NationStates Jolt Archive

Give a top five list of who you think are the worst leaders. Mine is:

5) Nero
4) Mussolini
3) Bush
2) Stalin
1) Hitler

There will be no poll, as there are to many choices for worst leader.

1) Licinius Crassus
2) Neville Chamberlain
3) Mugabe
4) Kim Jong-Il
5) Castro

1)Mao
2)Hitler
3)Stalin
4)Kim Jong-Il
5)Pinochet

How can you leave out Pol Pot? He hasn't even been mentioned yet.

Please nobody say Bush, have some fucking imagination.

I would say Caligula, that's a pretty easy choice.

3) Bush


And whether you like the guy or not, it is absolutely ridiculous to equate Bush with the likes of Hitler and Stalin. :rolleyes:

How can you leave out Pol Pot? He hasn't even been mentioned yet.
Who's Pol Pot?

Please nobody say Bush, have some fucking imagination.

I would say Caligula, that's a pretty easy choice.

Too late. See the first post.

1. George W. Bush
2. Saparmurat Niyazov
3. Robert Mugabe
4. Nero
5. Nikola (?) Khruschev

While Adolf Hitler was an awful man with whose politics I disagree utterly, he was a good leader per se. I not only disagree with Bush, but he's an awful leader.

How can you leave out Pol Pot? He hasn't even been mentioned yet.
He was a fairly good leader and managed to stay in power quite a while, even though it was through brutal tactics and suppression of all dissent.

Okay, I'm bailing on this wankstain of a thread. People comparing Bush to Hitler and Stalin (or my suggestion of Pol Pot) is absurd. Anyone doing this is so ignorant of history as to be unbelievable. Get off this forum and read a book or at least a history web site.

And whether you like the guy or not, it is absolutely ridiculous to equate Bush with the likes of Hitler and Stalin. :rolleyes:
Actually its not. Don't you ever feel suspicious that he is trying to make america a tinpot dictatorship, and to take over the world. I do, because I know he did the 11/9 attacks, and then wrote some tall tale that blamed them on al-qaeda, so he would have an excuse to strip americans of their civil liberties. Soon enough, he might try to outlaw elections. Bush is evil.

1. George W. Bush
2. Saparmurat Niyazov
3. Robert Mugabe
4. Nero
5. Nikola (?) Khruschev

While Adolf Hitler was an awful man with whose politics I disagree utterly, he was a good leader per se. I not only disagree with Bush, but he's an awful leader.

Nikolai Khruschev,or Николаи Кчрусцчеж.Hitler was actually a pretty good leader,he as good as single handedly united the german people under the banner of Nazism.not a good think,but it showed good leadership abilities

1. George W. Bush
2. Saparmurat Niyazov
3. Robert Mugabe
4. Nero
5. Nikola (?) Khruschev

While Adolf Hitler was an awful man with whose politics I disagree utterly, he was a good leader per se. I not only disagree with Bush, but he's an awful leader.
Yes. While he did not do anything too bad yet, he is like a combination of Nero and Hitler. really.

Actually its not. Don't you ever feel suspicious that he is trying to make america a tinpot dictatorship, and to take over the world. I do, because I know he did the 11/9 attacks, and then wrote some tall tale that blamed them on al-qaeda, so he would have an excuse to strip americans of their civil liberties. Soon enough, he might try to outlaw elections. Bush is evil.

Okay, run along now to a conspiracy site... :rolleyes:

And whether you like the guy or not, it is absolutely ridiculous to equate Bush with the likes of Hitler and Stalin. :rolleyes:
Okay, I'm bailing on this wankstain of a thread. People comparing Bush to Hitler and Stalin (or my suggestion of Pol Pot) is absurd. Anyone doing this is so ignorant of history as to be unbelievable. Get off this forum and read a book or at least a history web site.

Not really,this is about leadership,not being evil or anything like that.So equating Bush and Hitler is perfectly understanable

How does comparing them on their leadership abilites(or lack thereof) mean we are ignorant of history?I can compare Hitler to Bush on who dislikes communists more.
I can compare you and hitler on who dislikes communists more(well i cant as i dont know what you think about communists,but thats just an example.lets not start discussing communism)

Yes. While he did not do anything too bad yet, he is like a combination of Nero and Hitler. really.
Minus Hitler's charisma, uniting ability, eloquence, and love of puppies, I'm assuming you're saying. And if Bush is as racist as Hitler, he certainly hides it well.

And if Bush is as racist as Hitler, he certainly hides it well.

Or if he is maybe he doesnt realise there are /jewish/gay/black/etc people in america.i doubt it somehow

This one's easy

5. Torquemada
4. Idi Amin
3. GWB
2. Pol Pot
1. Hitler

This one's easy

5. Torquemada
4. Idi Amin
3. GWB
2. Pol Pot
1. Hitler
How can you call Hitler a bad leader? He mostly unified Germany under a single leader, got things done, and crowds went wild whenever he spoke. Due to his eloquence he managed to convince the German people that Jews, blacks, and homosexuals were evil for about 12 years. Likewise, Pol Pot managed to keep Cambodia under a single leadership for about 20 years (IIRC).

I think it's about time we define "bad leader" here.

How can you call Hitler a bad leader? He mostly unified Germany under a single leader, got things done, and crowds went wild whenever he spoke. Due to his eloquence he managed to convince the German people that Jews, blacks, and homosexuals were evil for about 12 years. Likewise, Pol Pot managed to keep Cambodia under a single leadership for about 20 years (IIRC).

I think it's about time we define "bad leader" here.

I call it "bad" because it was malevolent, and self serving. Leadership is different in my mind than whipping people into a nationalistic frenzy and convincing them to die for the wrong reasons. Also the very same reasos I put GWB on the list.

So many choices, so many choices...

Pol Pot
Caligula
Hitler
Stalin
Idi Amin


:p

I call it "bad" because it was malevolent, and self serving. Leadership is different in my mind than whipping people into a nationalistic frenzy and convincing them to die for the wrong reasons. Also the very same reasos I put GWB on the list.

well they did lead their country.just not in a very good direction.but they did lead them very well.

I call it "bad" because it was malevolent, and self serving. Leadership is different in my mind than whipping people into a nationalistic frenzy and convincing them to die for the wrong reasons. Also the very same reasos I put GWB on the list.
Ah, ok. I defined "bad" as "ineffective". For the other kind, I use "evil".

My "evil list" contains:

1. Adolf Hitler
2. Kim Jong-Il
3. Pol Pot
4. Josef Stalin
5. Caligula

I'd include Saparmurat Niyazov, but he's just insane, and insanity pleas get you off.

1. Stalin
2. Lenin
3. Castro
4. Henry V
5. Mao

1.Stalin
2.Nero
3.Kim Il-sung
4.Hitler
5.Jefferson Davis

Davis is on the list not because of the cause he served (Though I'm no fan of secession or slavery) but because he tried to be both general in chief as well as president until very late in the war, instead of giving the former position to a general. As general in chief Davis made some pretty bad choices, such as allowing the invasion of the North twice while the South needed more troops in the Western Theater, defending all of the South with equal effort instead of concentrating its forces in the most important areas, and refusing to replace his friend Braxton Bragg until Bragg had been utterly beaten. Davis' poor leadership was a major (but not the only) reason the South lost the war.

well they did lead their country.just not in a very good direction.but they did lead them very well.

Leadership based on fear isn't really leadership at all, it's intimidation. Anyone with the canjones can intimidate others into doing thing that they want them to do. But that's still not leadership, no matter how you slice it IMO.

Okay, run along now to a conspiracy site... :rolleyes:
Did I also mention that I rated the leaders on two axes: how evil hey are, and how good they are at leading a nation. Bush is also bad at leading a nation. Anyway, just because I think al-qaeda did not do the 11/9 attacks, does not mean i agree with conspiracy sites. After all, they think Katrina is a conspiracy.

Minus Hitler's charisma, uniting ability, eloquence, and love of puppies, I'm assuming you're saying. And if Bush is as racist as Hitler, he certainly hides it well.
Yes, but the point I am trying to make is that he is both a warmongerer, and does not help his people. Hitler had some good things Bush does not.

1. Stalin
2. Lenin
3. Castro
4. Henry V
5. Mao

Sorry bout this, I feel compelled to give a little explanation. Both Stalin and Mao contrived to alienate the majority of their populace, whilst Mao enacted the cultural revolution and Stalin is easily the greatest butcher in history. Lenin laid the foundations for both the works of Stalin and Mao, whilst enacting the red terror and inducing a civil war. Castro came reasonably close to plunging the world into a nucleur war, and has, according to ost reports, made an utter farce out of the administration of Cuba. Henry V is there merely because he allowed the war of the Roses to occur, and lost all British possessions in France.

Leadership based on fear isn't really leadership at all, it's intimidation. Anyone with the canjones can intimidate others into doing thing that they want them to do. But that's still not leadership, no matter how you slice it IMO.

If you can intimidate enough they will follow you,if they follow you you are leading them.

oh and smurferation,smurfivation,smurf
preperation,motivation,fear

Yes, but the point I am trying to make is that he is both a warmongerer, and does not help his people. Hitler had some good things Bush does not.
Well, Bush has his better qualities, too...

This one's easy

5. Torquemada
4. Idi Amin
3. GWB
2. Pol Pot
1. Hitler
WHAT? Torquemada? How can you list such a talented dancer and singer. "The inquisition, what a show..."

ALl joking aside he belongs there, but anyone who puts Bush down needs to have their head examined. He is someone who has freed 50 million people from dictatorships, hardly a bad thing. If you are listing himbecause you see him as a poor leader, then you ought to have people like Carter, Ford, Johnson (both) on there as they were far worse leaders. (and 1 termers, although LBJ had 1.5 really)

I call it "bad" because it was malevolent, and self serving. Leadership is different in my mind than whipping people into a nationalistic frenzy and convincing them to die for the wrong reasons. Also the very same reasos I put GWB on the list.

Ahem, I call Hitler "bad" because of those reasons AND because he was ineffective.

Look at the end, folks, not the middle. Germany was devasted by a coalition of almost every free nation in the world thanks to Adolf's "genius". Military supply lines had to compete with the "need" to transport Jews to death camps. Generals had to forgo strategy for the sake of ideological politics, which may have had early successes (France) but ended in disaster (Stalingrad).

Ahem, I call Hitler "bad" because of those reasons AND because he was ineffective.

Look at the end, folks, not the middle. Germany was devasted by a coalition of almost every free nation in the world thanks to Adolf's "genius". Military supply lines had to compete with the "need" to transport Jews to death camps. Generals had to forgo strategy for the sake of ideological politics, which may have had early successes (France) but ended in disaster (Stalingrad).

Hitler's sole mistake was the invasion of Russia. Had he and Stalin merely tolerated each other and shared Europe and Asia, I can assure you the REich would not have fallen.

anybody mention saddam hu san?lol the dude bombed his own people with scud missle's.....that of course got from rumsfeld,i think he needs a tin foil hat personally.he forgot he ever gave it to him. so put him into consideration

Actually its not. Don't you ever feel suspicious that he is trying to make america a tinpot dictatorship, and to take over the world. I do, because I know he did the 11/9 attacks, and then wrote some tall tale that blamed them on al-qaeda, so he would have an excuse to strip americans of their civil liberties. Soon enough, he might try to outlaw elections. Bush is evil.

You do, do you? Were you there standing behind him the entire time watching his every move? If not, I would hardly call that "knowing". You believe, or you think, maybe, but know... no.

Anyway, "bad leaders" (in no particular order):
1)Caligula
2)Kim Jong Il
3)Herod Agrippa I
4)Kruschev
5)King Louis XVI

"evil leaders"
1)Stalin
2)Hitler
3)Pol Pot
4)Nero
5)Ghengis Khan

Depends what you mean by "bad". Incompetent? Strongly objectionable? If you're going with the latter, then a tentative list would be:

1. Hitler
2. Pol Pot
3. Stalin
4. Idi Amin Dada
5. Mbasogo

I'm letting Bush, Niyazov and Kim off on the grounds that, while insane and/or malevolent, they're nowhere near bad enough to be in the top 5.

Depends what you mean by "bad". Incompetent? Strongly objectionable? If you're going with the latter, then a tentative list would be:

1. Hitler
2. Pol Pot
3. Stalin
4. Idi Amin Dada
5. Mbasogo

I'm letting Bush, Niyazov and Kim off on the grounds that, while insane and/or malevolent, they're nowhere near bad enough to be in the top 5.

Stop bloody putting Hitler in the top 5, everyone, he ruled for only 12 years and killed no more than 10 million. Even Attila supreceded that, as did Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Genghis Khan, and they ruled for longer, imposed upon civil and political rights more, and attempted to justify their actions as in the will of the people, whereas Hitler acted to "save" a nation.

Well,
Mr. "Seashells" Caligula
Robert Mugabe
Mobutu Sese Seko
Kim Jong Il
Kaiser Wilhelm II.

Ahem, I call Hitler "bad" because of those reasons AND because he was ineffective.

Look at the end, folks, not the middle. Germany was devasted by a coalition of almost every free nation in the world thanks to Adolf's "genius". Military supply lines had to compete with the "need" to transport Jews to death camps. Generals had to forgo strategy for the sake of ideological politics, which may have had early successes (France) but ended in disaster (Stalingrad).

This I would agree with. Leadership is also defined by how one's country ends up after they are gone. Stalin, while a nasty, nasty guy, left his country in no worse shape than when he was in power, and the USSR laster another 50+ years. Hitler, OTOH didn't even wait for the end, choosing to off himself rather than face what he had wrought. And Germany was left in a shambles, and later was a divided country for 50 years as well. That is BAD "leadership".

Henry V is there merely because he allowed the war of the Roses to occur, and lost all British possessions in France.

To be pedantic the hundred Years War was Started by Edward III and we had alreadly lost most of our possesions in France by then any way .


my choice of bad Leader

Thabo Mbeki

cos He doing bugger all about Mugabi and is actually starting to act,like him

Well,
Mr. "Seashells" Caligula
Robert Mugabe
Mobutu Sese Seko
Kim Jong Il
Kaiser Wilhelm II.

Is it sad that I actually get that? "Trophies of the sea" indeed...

EDIT: *looks at number of posts* Oh, gods! It's teh 3v1L number!!1!

Kaiser Wilhelm II.
Agreed. Anybody who fires Bismarck is a fucking douche.

Four people who were evil but everybody loves (or a lot of people do anyway, or a at least don’t realize just how evil they were)

Queen Elizabeth I (One of the first butchers of Ireland)
Churchill (near-genocidal maniac, barely stopped from gassing the Germans)
Julius Caesar (Destroyed the Republic)
Peter the Great (put his own son to death)

Hitler's sole mistake was the invasion of Russia. Had he and Stalin merely tolerated each other and shared Europe and Asia, I can assure you the REich would not have fallen.

The man never stopped. If the Czechs had not given in, his sole mistake would have been going to war over the Sudetenland. If France had held out, his sole mistake would have been the invasion of France.

If Russia had fallen, his sole mistake would have been an amphibious assault on the British Isles. If Britain had fallen, his sole mistake would have been an inter-oceanic invasion of Brasil and Canada. More likely, it would have been an invasion of Imperial Japan. Why maintain an alliance with mongrels, anyway? (Wait... the Germans did think the Japanese were racial inferiors, right?)

How long until he decided that only the "truly German" race was the pure one, and started purging Frenchmen? Purging the entire American hemisphere because the inter-racial mixing was beyond redemption?

The man was pressed onward by every success; nothing was going to stop him except absolute failure. Of course, this is just my opinion. ;)

Depends on how you define "worst." I'll compile three lists, each using a different definition of "worst."

Most corrupt:

1.Suharto
2.Ferdinand Marcos
3.Mobutu Sese Seko

Most evil:

1.Mao Tse-tung
2.Joseph Stalin
3.Adolf (S)Hitler
4.Pol Pot
5.Kim Il-sung
6.Ho Chi Minh
7.Kim Jong-il
8.Vladimir Lenin
9.Benito Mussolini
10.Milton Obote (killed more than Idi Amin)

Most incompetent:

1.Neville Chamberlain
2.TIE: Salvador Allende and Mohammed Mossadegh (sp?)
3.Franklin Roosevelt
4.Ngo Dinh Diem
5.George W. Bush

1.Salvador Allende
2.Neville Chamberlain
3.Franklin Roosevelt
4.Ngo Dinh Diem
5.George W. Bush

I'm too tired to critique many of these posts, either positively or negatively, but let me just say I admire a mindframe that's non-partisan enough to put FDR and W on the same list.

bad leaders:
1. Hitler: He was a genocidal maniac who merely took power when people were desperate. He made Germany go from okay to good to so bad, not even the Jews who just escaped the ghettos and slave camps wanted to move back. That and he attacked his most powerful ally when he could have just let his enemies do it.
2. Stalin: He was a paranoid maniac who practicly destroyed much of the support for communism, which went from popular to unpopular. The USSR got better after him because it couldn't get much worse.
3. North Korea Kim person: Devestated North Korea quickly. He defined third world.
4. Sadaam: He killed thousands upon thousands of his own people to create an unstable peace. He violated treaty after treaty. Bush sr. Should have finished the job instead of listening to his pussy friends who told him to not go after Sadaam. Ousting Sadaam could have saved a couple thousand people. Plus, Sadaam was just asking to be invaded after the first treaty he broke.
5. Osama: He, like Kim, helped define third world. He took his people out of modern times and into the middle ages. The only thing that kept him in power was fear.

those five made Bush seem like a super-genious. Heck, even Bush didn't ruin the US that much. Afterall, unemployment and poverty went down. 2 bloody dictators are now out of power. Heck, he even showed much better leadership skills than people say he showed. The main reason he's hated is because he's not an anti-majority liberal who'd rather have an unstable peace than go after what he'd view as a threat.

Why did you ever think of nominating Khruschev?

Why did you ever think of nominating Khruschev?
Khrushchev wasn't that bad of a leader. He made one screw up- and that cost him his job. But no way he should be compared alongside Pol Pot, Mao, Caligula, Marcos, Suharto, Franco etc etc.

Give a top five list of who you think are the worst leaders. Mine is:

5) Nero
4) Mussolini
3) Bush
2) Stalin
1) Hitler

There will be no poll, as there are to many choices for worst leader.
Hitler was a Good leader.

5.Nicholas I Russia
4.Edward II-He never had a chance
3.Ceasar(Purple Clothes Horse as Consul one)
2.Ethelred Unred
1.Mussolini

To be pedantic the hundred Years War was Started by Edward III and we had alreadly lost most of our possesions in France by then any way .


my choice of bad Leader

Thabo Mbeki

cos He doing bugger all about Mugabi and is actually starting to act,like him

My mistake anyway, it was Henry VI. And granted, Edward III did induce the hundred years war through his claim to the French throne, however he, the black prince and Henry V all won considerable victories at Crecy, Potiers and Agincourt respectively. Indeed, in 1420 under the treaty of Troyes Henry V was made the heir to the French throne, and stood to inherit not only the Angevin empire of old but the entirety of France. Henry VI, ny contrast, contrived to cede all his fatehrs gains to an uneducated, unintelligent peasant girl.

What exactly defines a "Good" leader from a "Bad" leader?

What exactly defines a "Good" leader from a "Bad" leader?
It doesn't matter what the standards, on NS the maxim is "If I agree with his politics, he is good."
Example: Alexander the Great was a good leader because the all Oliver Stone said he was "like, really gay" and that makes him liberal.
Example 2: Oliver Stone is a good director, because he revealed how Nixon was planning to blow up the Universe because he was an evil republican, and how JFK sacrificed himself like Jesus and Neo to stop evil Republicans from evilly engaging in an evil war against Vietnam (Nevermind that he started the war, just forget that right now).
Alternately, "If I don't like his politics, he is bad."
Example: George Bush. I don't think I need to go further with this one.
Example 2: Clinton. And I think you can follow that logic rather easily as well.

Khrushchev wasn't that bad of a leader. He made one screw up- and that cost him his job. But no way he should be compared alongside Pol Pot, Mao, Caligula, Marcos, Suharto, Franco etc etc.

That'll be backing down from using his nukes in 1962. It was just one of the final nails in the coffin and the Soviet Council (forget the name of the top of my head) had the votes needed to oust him.

In short, he was impeached and convicted and tossed from power but allowed to live no less.

My Top 5 of Worst Leaders:

1. Hitler
2. Stalin
3. Chamberlin (peace in our time my ass)
4. Imin
5. Annan

The Politburo?

1. Hitler
2. Stalin
3. Chamberlin (peace in our time my ass)
4. Imin
5. Annan
Chamberlain keeps getting bad press, but people still misquote him and forget that he was backed by virtually all of Britain (in this case, he is not worse than his voters - I'd rather not think that).
And then Annan?

Chamberlain keeps getting bad press, but people still misquote him and forget that he was backed by virtually all of Britain (in this case, he is not worse than his voters - I'd rather not think that).
And then Annan?

Chamberlain gave hitler his empirical start. He appeased him. Bad leader, IMHO.

Annan, not so much. There have been better GS's. Oil for Food, anyone? :D

Chamberlain gave hitler his empirical start. He appeased him. Bad leader, IMHO.
What did you expect a gvt. leader to do when everybody had the same idea (it was a cliche of the time that no one would go to war over Czechoslovakia)? And, if this has to make one a bad leader, do you remember a certain Daladier as well? And wouldn't both of them be less then those people in so many countries that were giving Hitler three cheers? What you get is Chambelain + Daladier < Mannerheim + King Carol + Horthy + Metaxas + Franco + Salazar + Czar Boris etc. They would all have to fit on the list, surely.