NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you think is the worst dictator?
This includes dictators from ancient times ie. roman emperors, kings etc.

Of all dictators that I can recall without doing any extensive historical investigation I'd probably say Hitler. Stalin was awfull also.

myrth

in parade this morning there was a list of the top 10 worst dictators (current ones)... 1 was sudan, 2 was korea... somehow iran was 9. wtf

hitler was the worst, with stalin.

george bush is defintly the worst dictator:sniper:

It is clearly Hitler and Stalin, hands down.

http://stealthboy.dyndns.org/~msherman/images/galvatron.jpg

COuldn't even kill Rodimus Prime.

Who do you think is the worst dictator?
This includes dictators from ancient times ie. roman emperors, kings etc.
wait... Worst Dictator as being the most evil dictator of all time, or worst Dictator as being incompetent?

Hitler and Stalin due to them both being so evil and both having the ability to live quite a while to fulfill their evil intentions

Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot

george bush is defintly the worst dictator:sniper:
Oooh, gee, how long did that take to cook up? Tsk tsk, the rest of the liberals on this forum seem to be losing their touch. I might as well play apolitical so I don't get branded with their stamp of unoriginality.

Worst dictator in history? All things considered, I'd agree on Stalin or Hitler. But, for the sake of originality and because the name comes to mind (was just discussing him a few days ago), I'll say Pol Pot.
Edit - I forgot! I totally forgot! I've let myself down.
Gheoghe Gheorghiu-Dej.
DAMN.

Not many people talk about Pol Pot. He was a crazy bastard.

Not many people talk about Pol Pot. He was a crazy bastard.
Yeah, but definitely one of the most interesting to learn about. I think he showed a lot more promise than some of the more well-known modern dictators.

Simonist']Yeah, but definitely one of the most interesting to learn about. I think he showed a lot more promise than some of the more well-known modern dictators.


Yes. Definitely one of the wiser dictators.

wait... Worst Dictator as being the most evil dictator of all time, or worst Dictator as being incompetent?
I was thinking of most evil

The People. After all, who was it that put the Hitlers, Stalins, and Pol Pots into their positions of power in the first place?

Mao Zedong, for sheer incompetence and brutality.

I was thinking of most evil
hmmm... that's a thought... was there ever a "Kind Dictator?"

I mean if Dictators are automatically Evil, then the Worst Dictator would be a Kind Dictator and a Good Dictator would be really, really evil... right?


*Head Explodes*

Well, IMHO it's hard to say, 'cause there were many of whom nobody's heard, whether because they ruled small Third World countries or ruled long time ago in distant regions. Of those known, I'd mention Uncle Joe and Adolf (and I wonder if Stalin wasn't the more evil one), and Vetalia reminds me of Mao.

(rolls eyes) Conformists. Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad, but they werent the only Dictators WERE THEY (whaps you all round the head) Your just afraid that if you dont say them people will think your a Nazi or a Commie.
Look at Edward I Genocidal Maniac, Tortured people, Invaded lots of countries, and he didnt have elections so he WAS a Dictator.

Look at Saddam Hussein, Genocide and all that but no. Go straight for Hitler cos he had more propoganda thrown at him than anyone else combined. (rolls eyes) Conformists.

It is clearly Hitler and Stalin, hands down.
Yes hands down. Nero was pretty bad to though.

(rolls eyes) Conformists. Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad, but they werent the only Dictators WERE THEY (whaps you all round the head) Your just afraid that if you dont say them people will think your a Nazi or a Commie.
Look at Edward I Genocidal Maniac, Tortured people, Invaded lots of countries, and he didnt have elections so he WAS a Dictator.

Look at Saddam Hussein, Genocide and all that but no. Go straight for Hitler cos he had more propoganda thrown at him than anyone else combined. (rolls eyes) Conformists.
I don't Hitler is "worse" really, he just had the power to do worst things.

hmmm... that's a thought... was there ever a "Kind Dictator?"

I mean if Dictators are automatically Evil, then the Worst Dictator would be a Kind Dictator and a Good Dictator would be really, really evil... right?


*Head Explodes*A dictator CAN be kind. I liked Napoleon, though I can't really say he's "kind."

Stalin and Mao

Mao Zedong, for sheer incompetence and brutality.

Mao Zedong was better than Kai Shek who was the previous, US supported nationalist leader of China

(rolls eyes) Conformists. Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad, but they werent the only Dictators WERE THEY (whaps you all round the head) Your just afraid that if you dont say them people will think your a Nazi or a Commie.
Look at Edward I Genocidal Maniac, Tortured people, Invaded lots of countries, and he didnt have elections so he WAS a Dictator.

Look at Saddam Hussein, Genocide and all that but no. Go straight for Hitler cos he had more propoganda thrown at him than anyone else combined. (rolls eyes) Conformists.

Hitler and Stalin killed more than Saddam Hussein. Currently gonna read on Edward I since I do not know much about him

Conformists.

Teenage cliche.

Stalin was a nice fellow! Sure, he sent millions to work and die in camps, but who hasn't?

No, the worst dictator must be Mussolini... He couldn't even churn out a army capable of defending itself... A real dictator would've put all kinds of efforts in keeping a reasonable army, not prancing around Hitlers ass like some crazy poodle... Atleast Stalin had a huge, lumbering warmachine, not some drunken conscripts from the Italian taverns...

probably out of the 3 most well known ones, hitler mussolini and stalin, it would definatly be stalin, killed far more people under him than the other two combined

Teenage cliche.

Thats kinda the idea ;p Btw do you know if you took the H out of your name...

Stalin, then Mao,then one of the Kims

The People. After all, who was it that put the Hitlers, Stalins, and Pol Pots into their positions of power in the first place?Hmm, you've swayed my opinion. I'll also go with the proletariat (which, granted, isn't all of "the people", but encompasses the worst and stupidest among others.)

Thats kinda the idea ;p Btw do you know if you took the H out of your name...

Yeah. Clever. Let me ask you something. A bit off topic but I'm interested- what do you mean when you call yourself a 'bolshevik'? Even that as a term is too diverse these days.

Yeah. Clever. Let me ask you something. A bit off topic but I'm interested- what do you mean when you call yourself a 'bolshevik'? Even that as a term is too diverse these days.

Quite simply because those who Know what it means and like the Idea will support me, and those who know what it means and dont like it, normally dont like my ideals anyway so im being a Populist.

Quite simply because those who Know what it means and like the Idea will support me, and those who know what it means and dont like it, normally dont like my ideals anyway so im being a Populist.

Oh god. Dont tell me you're a National Bolshevik.

Oh god. Dont tell me you're a National Bolshevik.
I am, however the worst dictator is G.w. Bush followed by kim jung-il

No. Im a Hardcore-Socialist. Im stuck in between Socialists and Bolsheviks.
I have idea's that upset Socialists so i call myself a Bolshevik.
In truth... im probobly a Liberal-Socialite, but i think about it too much and i drift further and further towards Bolshevism the more i think.

Hmm, you've swayed my opinion. I'll also go with the proletariat (which, granted, isn't all of "the people", but encompasses the worst and stupidest among others.)

Brilliant, i am sending you e-applause immediatly, and, have a cookie:)

Stalin
Kim-Jong il and his father

People upset me soooo much :( why isnt MY name on here?
You dont see any EUROPA ALPHA! He was Eeevil........

Mao Zedong was better than Kai Shek who was the previous, US supported nationalist leader of China

Less corrupt, perhapse, but he still killed 10s of millions of innocent people for ideological reasons, totally trashed the established culture of China, destroyed priceless antiquities, and still managed to starve a few dozen million more through wrongheaded policies.

Not to mention the whole "Great Leap Forward".

I have to say Stalin. Killed millions of people to spread fear of him, turned the Soviet Union into a brutal corrupt inefficient system, effectively allowed hitler into power by telling the german communists not to align with the socialists, allowed franco to win the civil war by turning against the trotskyists and the anarchists, lost marxism-leninism a huge amount of credibility AND MURDERED TROTSKY!

I have to say Stalin. Killed millions of people to spread fear of him, turned the Soviet Union into a brutal corrupt inefficient system, effectively allowed hitler into power by telling the german communists not to align with the socialists, allowed franco to win the civil war by turning against the trotskyists and the anarchists, lost marxism-leninism a huge amount of credibility AND MURDERED TROTSKY!

And Bukharin, Rykov, Tomsky, Zinoviev, Kirov, Kamenov, and the remiander of the Boshevik central commitee of 1917, barring Lenin who was thankfully long dead.

And Bukharin, Rykov, Tomsky, Zinoviev, Kirov, Kamenov

Work with Stalin and that happens.

Work with Stalin and that happens.

Yeah, suppose so.

There are, and have been, so many dictators that I don't think it's pertinent to try to identify the single worst. To that end, it may be valuable to recognize that, in many extremities, there is a threshold where beyond which distinctions are irrelevant. So then, a survey of who has been among the naughtiest...

Historical figures:
Stalin
Hitler
Mao (PRC)
Chiang Kai-shek (ROC)
Pol Pot
Kim Sr. (NK)
Suharto, et al (sp?) (Indonesia, for killing 1/3 of the East Timorese and decades of military conquest from Aceh to Borneo)
LBJ & Nixon (for killing 3 million Vietnamese, a million Khmers and Laotians, and thereby enabling Pol Pot to take power)

Current regimes:
the military commanders of Myanmar
Mugabe (Zimbabwe)
GWB
Kim Jr. (NK)
the Chinese Communist Party
numerous African warlords
Howard (yeah, right, just kidding~~what a wannabe, haha!)

Seriously, though, there have been more genocidal, or otherwise murderous, dictatorships than most history majors could ever identify. Therefore, I think there is merit in compiling a list of those still in power today. I haven't yet gotten around to learning about the subjugated states of central america or much about Africa, and then...Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi...and how is Qadafi suddenly a good guy? Good ole forums full of people of diverse knowledge..!

The Money

I am, however the worst dictator is G.w. Bush followed by kim jung-il

I haven't heard of the first one being crazy paranoical maniac murdering dozens of people in gas chambers, thousands in gulags and whole lot of others through famine, making money from drugs, money forgery and selling rocket technology to another maniacs, but it's probably Imperialist propaganda.

Bush certainly isn't the best US president ever, but placing him over Kim is a sign of unspeakable ***** (here to be placed as You prefer: antiglobalist zeal/antiBush zeal/stupidity).

PS. I am quite new here; I hope responding to Darwinianstan won't be feeding the Troll.

You guys really need to bone up on your history.

As far as the 20th Century goes, you really can't go past Pol Pot. He may not have killed in as large absolute numbers as Stalin or Hiltler did, but his per capita rate was much higher. His government also managed wat the US Air Force couldn't - to wreck the country quite thoroughly. Hitler and Stalin built up; all Pol Pot did was destroy.

Going back a ways, we get to the great nomad conquerors, Genghis Khan and Tamerlane. They smashed the Caliphate, conquered everything form the Pacific to Bulgaria - and built nothing that lasted even a single generation.

Going back to the Romans - well, Nero was overrated, he was just a spoiled brat. But Caligula was a raving lunatic, butchering, raping and abusing his own people to the point where his own sworn guards were forced to do him in.

Hitler gets a lot of hate (and rightly so) for the 40 million deaths he brought about, but nobody seems to remember Stalin was responsible for almost 100 million deaths during his career, and not just his own population. He exported more death and hate than Adolf did during the cold war.

People also seem to forget that Dubyah was democratically elected by a majority vote in a US election. Tony Blair over here was voted in by 15% of the population which was only 34% of the electorate, the same percentage that kept the Soviets running Russia for so long. Now THAT's what I call dictatorship.

Mussolini was the worst Dictator by far he couldn't do anything right.

That's like saying "stuff the Great War, WW2 was loads better with more dead AND nuclear weapons".

That's like saying "stuff the Great War, WW2 was loads better with more dead AND nuclear weapons".
Atomic Weapons.

Get your WMD's right.

hmmm... that's a thought... was there ever a "Kind Dictator?"

Yes. Lee Kuan Yew and Félix Houphouët-Boigny.

Mao! That guy was such an aweful ruler! Not all of it was because he was cruel, either! Under his reign China lost like 1/3 of its population! The guy was insane!

There are, and have been, so many dictators that I don't think it's pertinent to try to identify the single worst. To that end, it may be valuable to recognize that, in many extremities, there is a threshold where beyond which distinctions are irrelevant. So then, a survey of who has been among the naughtiest...

Historical figures:
Stalin
Hitler
Mao (PRC)
Chiang Kai-shek (ROC)
Pol Pot
Kim Sr. (NK)
Suharto, et al (sp?) (Indonesia, for killing 1/3 of the East Timorese and decades of military conquest from Aceh to Borneo)
LBJ & Nixon (for killing 3 million Vietnamese, a million Khmers and Laotians, and thereby enabling Pol Pot to take power)

Current regimes:
the military commanders of Myanmar
Mugabe (Zimbabwe)
GWB
Kim Jr. (NK)
the Chinese Communist Party
numerous African warlords
Howard (yeah, right, just kidding~~what a wannabe, haha!)

Seriously, though, there have been more genocidal, or otherwise murderous, dictatorships than most history majors could ever identify. Therefore, I think there is merit in compiling a list of those still in power today. I haven't yet gotten around to learning about the subjugated states of central america or much about Africa, and then...Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi...and how is Qadafi suddenly a good guy? Good ole forums full of people of diverse knowledge..!
The United Sates has never had a dictator, just for your elucidation.

dic·ta·tor

NOUN: An absolute ruler. A tyrant; a despot.

I hope responding to Darwinianstan won't be feeding the Troll.
Nahh. He'll post idiocy no matter what anyone does. Just don't expect anything you say to have an impact on him.

LBJ & Nixon (for killing 3 million Vietnamese, a million Khmers and Laotians, and thereby enabling Pol Pot to take power).

Funny how leftists pin the entire blame of all the Vietnamese killed on those two, as if 100% of the deaths were caused by them.

And why the fuck hasn't anyone mentioned Ho Chi Minh yet? He butchered thousands of political rivals in the late 1940s, by having them buried alive (so only their heads were above ground), then having harrows driven across the fields, ripping their heads apart. In the 1950s, his "land reform" policies killed tens or even hundreds of thousands more. Christians, intellectuals, people of mixed parentage (French and Vietnamese), the well-off, etc., were slaughtered in ways that would have made the Nazis squirm. The most brutal terrorists of all time, the Vietcong (most brutal in terms of how they killed people) were supported by the North. Torture and corruption were rampant in the North. No opposition parties were tolerated. It was a Stalinist police state. Yet, the left idolizes this monster because he was anti-Western.

The United Sates has never had a dictator, just for your elucidation.

dic·ta·tor

NOUN: An absolute ruler. A tyrant; a despot.

Lincoln was one.

Perhaps it's because he has a cool name?

Did you ever think of that?

Funny how leftists pin the entire blame of all the Vietnamese killed on those two, as if 100% of the deaths were caused by them.

And why the fuck hasn't anyone mentioned Ho Chi Minh yet? He butchered thousands of political rivals in the late 1940s, by having them buried alive (so only their heads were above ground), then having harrows driven across the fields, ripping their heads apart. In the 1950s, his "land reform" policies killed tens or even hundreds of thousands more. Christians, intellectuals, people of mixed parentage (French and Vietnamese), the well-off, etc., were slaughtered in ways that would have made the Nazis squirm. The most brutal terrorists of all time, the Vietcong (most brutal in terms of how they killed people) were supported by the North. Torture and corruption were rampant in the North. No opposition parties were tolerated. It was a Stalinist police state. Yet, the left idolizes this monster because he was anti-Western.
Ahhh! Someone who can actually think! :D

Lincoln was one.
Close, but not quite.

(rolls eyes) Conformists. Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad, but they werent the only Dictators WERE THEY (whaps you all round the head) Your just afraid that if you dont say them people will think your a Nazi or a Commie.
Look at Edward I Genocidal Maniac, Tortured people, Invaded lots of countries, and he didnt have elections so he WAS a Dictator.

Look at Saddam Hussein, Genocide and all that but no. Go straight for Hitler cos he had more propoganda thrown at him than anyone else combined. (rolls eyes) Conformists.


Yes but hitler an stalin were terrible dicaters and were the worst!

Mao Zedong. The Great Leap Forward was a stupid, horrible way to kill millions, but the Cultural Revolution was both stupider and more immediately deadly. How can killing clever people possibly advance your society in ANY concievable way?

In my opinion, Chairman Mao impeccably combined the concepts of inhuman brutality and inhuman stupidity better than any other man in history.

People say that Stalin and Hitler were like animals. They were not like animals. They had some warped concepts of culture and civilization, as well as at least a vague, educated-guess idea of what might not totally bring immediate ruin to their nations.

Chairman Mao WAS like an animal. He was as clueless as an animal as well as being as brutal as an animal. If an angry bear could run a government, it might do similar things to those which Mao did.

Mao Zedong was better than Kai Shek who was the previous, US supported nationalist leader of China

US supported?! Yikes! Chairman Mao killed about 30 million innocents, but Chiang Kai-Shek was SUPPORTED BY THE USA?! WHAT AN AWFUL MAN

US supported?! Yikes! Chairman Mao killed about 30 million innocents, but Chiang Kai-Shek was SUPPORTED BY THE USA?! WHAT AN AWFUL MAN

40 million

Pinochet was a bit of a dick.. Mugabe or whatever that mans name is was pretty bad from my understanding. Stalin and Hitler are the most publicized, but I think Pol Pot and his goons were the worst for their techniques. Lets not forget the Japanese during WW2 though. They had some messed up torture techniques for the Chinese.

Didn't they put unprotected people into pressurized chambers, freeze peoples limbs and break them with hammers, etc?

Canada will soon have its own dictator soon... damn that Harper.

Who do you think is the worst dictator?
This includes dictators from ancient times ie. roman emperors, kings etc.
Nero, but then again he only harmed rome, hmm...
Hitler, nah, i mean he killed a lot of people, but then again he was elected so he ain't a dictator, and he was good at the war thingy, just a few hundred yards to thea east and he would have won...

Hmmm...
Batwoman

Pinochet was a bit of a dick.

3,000 people is pretty mild compared to the death tolls of other dictators.

3,000 people is pretty mild compared to the death tolls of other dictators.
3,000 were just one of incidents, just like there are several battles in a war, he had several killing sprees.
Also he toppeled an elacted goverment, and betrayed his own nation to become an US puppet

For gods sakes, he had a sailboat that was converted to a torture vessel, traveling the pacific. Thats why there are so many missing. They would dump massive amounts of bodies into the Ocean. There are massive marble walls of the dead, killed by Pinochet. Wasn't it something like 300,000?

3,000 were just one of incidents, just like there are several battles in a war, he had several killing sprees.
Also he toppeled an elacted goverment, and betrayed his own nation to become an US puppet

He did the right thing overthrowing Allende. Allende's government was becoming increasingly erratic and lawless. If Allende hadn't been overthrown, the whole economy may have collapsed. Inflation was over 1,000%, at least a third of the country's work force was on strike, and there were massive food shortages. However, after overthrowing Allende, he should have immediately stepped down and allowed a sensible civilian government to replace him. It's not the 3,000 deaths that earned Pinochet the ire of the left, it's his free-market policies and support of the West. After all, there are dictators who've killed far more people than Pinochet, but are idolized by the left for being socialists and/or anti-Western.

For gods sakes, he had a sailboat that was converted to a torture vessel, traveling the pacific. Thats why there are so many missing. They would dump massive amounts of bodies into the Ocean. There are massive marble walls of the dead, killed by Pinochet. Wasn't it something like 300,000?

3,000 killed, tens of thousands tortured, over 100,000 imprisoned.

For gods sakes, he had a sailboat that was converted to a torture vessel, traveling the pacific. Thats why there are so many missing. They would dump massive amounts of bodies into the Ocean. There are massive marble walls of the dead, killed by Pinochet. Wasn't it something like 300,000?

somehting like that, they only have 10,000 or so killed, nut thats only becouse they are 6feet under, while the other 290,000 is more like 6000feet under:mad:

Why hasn't someone killed that asshole yet:confused:

betrayed his own nation to become an US puppet

Who you become a puppet to is not an issue when you kill any number of people which can be expressed in four or more figures. Why do people think of "became a US puppet" as something which makes an awful dictator?

Who you become a puppet to is not an issue when you kill any number of people which can be expressed in four or more figures. Why do people think of "became a US puppet" as something which makes an awful dictator?
he also killed a lot of poeple

Who you become a puppet to is not an issue when you kill any number of people which can be expressed in four or more figures. Why do people think of "became a US puppet" as something which makes an awful dictator?

Because leftists judge rulers by their foreign policy and economic policy, and nothing else. Therefore, an anti-Western socialist who kills hundreds of thousands can be called a democrat, and a pro-Western capitalist who kills a tiny fraction of that number (and no, I'm not thinking of Pinochet) is a tyrant, a genocidal maniac, etc.

he also killed a lot of poeple

Indeed he did. But that's not why the left hates him. The Sandinistas killed at least as many people in their first year of power alone, and yet I don't hear any leftists condemning them.

Because leftists judge rulers by their foreign policy and economic policy, and nothing else. Therefore, an anti-Western socialist who kills hundreds of thousands can be called a democrat, and a pro-Western capitalist who kills a tiny fraction of that number (and no, I'm not thinking of Pinochet) is a tyrant, a genocidal maniac, etc.
i also said he killed a lot of poeple:mad:

i also said he killed a lot of poeple:mad:

I didn't mean anyone in particular, just most leftists in general.

Me? Well, I'd go with the Kims of North Korea, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Stalin, Hitler, "Papa Doc" Duvalier of Haiti, or Ferdinand Marcos for my worst dictators of the Modern Era. Duvalier goes there for Sheer Manipulation (manipulating voodoo as a political tool), and Marcos goes for Sheer Excess, the others are there for aforementioned incompetence, violence, etc.

As for the past, I'd go with Hulagu Khan, Tamerlane, Ogodei Khan, Caligula, and Vlad Dracula.

As for Lincoln, not to start a war (not interested in starting flamewars), I'd dispute the dictatorship claims. The man allowed the elections of 1864 to go on, to begin; a true dictator would have suspended those elections.

Also, I'd be inclined to agree with James MacPherson when he noted that compared to the WWI Espionage and Sedition Acts and the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII, Lincoln was actually pretty merciful in terms of civil liberties.

He did arrest a number of mere dissenters to be sure, but he also arrested a good number of genuine saboteurs too, and actually let out some anti-war protesters that were caught up in the dragnet. (That was from Stephen Oates' Abraham Lincoln: The Man Behind the Myths, to double check. I did a project on Lincoln not but a week ago, so this info is somewhat fresh).

Not to mention that he was facing a Civil War, something that was new. He had to take action to keep the Union going.

Just my two cents. Again, not interested in going to a flamewar.

Me? Well, I'd go with the Kims of North Korea, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Stalin, Hitler, "Papa Doc" Duvalier of Haiti, or Ferdinand Marcos for my worst dictators of the Modern Era. Duvalier goes there for Sheer Manipulation (manipulating voodoo as a political tool), and Marcos goes for Sheer Excess, the others are there for aforementioned incompetence, violence, etc.

As for the past, I'd go with Hulagu Khan, Tamerlane, Ogodei Khan, Caligula, and Vlad Dracula.

As for Lincoln, not to start a war (not interested in starting flamewars), I'd dispute the dictatorship claims. The man allowed the elections of 1864 to go on, to begin; a true dictator would have suspended those elections.

Also, I'd be inclined to agree with James MacPherson when he noted that compared to the WWI Espionage and Sedition Acts and the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII, Lincoln was actually pretty merciful in terms of civil liberties.

He did arrest a number of mere dissenters to be sure, but he also arrested a good number of genuine saboteurs too, and actually let out some anti-war protesters that were caught up in the dragnet. (That was from Stephen Oates' Abraham Lincoln: The Man Behind the Myths, to double check. I did a project on Lincoln not but a week ago, so this info is somewhat fresh).

Not to mention that he was facing a Civil War, something that was new. He had to take action to keep the Union going.

Just my two cents. Again, not interested in going to a flamewar.

Suharto was more corrupt than Marcos. He stole more and was more nepotistic.

Of CURRENT dictators, I have to give the nod to Rober Mugabe, the man is the worst kind of idiot. Reminds me A LOT of Mao.

On that note, Mao get's my vote for worst of all time.

Pinochet was a bit of a dick.. Mugabe or whatever that mans name is was pretty bad from my understanding. Stalin and Hitler are the most publicized, but I think Pol Pot and his goons were the worst for their techniques. Lets not forget the Japanese during WW2 though. They had some messed up torture techniques for the Chinese.

Didn't they put unprotected people into pressurized chambers, freeze peoples limbs and break them with hammers, etc?


Seconded. Japanese mainly used Chinese as bayonet practice, among other gruesome things.

And the Indonesians, I am to understand, were pretty corrupt in general; reportedly, either Sukarno or Suharto persecuted Ethnic Chinese in Indonesia under suspicion of supporting Communism.

Of CURRENT dictators, I have to give the nod to Rober Mugabe, the man is the worst kind of idiot. Reminds me A LOT of Mao.

On that note, Mao get's my vote for worst of all time.

He's awful, but not the worst. Omar al-Bashir makes Mugabe look like a saint. dos Santos is pretty bad, too.

Seconded. Japanese mainly used Chinese as bayonet practice, among other gruesome things.

They were almost as brutal as the VC.

And the Indonesians, I am to understand, were pretty corrupt in general; reportedly, either Sukarno or Suharto persecuted Ethnic Chinese in Indonesia.

Both.

He's awful, but not the worst. Omar al-Bashir makes Mugabe look like a saint. dos Santos is pretty bad, too.

I suppose your right, but I am biased because he is my country's neibour :(

there was this king who ruled his country with an iron fist, I forget his name.

its in that little tiny country (that doesn't exist anymore I think) where until late in the 19th century they were ruled by their king, who had to make all his decisions while sitting under a special oak tree for the laws to be legal...........

They were almost as brutal as the VC.

That may be, the VC weren't nice guys themselves. But, the IJA still gets my vote as the more bloody and violent of the two.

Hello,

The People. After all, who was it that put the Hitlers, Stalins, and Pol Pots into their positions of power in the first place?

Well, with Hitler, I think it was more a desperate move. The people were desperate to no end, just look at their economics, and it appeared that Hitler was the way out. I kinda blame that a bit on the fact that the US and the UK (perhaps some more) forced germany to pay all the money for the war, hence, they chose the leader that made the most sense - he didn't have a criminal record (as far as I know), and he was one terrific speaker - if he hadn't been evil he could've lead to a lot of good stuff I believe, with those leader abilities.

Just my two cents :).

As for worst dictator, I really don't know, I haven't studied the subject for much - if you only count death toll, Stalin is number one, followed by Hitler (who also gets a rather high "score" in methods).

I was thinking of most evilPinochet

Of course there was always that mentalist who ran Paraguay in the 1830's who modelled himself on Napoleon and wasted 80% of his country's three million population in a 12 year war with every one of his neighbours before he was torn to bits by a lot of angry peasants. That's pre-Pol Pot and early enough to make him worse.

Of CURRENT dictators, I have to give the nod to Rober Mugabe, the man is the worst kind of idiot. Reminds me A LOT of Mao.

On that note, Mao get's my vote for worst of all time.

Mugabe is pretty horrendous. Sadly I only ever heard of him while in Germany on the BBC, the US is laregly silent on the topic. It was during his City Beautification Project last summer where he bulldozed slums without providing any new shelter to the people displaced and so they just wandered into the heat to starve to death. Even worse was he prays to a picture of himself before going into his "parliment" chamber to make announcements.

Granted he is probably not the worst dictator around but he is definately bad enough to take some of the wasted troops from Iraq and do something about it. Sad the United States media corporations are so corrupt they don't even awknowledge his existence.

I kinda blame that a bit on the fact that the US and the UK (perhaps some more) forced germany to pay all the money for the war, hence, they chose the leader that made the most sense - he didn't have a criminal record (as far as I know), and he was one terrific speaker - if he hadn't been evil he could've lead to a lot of good stuff I believe, with those leader abilities.


AFAIK, the one who wanted Germany to pay as much as it was possible was France. Britain was more forgiving (policy of keeping equilibrium on the continent), and US wasn't especially interested in European affairs. French wanted to be sure that Germans would never be able to attack them again (and they managed to be attacked only 22 years after the end of WWI;) ).

About Hitler - have You seen those jokes? You have three politicians: drinking old man, the guy regurarly visiting the fortune-teller, and war veteran. The two first are Churchill and FDR, the third is Adolf.

- he didn't have a criminal record (as far as I know)
Beer Hall Putsch

Beer Hall Putsch

After which he spent a year in prison. He had several more years to stay, but he was set free as a harmless leader of a tiny party;)

Pinochet

ROFLMAO


3,000 people is no joke, but can you honestly compare that to, say, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, or Ho?

statistically stalin is the worst. he did kill about 20 million people.

Caligula gets my vote just for being absolutely insane. I'll let the nuance between Emperor and Dictator slide on this ballot.

Caligula: "I name Incitatus to the Senate!"
Senator: "Who the hell is Incitatus?"
-A horse trots in wearing a purple cloak-
Senator: "Oh no..."

wait... Worst Dictator as being the most evil dictator of all time, or worst Dictator as being incompetent?

:confused: A pertinent question.:confused: :confused: :confused:

Well Caligula was pyscho, but I don't think evil. Nero did burn down parts of Rome to build a house. That's evil I suppose.

Hitler is the obvious answer. Stalin.....well I suppose, but he did help us win WWII so that puts him up a bit.

Going back to the Romans - well, Nero was overrated, he was just a spoiled brat. But Caligula was a raving lunatic, butchering, raping and abusing his own people to the point where his own sworn guards were forced to do him in.

I don't know if this has been pointed out yet (still reading the topic through) but you should know that Caligula's exploits are not entirely believed by historians. What he did was pretty much the classical Roman view of lunacy, so it's very possible that his reign was greatly exaggerated to the point of our history becoming little more than a caricature.

lets see....
if we go in terms of most people killed, then hitler. if we go in terms of most evil, then...hitler. if we go for the one i would personally like to kill many times over the most,:sniper: :mp5: it would definitely be...hitler.

stalin and castro are up there too. also husain.

Canada will soon have its own dictator soon... damn that Harper.
Yes, because when someone you don't like is democratically elected, he is automatically a dictator.

Of all dictators that I can recall without doing any extensive historical investigation I'd probably say Hitler. Stalin was awfull also.

Meh, Hitler murdered 7million, which pales on comparison to the 20million under Stalin - and if we must look at 'successes' and 'achievements', and most important longevity, Stalin comes on top.

tsk tsk....i've seen his name come up once...Vlad Tepes of Wallachia....also known as Dracula...

This man was kidnapped when he was a small child and held prisoner (for political reasons) by Sultan Mehmned *forget the number*...he grew up with the Turks learning, and enjoying, methods of torture...

His father was killed and his brother was tortured to death so he got pissed, took the throne of Wallachia, which is now Romania, but got kicked off when he was 17...he once again got pissed and killed that man, retaining his throne and beginning his reign of terror.

He liked to cut peoples limbs off, burn them alive, bury them alive, hang them, torture them, poke them, etc.....but of course his preferred method being impalement....shishkabobbed people...men, women, babies....didn't matter.....thousands and thousands of people....

Vlad didn't like lazy people (homeless, sick, disabled, etc), so he invited them to a huge feast inside one of his large halls....once they had eaten, he asked them if they would like to never be hungry again....seeing as they were starving and provided a luncheon....they agreed....so he had the hall boarded up and burned to the ground....killing everyone inside...

When the Turks invaded Wallachia....they came upon a pretty sight....tens of thousands of impaled turks...needless to say, they turned back

Vlad also liked to feast in his Forest of Impalements....one of his servants once complained about the smell...so Vlad had his soldiers make a stake twice as high as the other stakes....so the servant could be impaled without having to bear the smell of rotting (and possibly still alive) impaled bodies...

Once while receiving ambassadors from the Turks....they didn't take off their turbans....in Wallachia, it was customary to take off your turban in the presence of one of higher authority...Vlad asked why they didn't take them off....they replied that it wasn't the Turkish custom....Vlad informed them that he would improve on their customs and had their turbans nailed to their heads...

this is just a small look at what this ruler did.......i think you all know who has my vote...

tsk tsk....i've seen his name come up once...Vlad Tepes of Wallachia....also known as Dracula...

This man was kidnapped when he was a small child and held prisoner (for political reasons) by Sultan Mehmned *forget the number*...he grew up with the Turks learning, and enjoying, methods of torture...

His father was killed and his brother was tortured to death so he got pissed, took the throne of Wallachia, which is now Romania, but got kicked off when he was 17...he once again got pissed and killed that man, retaining his throne and beginning his reign of terror.

He liked to cut peoples limbs off, burn them alive, bury them alive, hang them, torture them, poke them, etc.....but of course his preferred method being impalement....shishkabobbed people...men, women, babies....didn't matter.....thousands and thousands of people....

Vlad didn't like lazy people (homeless, sick, disabled, etc), so he invited them to a huge feast inside one of his large halls....once they had eaten, he asked them if they would like to never be hungry again....seeing as they were starving and provided a luncheon....they agreed....so he had the hall boarded up and burned to the ground....killing everyone inside...

When the Turks invaded Wallachia....they came upon a pretty sight....tens of thousands of impaled turks...needless to say, they turned back

Vlad also liked to feast in his Forest of Impalements....one of his servants once complained about the smell...so Vlad had his soldiers make a stake twice as high as the other stakes....so the servant could be impaled without having to bear the smell of rotting (and possibly still alive) impaled bodies...

Once while receiving ambassadors from the Turks....they didn't take off their turbans....in Wallachia, it was customary to take off your turban in the presence of one of higher authority...Vlad asked why they didn't take them off....they replied that it wasn't the Turkish custom....Vlad informed them that he would improve on their customs and had their turbans nailed to their heads...

this is just a small look at what this ruler did.......i think you all know who has my vote...
Yeah, I'd say of all the rulers I've heard mentioned so far, Vlad wins the Sick Bastard Award. It's not like Hitler dined in a room with a window looking into a gas chamber. Vlad just enjoyed it.

Vlad was definatley a sicko, I remember watching the history channel special on him just before halloween. ECH

George Bush

Vlad may have been brutal, but he wasn't as bad as he's often made out to be. He did kill a lot of people, and in unpleasent ways, but he always had a good reason to (the story about the servant, and another about his slaughtering all the beggers in Wallachia, were later inventions - probably spread by descendents of his brother, who stole the throne from his line, which was probably the true line).

As for Caligula, while there may well have been some embellishment, I would say the chances are good that we've got something like the real deal. Caligula was unstable from early in his life, and a close confidant of Tiberius (himself a rather less than sterling example of Roman manhood). But he really went off the deep end only after what is described as a "deep and prolonged fever" by the chroniclers. In other words, a fever more than enough to cook the poor man's brain. Caligula, from my reading of the situation, was quite utterly mad.

myrth
Neuterd Sputniks was bad as well.

AFAIK, the one who wanted Germany to pay as much as it was possible was France. Britain was more forgiving (policy of keeping equilibrium on the continent), and US wasn't especially interested in European affairs. French wanted to be sure that Germans would never be able to attack them again (and they managed to be attacked only 22 years after the end of WWI;) ).

About Hitler - have You seen those jokes? You have three politicians: drinking old man, the guy regurarly visiting the fortune-teller, and war veteran. The two first are Churchill and FDR, the third is Adolf.

Yeah, I've seen that joke. And you might very well be right about who made them pay, my memory's never been known to be too good :P.

Beer Hall Putsch
Hmm, I didn't know of that one, but, oncea agin, my memory's never been known to be class one =P.