibly tough leader who simply did not tolerate dissidents. At least he only killed people for the choices they made and not for what they were. As for the death figures in the USSR , they have been the subject of much debate and I think those who assume he killed around 10 million people are more than a little sick. What the Nazis did was far worse, not just because of their reasons for killing people, but also the way in which they killed them, the utter deliberateness and cold, ruthless sadism of it all and their complete contempt for human life, it's a perfect testament to just how utterly evil the Nazi ideology is.

True u kinda have to admire a man who pulled a nation from a backward agrairian society to a world power but like I was saying i think many capitalist propganda are esxagerating the amount of people killed I don't think that the were 70 million people in USSR back in the 30's and if he had killed that many there probaly wouldn't be a Soviet Union anymore. Most of this data comes from hard core right-wing organizations like the Heritage Foundation. I still stand at my origanal estimates of approxatmly 6-12 million people who were sent to the gulags. Stalin and Hitler were both extremly evil and should be placed in the lowest rungs of human society.

Most people will vote for The Holohoax because its the only one thats crammed down their throats.

The Inquisition hands down. Mainly because it was a combination of many terrible exploits.

Namely, children being burned alive in ovens (reminescent of the Roman and Nazi Holocausts), torture and indiscriminate killing of anyone, you would be killed with no evidence to your guilt of any crime, then your children and your entire family.

The Inquisition hands down. Mainly because it was a combination of many terrible exploits.

Namely, children being burned alive in ovens (reminescent of the Roman and Nazi Holocausts), torture and indiscriminate killing of anyone, you would be killed with no evidence to your guilt of any crime, then your children and your entire family.
Ditto.

Ante Pavelich and the Ustashe. They terrified even the SS.

you would be killed with no evidence to your guilt of any crime, then your children and your entire family.
Gee, who does that remind me of...oh right Joseph Stalin. Except he did it to a lot more people than the inquisition even came near.

Gee, who does that remind me of...oh right Joseph Stalin. Except he did it to a lot more people than the inquisition even came near.
Stalin killed people because he was too brutal. The number actually killed for being unpatriotic or due to race weren't that high. The real deaths came from the near slave labour of the citizens.

That and you also have to look at things in perspective, if the Inquisition had killed as many people as Stalin, it would've eliminated the Human race in Europe. The number of people killed in the Inquisition compared to the European population is larger than the number of people killed under Stalin compared to Russia's population.

Do you have the numbers then to put it in proportion? Maybe it also had to do with the fact that the inquisition effected way less of society then the GULAG.
First, the Spanish Inquisition was over the course of 350 years. Stalin was over the course of 30. So thats one thing to take into your account. Second, at the end of the inquisition, around 40,000 people were dead.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm
Now the Population of the Soviet Union in 1937 was 164 Million http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin
Stalin killed somewhere around 20 million, people, so 1/8 of the population.
40kx8=320
over 10 times as long as a period.
32,000

Your argument would require the population of spain to be 32,000 people over the course of these 300 years.

Currently 1 in 146 people are spanish. (Population of spain is 43 million, population of the world is 6.3 billion). I know this is a rough method, but it will do.

Population of the world in 1400 was 442 million.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

442/146=3 million spaniards.

Wow, seems like I was right.

Get your facts right, regardless of how authoritarian and repressive his government was, Stalin industrialized Russia and got its economy booming, he was an incredibly tough leader who simply did not tolerate dissidents. At least he only killed people for the choices they made and not for what they were. As for the death figures in the USSR , they have been the subject of much debate and I think those who assume he killed around 10 million people are more than a little sick. What the Nazis did was far worse, not just because of their reasons for killing people, but also the way in which they killed them, the utter deliberateness and cold, ruthless sadism of it all and their complete contempt for human life, it's a perfect testament to just how utterly evil the Nazi ideology is.

I have my facts straight. I already countered a post just like yours. Read through the posts first.

Do you have the numbers then to put it in proportion? Maybe it also had to do with the fact that the inquisition effected way less of society then the GULAG.
The effect on society is more severe for the Inquisition actually. In the Inquisition if you were accused, you were dead, getting out was possible only though hefty bribes and even then you might not make it. The Gulags weren't a death sentence, as shown later.

The exact numbers for the Inquisition are impossible to determine. But entire "heretical communities" were destroyed, towns, villages, even entire cities (Mont Segeur) plus countless individuals and their families over nearly 300 years were killed. Only 4.5 million people died in Gulags according to "Gulag: A History - Anne Applebaum" while 18 million went through. Which is miniscule compared to the deaths in the Inquisition. That and there was a chance of getting out as witnessed by the 13.5 million that got out. Inquisitorial prisons were inescapable and always ended in death.

But as the numbers show, you had a better chance of dying in the gulag then over being touched by the inquisition. As for your numbers, they are rediculously low.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin

Those who are shouting "the Crusades" desperately need to get their facts straight. I would suggest reading Joinville, or Villehardouin, or any of the other chronicles written by the men who were there. The only 'genocide' that occurred during the Crusades (with the exception of the Albigensian Crusades, against the French Cathars) was after battles and after sieges, on both sides, just like every other siege or battle in most of recorded history, until the 1800's.
And to say that the Crusades are still raging because people still fight in the Middle East is ignorance. If a police force (trained and government sponsored fighting group) exchanges fire with a gang (realtively untrained and privately sponsored fighting group) in the US, does that mean the American Revolution is still going on? Why not? The sides are structurally similar, one side fights for the order, and one fights for their own order. And before we get any deeper into this Europeans/Christians are the bane of history stuff, let's not forget that only one group has a specific historic term for when they commit genocide, and that term is Turkification. It means eliminating a people, and their culture, like Turkey has been doing to Cyprus since the 70's (Didn't know that? Turkey has violently occupied over one-third of Cyprus for the last three decades).
I'm voting for the Turks. From their emergence on the world scene as a bunch of traitorous mercenaries that were brutal enough to destroy the most brutal regime the Muslim world had yet seen, to their extermination of Byzantine culture, to their repeated attempts to exterminate Balkan culture and dig deeper into Europe, to Turkish foreign practices today, no other culture is like theirs.

PS - If I had to vote for a choice, Spanish colonization. It was bumbling, ruthless, ineffecient, sadistic, disgusting by anybody's standards, and all done in the name of profit.

Most people will vote for The Holohoax because its the only one thats crammed down their throats.

Why are you named after a Nazi German Panzer Division?

Why are you named after a Nazi German Panzer Division?
If I'm not mistaken the Hitler Jugend isthe Hitler Youths not a Panzer division.

Irawana Japan, again, perspective. My numbers seem small. No where near as many people died in the Gulags as in the Inquisitions, but when compared between the population at the time more people died in the Inquisitions than in the Gulags. The effects were also more severe, as the Inquisition was assured death, the Gulags were not often lethal.

But as the numbers show, you had a better chance of dying in the gulag then over being touched by the inquisition. As for your numbers, they are rediculously low.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin

20 million killed by Stalins hand is by far the most of any single leader I would say. Even though WWII killed 55 million. It was done by many groups not just one.

If I'm not mistaken the Hitler Jugend isthe Hitler Youths not a Panzer division.

Irawana Japan, again, perspective. My numbers seem small. No where near as many people died in the Gulags as in the Inquisitions, but when compared between the population at the time more people died in the Inquisitions than in the Gulags. The effects were also more severe, as the Inquisition was assured death, the Gulags were not often lethal.

My mistake, I checked back on my source, and realized that they need to do a better job with punctuation.

The Holocaust is by far the most evil period of mass murder in history and is when the largest number of people were ever killed because of their race or religion. Stalin did send around 3 million people to labour camps due to his extreme paranoia and many of these people were killed and around 1 million people died as a result of Mao's cultural revolution but it is absurd to say that any of these things can come anywhere close to the mass murder of around 20 million people for no reason at all other than their ethnic background.
Your numbers are out a bit there. From what I've read, there was about 10-12 million killed in the Holocaust, not 20.
And Mao's cultural revolution killed way more than 1 million. More like 10 times that number, minimum. The Chinese are notorious for under-reporting their dead. Also, at least 60 million died from starvation as a direct result of his policies during the 1960's. So they should be counted.

My mistake, I checked back on my source, and realized that they need to do a better job with punctuation.
Either way, read his signature and you'll see why that's his name.

The Inquisition hands down. Mainly because it was a combination of many terrible exploits.

Namely, children being burned alive in ovens (reminescent of the Roman and Nazi Holocausts), torture and indiscriminate killing of anyone, you would be killed with no evidence to your guilt of any crime, then your children and your entire family.

Umm, yay for Protestant propaganda?

Why nothing about what the Japanese did in China during the 1930's and WWII? Read 'The Rape of Nanking' if you don't know what I'm talking about.

And then there's the dropping of the Bomb on Hiroshima and Ngasaki.
Yeah I agree, Manchuria should have been on the poll. But not the a-bombs. The bombing of Hiroshima and Ngasaki was a double atrocity, but cames nowhere near gulags or the holocaust.

It's not how many they killed...but how and why they killed. Stalin was indiscriminate, mainly killing off dissidents and political opponents.

Hitler just wanted to kill the "undesirables"

Although the Armenian Genocide was also horrendous.

not that im saying it as the worst but native americans should get a metion ^_^

You know, it all comes down to what you mean by "evil." Is killing 2 people more evil than killing 1 person?

According to some, it is. According to others, killing is evil period and you can't have different levels of evilness beyond that. You can't have someone "slightly evil" or "more evil." Once you know evil, it's evil and that's that.

Calling people who kill millions "more evil" could be a way to make rapists and serial killers look, comparitively, "less evil." But that creates the mistaken impression that somehow, its not as bad to be "less evil" as it is to be "more evil." Hmm, maybe I should kill... certainly I will not be "as evil" as Hitler, say, so it won't be so bad.

But then if you look at evil objectively as some sort of negative function upon society, then it's very clear. Which caused the most harm. Which had the most deaths. Then again, 'harm' is not as easy to measure... and deaths seem to vary widely, at least from internet sources...

Anyway, what this thread is really about is who's Evil Penis is largest. :p

You know, it all comes down to what you mean by "evil." Is killing 2 people more evil than killing 1 person?

According to some, it is. According to others, killing is evil period and you can't have different levels of evilness beyond that. You can't have someone "slightly evil" or "more evil." Once you know evil, it's evil and that's that.

Calling people who kill millions "more evil" could be a way to make rapists and serial killers look, comparitively, "less evil." But that creates the mistaken impression that somehow, its not as bad to be "less evil" as it is to be "more evil." Hmm, maybe I should kill... certainly I will not be "as evil" as Hitler, say, so it won't be so bad.

But then if you look at evil objectively as some sort of negative function upon society, then it's very clear. Which caused the most harm. Which had the most deaths. Then again, 'harm' is not as easy to measure... and deaths seem to vary widely, at least from internet sources...

Anyway, what this thread is really about is who's Evil Penis is largest. :p

We are back to talking about Penis size again SB?

Holocaust, only because the west knew what was going on, and did nothing.

We are back to talking about Penis size again SB?

Are we? You know most threads are about exactly that. My evidence is that this site is populated mostly by males, and mostly teenage males. :shrug: A bit like saying the sky is blue, really.

I don't think you can define the most evil man slaughter by numbers. I think it should be defined by the way and the manner in which it was done.

So, let's look at any of those slaughters:

- Holocaust: Blinded fools who believe so stubbornly in their beliefs of superior races which should kill lower races that they acctually do it.

- Gulag: A madman let loose on a country.

- Cultural Revolution: A series of wrong decisions and mismanagment.

- Cambodia: Another madman set loose on a country.

- Crusades: A bunk of religious fanatics killing everything who is not on their said in the name of their religion. Don't forget that also the Muslims did similar things.

- Conquistadors: A bunch of high-tech adventurers (at least compared to the indian cultures they were attacking) playing "Alexander the Great" in America and almost making the native population extinct in the process (mostly because of illnesses brought from Europe).



Now, there are some things missing in this poll:

- Extermination of North-American Indians: A bunch of white, calvinistic adventurers with guns and lots of whisky, trying to settle in a country they claim is practically empty, but in fact they are making it empty themselves by systematically exterminating the native population.

- The Rwanda-Massacre: Two tribes in Africa, one ruling, one being ruled. The ruled tribe gets angry and tension rises, until it gets loose like a flood of hatred and wrath. Crazy tribesmen slaughtering masses of their rulers with sticks, spikes and machetes. Not a pretty site, when rivers flow with bodies, gore and blood instead of water (I've seen pictures :rolleyes: ). About a half to one Milllion people were killed in about a few months.

- The Mongolian Way of Sacking a City: Tamerlan, for example, ordered the whole of Bagdad being killed and the skulls of the inhabitants being put together to huge pyramids as warning signs for other want-to-be-rebels. Other similar horrifying stories are told of the other Mongolian rulers.

- The Armenian-Massacre: During and After World War 1, the Turks systematically began to exterminate the Armenians. Until today, the Turkish Government denies these acts.




Well, so what's the most evil? Personally, I would either choose the Conquistadors, the extermination of North-American Indians, the massacre of the Armenians or the Mongolian way of sacking rebellious cities. All those weren't commited by madmen, fanatics or were the result of misjugdments. Those four were results of either human greed (conquistadors and North America) or cold planning (Armenians or Mongolians). And that makes those crimes so horrible, for it were quite sane people who commited them.

Why are you named after a Nazi German Panzer Division?

A) Its the Hitler Youth, not a panzer division.
B) It would take pages to explain my name.
C) Why are you named after someone who exemplifies the idealogies of a corrupt, totalitarian government? I read The Prince when I was in university. It was such a horrible book, plagued with his insidious ideas.

A) Its the Hitler Youth, not a panzer division.
B) It would take pages to explain my name.
C) Why are you named after someone who exemplifies the idealogies of a corrupt, totalitarian government? I read The Prince when I was in university. It was such a horrible book, plagued with his insidious ideas.

You play at understanding like a child playing with a toy. You attack Machiavellian thought as corrupt and totalitarian, seemingly ignoring the truth of your own ideals. Tell me, how much do you know about the origins of your own ideology? For example, do you know that it was first codified by a diseased madman (and before you get in too much of a huff, I don't mean Hitler)? But without getting in to that, what exactly is so insidious about The Prince? Is it the basic assumption that people are looking out for #1 (themselves)? Because everything else in it is an expansion of that one idea. For example, don't trust your servants, they will only help you so long as they can't topple you. Don't trust mercenaries, they will only help if they can't defeat you. As a matter of fact, Machiavellian thought, unlike Nazi ideology, specifically prohibits atrocities, as they would make others hate you.

All that said, here's the good news for the Nazi apologists. In a few generations, your views will be much more acceptable. It is the nature of atrocities that we forget them, for the same reason they get out of hand. We refuse to believe them, so we don't stop them until they are undeniable. Similarily, as so many people today refuse to believe that someone could actually kill as many people as Stalin did, and look instead at his successes in industrialization, within a few generations Nazi Germany's economic revival will have superceded it's atrocities.

I would say the mass executions of Native Americans by U.S. forces.

I would say the GEnocide of all creoles in the carribean by British troops to be far worse... atleast NAtive Americans survived as a race.

But not the a-bombs. The bombing of Hiroshima and Ngasaki was a double atrocity, but cames nowhere near gulags or the holocaust.
I know. I was trolling more than anything, but no-one took me up on it. I was just thinking in terms of Mass Killing as a single event, not drawn out of several years which is what the poll refers to. The Bombing of those two cities surely rates as one of the biggest single Mass Killing in History. There's also the mass killing of Russians (I think it was, might be Poles) by the Germans where they slaughtered 35000 in 36 hours. Took them into the woods and systematically shot them. You almost have to admire their efficiency. That's 16 a minute - one slaughtered every 4 seconds.

I would go for the extermination of the Native Americans (NAs) myself as the biggest, and most ignored Mass Killing in History. It has been estimated that there were 20 million NAs in North America in 1500. Now there's around 2.5 a million. That's a very impressive kill rate of 87.5%, if we ignore the fact that a century ago there was a lot less of them. Really if you went back, say 200 years, it would be more like a kill rate of 98+%. There were only a few hundred thousand left by the 19th Century. But how many movies and polictical speeches have been made about them?
I would say the GEnocide of all creoles in the carribean by British troops to be far worse... atleast NAtive Americans survived as a race.
Except not all the tribes survived. And they were a lot different to each other.

In revenge for an arrow from Nishapur's walls that killed Jinghiz Khan's son-in-law in 1221, when the city was finally captured the Mongol Tolui massacred its unarmed inhabitants. This ancient capital of Khorassan in Persia was then a "scene of a carnival of blood scarcely surpassed even in Mongol annals....separate piles of heads of men, women, and children were built into pyramids; and even cats and dogs were killed in the streets." An utterly fantastic 1,747,000 human beings reportedly were slaughtered, a number exceeding the contemporary population of Hawaii, Rhode Island, or New Hampshire; a number that is around a third of the total Jews murdered by Hitler.

Tamerlane, however, is my favorite - a Turk who proclaimed himself restorer of the Mongol Empire, razed Isfarain to the ground in A.D. 1381; built 2,000 prisoners into a living mound and then bricked them over at Sabsawãr in 1383; piled 5,000 human heads into minarets at Zirih in the same year; cast his Luri prisoners alive over precipices in 1386; massacred 70,000 people and piled the heads of the slain into minarets at Isfahan in 1387; ....buried alive 4,000 Christian soldiers of the garrison of Sivas after their capitulation in 1400; and built twenty towers of skulls in Syria in 1400 and 1401Tamerlane was another son of a bitch. At Delhi, he massacred 100,000 military prisoners, because some of them were seen to smile when the army of their countrymen came in sight. He laid a tax of the following sort on the people of Isfahan: to find him 70,000 human skulls, to build his towers with; and, after Bagdad had revolted, he exacted of the inhabitants as many as 90,000. He burned, or sacked, or razed to the ground, the cities of Astrachan, Carisme, Delhi, Ispahan, Bagdad, Aleppo, Damascus, Broussa, Smyrna, and a thousand others.

What about the coming mass murder as a result of climate change...

What about the coming mass murder as a result of climate change...

That's called sucide by stupidity. We've known for the last 20 years that what we are doing to ourselves and our planet is gonna kill us and then also add the millions who will also be killed by Smallpox and the Bird Flu and say goodbye human race.

The holocaust was an industrialized killing, with companies ordering slaves they could work to death - highly efficient and done as a business operation.

What's interesting in the case of Pol Pot is, that the US paved the way to his success and supported him after he was ousted by the Vietnamese - denouncing the Vietnamese of occupation. ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend" - just as with bin Laden)

In both cases there was intent of killing - the difference: the Germans made the killing profitable.

With Stalin there was paranoia involved, with China sheer stupidity.

Hi Everyone!

I would like to discuss and post a poll on what you consider to be the ultimate act of mass killing ever committed.
I'll post a poll above and if the crime you think is the most evil and isnt on there, then post and tell us about it.
the Catholic Church's intentional spreading of lies regarding condoms and AIDS. i feel it is the worst because the Church is still regarded as a beautiful and peace-loving organization, even though they are deliberately encouraging the spread of a deadly pandemic. they are placing their personal agenda above the lives and safety of millions of human beings...and yet people still regard the Pope as a great man, and the Church as a decent institution.

to me, the actual mass killing is only the first part of the horror; the real nightmare comes when you have to watch people supporting and applauding those who perpetrate the killings, and when you are accused of bigotry and wickedness for attempting to stop the murder.

i chose the latin american expansion. sure, the others killed a lot of people, but none of the others really wiped out entire civilisations and cultures. this also goes for the european expansion into north america.

Why nothing about what the Japanese did in China during the 1930's and WWII? Read 'The Rape of Nanking' if you don't know what I'm talking about.

And then there's the dropping of the Bomb on Hiroshima and Ngasaki.
Actually the bombs saved an estimated 5 million lives! If the allies had been forced to invade Japan then there would have been HEAVY casualties on the Japanese civilians as they were all training to die just to take out another enemy soldier. So in that light the bombs were actually good, not evil as you infer.

I would say the GEnocide of all creoles in the carribean by British troops to be far worse... atleast NAtive Americans survived as a race.
Actually the Carib's killed the Creoles.

- Conquistadors: A bunch of high-tech adventurers (at least compared to the indian cultures they were attacking) playing "Alexander the Great" in America and almost making the native population extinct in the process (mostly because of illnesses brought from Europe).
And the difference between these two is? They were both largely done by disease!

- Extermination of North-American Indians: A bunch of white, calvinistic adventurers with guns and lots of whisky, trying to settle in a country they claim is practically empty, but in fact they are making it empty themselves by systematically exterminating the native population.
- Crusades: A bunk of religious fanatics killing everything who is not on their said in the name of their religion. Don't forget that also the Muslims did similar things. Both the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisitions were said to be being done in the name of Christianity but were actually politically motivated. And I assume you meant a bunch?

Whispering Legs has some VERY good points and brings to light a little know psycho, though that is an insult to most psychos I know! :p