NationStates Jolt Archive

Who has been the worst leader of any Nation ever?

George Bush or Margerat Fatcher?
Italian or French?

VOTE!
:headbang: If this is Spam I will be angry!!:headbang:

Chamberlain.

Wait, Now you can vote.
But I am sorry but I did'nt include Chamberlain.
I was thinking about him.:headbang::(

let's see:

- Hitler (WWII, attempted genocide)
- Stalin (the purges -- something like 20 million murdered)
- Mao (also murdered millions of his own countrymen, stole money/property)
- Pol Pot (another big killer)
- Ivan the Terrible
- Nero (put his horse in charge)
- Mugabe (another big killer)
- Milosevic (genocidist)
- Saddam (Mr. Acid Bath)

Ol' Adolf wrecked half of Europe, killed a lot of people for stupid reasons and left exactly one positive contribution to his nation: The Autobahn. Everybody else on your poll put together doesn't come close.

Ol' Adolf wrecked half of Europe, killed a lot of people for stupid reasons and left exactly one positive contribution to his nation: The Autobahn. Everybody else on your poll put together doesn't come close.

Stalin did a number on his own people.

I can't think of a positive contribution he made (well, a few dams were built).

Stalin did a number on his own people.

I can't think of a positive contribution he made (well, a few dams were built).

Stalin was probably worse. But he also isn't on the poll.

HELMUT KOHL! \end{thread}

Stalin did a number on his own people.

I can't think of a positive contribution he made (well, a few dams were built).

What do you mean?

Think of all those nice little towns in Siberia... who says Communism doesn't provide?!

HELMUT KOHL! \end{thread}


?? whats wrong with Kohl ?

OT: I'd say Milosevic.

Chamberlain.

Possibly one of the most underrated British Prime Ministers ever, I'm not saying he was great but he doesn't deserve all the criticism he gets.

Possibly one of the most underrated British Prime Ministers ever, I'm not saying he was great but he doesn't deserve all the criticism he gets.

"Peace in our time"

Then WWII for the British a year later.

Pretty much sums it up.

let's see:

- Nero (put his horse in charge)


The purpose of why he did this was to piss off the Senate more than anything else. He wasn't nearly as insane as some people claim.

Greetings from Praha, Czech Republic!

Churchill on there? C'mon...seriously?

"Peace in our time"

Then WWII for the British a year later.

Pretty much sums it up.

He was buying necessary time for us to re-arm: All of our governments since the start of the Depression had failed to keep the defence budget high enough... (For example: at the time of Munich the RAF had a grand total of approximately 50 Spitfires & Hurricanes, but during the months from then until the actual outbreak of war in Europe that number was increased to approximately 500...)

"Peace in our time"

Then WWII for the British a year later.

Pretty much sums it up.

He attempted to manage Hitler, use him as a counter-weight to Stalin and prevent the whole continent falling into a second devastating war. It obviously didn't work but he shouldn't be castigated for pursuing peace for as long as possible.

And compare him to the other names mentioned, or some of the other former presidents/prime ministers. He's hardly anywhere near the worst.

Greetings from Praha!!

Stalin worst.

Bush over Hitler? Christ! Yeah, he sucks, but he isn't that bad.

Is not Bush great?

Besides the Genocidal, Maniacal Dictators...Ronald Reagan

Machiaveli says that a good leader is someone who provides stability to their country. Even if you have to crack a few skulls, a nation in chaos is worse off than a nation in cruel dictatorship. By that definition, Hitler and Saddam really weren't that bad. Compare the stability of the Iraqi government today with what it was when Saddam was in power.

You could also argue that Bush is worse than Hitler by that logic

Saddam terrible...you not no what you talking about.

What ticks me off, is that people think that Bush was the WORST leader ever. Their were so many more, like Chamberlain, all the French guys, Hitler. Just pisses me off. This is probably because a lot of people dont like Bush now, but he didnt kill a few million people!

Machiaveli says that a good leader is someone who provides stability to their country. Even if you have to crack a few skulls, a nation in chaos is worse off than a nation in cruel dictatorship. By that definition, Hitler and Saddam really weren't that bad. Compare the stability of the Iraqi government today with what it was when Saddam was in power.

You could also argue that Bush is worse than Hitler by that logic

yet Hitler killed millions of his own people, started a massive world war and did a whole lot of damage! Bush has yet to kill millions of his own country men, and most likely will never do it. Huessein killed thousands of the Kurd (his own people). Bush has supposedly "killed" several thousand Americans in the war, but this was to get rid of a bad leader, Hussein.

Pol Pot

Emperor Commodus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus)- Nearly wrecked the Roman Empire.
Queen Mary I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England)-Led England into chaos by trying to convert it back to Catholicism.
Henry VI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VI_of_England)-Lost most of France, Matyred Joan of Arc.
James Buchanan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan) did nothing to stop the south from suceding leading to the civil war.

all the French guys

Such as? Except for Pétain, Doumer and Lebrun, that is.

What ticks me off, is that people think that Bush was the WORST leader ever. Their were so many more, like Chamberlain, all the French guys, Hitler. Just pisses me off. This is probably because a lot of people dont like Bush now, but he didnt kill a few million people!

You're saying Bush was better than every French president ever? As for Chamberlain already posted what I think of him.

What ticks me off, is that people think that Bush was the WORST leader ever. Their were so many more, like Chamberlain, all the French guys, Hitler. Just pisses me off. This is probably because a lot of people dont like Bush now, but he didnt kill a few million people!

I think alot of people just have no concept of history. If its not on CNN then I guess it either never happened or its irrelevant.

For some reason Abraham Lincoln didn't make the list, shame...I would have voted for him had he been on there. Bush would have topped it for being the most incompetent I think. As atrocious as Hitler was he wasn't a bad leader as he brought Germany's economy from utterly nothing, so I can't call him a bad leader just a sick son of a bitch.

James Buchanan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan) did nothing to stop the south from suceding leading to the civil war.

I would say Abraham Lincoln.

He started a war over slavery and ended state's rights. It was a horrible blow to the U.S.

I'm not going to vote because this is an odd list of mainly current leaders with Hitler thrown in. On top of that it's mainly a list of conservative leaders and Hitler which is very skewed and unfair.

I would say Abraham Lincoln.

He started a war over slavery and ended state's rights. It was a horrible blow to the U.S.

He didn't start the war over slavery but fiscal income. In 1861 75% of the nations fiscal income came from the southern states. He did abuse his power in office suspending congressional sessions for 3 months in order to get the war under way. Under the United States Constitution, only Congress has the right to declare war. He also shut down newspapers right and left, suspended the writ of habeas corpus and even went so far as to order the arrest for one of the United States Supreme Court justices for speaking out against him. He only turned the war into a slavery issue after he had sent 250,000 to their death and even claimed that God was using him as an instrument to abolish slavery. The emancipation was a war time measure to incite revolt. It was not a humanitarian effort at all.

I'm not going to vote because this is an odd list of mainly current leaders with Hitler thrown in. On top of that it's mainly a list of conservative leaders and Hitler which is very skewed and unfair.Want a handkerchief?

Want a handkerchief?

No, hate free speech much? or did you think that you were being clever?

I know I'm not going to gain any popularity over this, but I've done some pretty extensive research into this for the past several years, and I must say, according to the absolute diction of the poll, one must rate these leaders in accordance to their LEADERSHIP, not necessarily their historical legendry.

Meaning, we must grade them based upon their abilities as a leader, not on what they did to other people.


Thus, Adolf Hitler, in such context, was actually a brilliant leader.


He turned a devastated, developing nation in which its currency was worth more to burn for warmth than to spend on bread into a European economic and military powerhouse that rivaled the world in an all encompassing war.

He united a broken people into an organized political power machine, brought patriotism to the destitute, hope to the lost, and direction to a nation struggling to obtain an identity.

He became the Fuhrer of a democracy, and might I say, he did it all LEGALLY.
In accordance to the laws of the German constitution of the time, everything he did to gain power was legal (minus his failed infamous bar coup in his earlier years of politics. Which of course landed him in jail).

The Reichstag gave him the emergency war powers that he requested, destroyed the positions of several offices below his in order to amalgamate total control over the government, and essentially, because of his well calculated political intrigue, he used the power of persuasion and the masses (IE large supportive crowds) to go from a nervous political prisoner to the supreme leader of Germany.

Now, in context to this poll, in which we must choose who was the worst leader ever, Adolf Hitler shouldn't even be on there.

Now of course, in matter of ethics and morals, Hitler was an abomination.

But as a leader, he was a political genius.

Well said OWA

He didn't start the war over slavery but fiscal income. In 1861 75% of the nations fiscal income came from the southern states. He did abuse his power in office suspending congressional sessions for 3 months in order to get the war under way. Under the United States Constitution, only Congress has the right to declare war. He also shut down newspapers right and left, suspended the writ of habeas corpus and even went so far as to order the arrest for one of the United States Supreme Court justices for speaking out against him. He only turned the war into a slavery issue after he had sent 250,000 to their death and even claimed that God was using him as an instrument to abolish slavery. The emancipation was a war time measure to incite revolt. It was not a humanitarian effort at all.

Interesting, do you have any books or articles to recommend on the subject?

ditto on Abraham Lincoln Endsvillains

I would say Abraham Lincoln.

He started a war over slavery and ended state's rights. It was a horrible blow to the U.S.

The south already was prepared for war before Buchanan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan#Presidency_1857.E2.80.931861)left office. The south fired on the Star of the West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_the_West) on January 5th 1861. Buchanan did nothing after the Incident. The south was breaking one major rule: That the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The southern states were angry that they lost Kansas & Kentucky to the anti-slavery states. The south wanted to expand slavery to the west as far as California, Oregon and Washington. Also slave capturors were capturing slaves in non-slave states which violated their states rights. They also captured freemen and tried to reclaim them as slaves. They were also veermantly against slaves buying their freedom. The southern economy would have collapes anyway because most of the plantation onwers relied on the labor of slaves and poor whites. This was making most plantation owners lazy and unproductive. The main reason the south lost was that they had little to no industrial production.

What's going on here? I seem to be surounded by neo-confederate/nazi revisionists!

Interesting, do you have any books or articles to recommend on the subject?

"When In The Course Of Human Events" by Charles Adams

"The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda and an Unnecessary War" by Thomas Dilorenzo

"North against South: The American Iliad, 1848-1877" by Ludwell H. Johnson III

Thus, Adolf Hitler, in such context, was actually a brilliant leader.


He turned a devastated, developing nation in which its currency was worth more to burn for warmth than to spend on bread into a European economic and military powerhouse that rivaled the world in an all encompassing war.
Schacht did that not Hitler. Hitler then replaced Schact and by the end of Nazi Germany had them back to devastated again.


He became the Fuhrer of a democracy, and might I say, he did it all LEGALLY.
In accordance to the laws of the German constitution of the time, everything he did to gain power was legal (minus his failed infamous bar coup in his earlier years of politics. Which of course landed him in jail).

The Reichstag gave him the emergency war powers that he requested, destroyed the positions of several offices below his in order to amalgamate total control over the government, and essentially, because of his well calculated political intrigue, he used the power of persuasion and the masses (IE large supportive crowds) to go from a nervous political prisoner to the supreme leader of Germany.


Like hell it was legal. The SA attacking other parties wasn't even nearly legal.

Stalin did a number on his own people.

I can't think of a positive contribution he made (well, a few dams were built).

Really?

He wasn't the one who took a country with pretty much everything lagging 200 years behind the rest of Europe and turned it into one of the world's largest super powers?

well, Forsakia you make a good point.

Not everything that Hitler did was legal, but then again, the same could be said of American politics.


My point was that what he did was universally acceptable for most democracies, even by today's standards. Also, he did technically go through the proper legal channels in bringing about change to Germany. Yes, he did use, shall we say, unsavory tactics, such as bribes, intimidation, etc.

But again, that's part of politics, that's part of his political savvy.


And towards the end of the war, the economy of Germany can't really be blamed on Hitler. Any nation that is on the brink of losing a war is going to have a bad economy.

But you are right, Hitler did surround himself with some extremely talented advisors and generals. But again, that's another part of his political genius, he knew a well qualified person when he saw one, and used them.

But you are right, Hitler did surround himself with some extremely talented advisors and generals. But again, that's another part of his political genius, he knew a well qualified person when he saw one, and used them.

I wouldn't count Goering as talented or well qualified, unless being talented at being an ass counts.

talent takes all forms : )

Thatcher - Destroyed Britain from the inside, but had great standing on the World Stage.
Hitler - Was a truly great leader as has been mentioned before.
John Howard - Australia seems to be doing ok.
Any French or Italian - oh please.......!
Churchill - Erm why is he on this list?
Hussein - His country had a fantastic infrastructure, health, education, security, now we've taken him out the country is well and truly f**ked, so I would figure that made him a rather good leader of the country as a whole.
Bush - He has been elected twice, even though dubiously, his country seem to be behind him so as a true representative of his nation on all levels he must be good for them.
Gordon Brown - Give the guy chance, he's only been there a couple of days.
Blair - Took Britain to places they really didn't want to go and has destroyed the British standing throughout the entire world (except USA), instead of Great Britain it's becoming Scumspawn Britain inside and out. Thanks Tone!!
So for me Blair is by far the worst.

I voted Winston Churchill he isn't the most evil man on there but hes celebrated as a hero when really he was a very very naughty man

Not everything that Hitler did was legal, but then again, the same could be said of American politics.

there are thugs at the voting booth making sure you vote the right party now!?

And towards the end of the war, the economy of Germany can't really be blamed on Hitler. Any nation that is on the brink of losing a war is going to have a bad economy.

Nazi Germany was doomed before it started the only thing that kept it going for as long as it did was quick victories and the subsequent raping of resources in Europe

there are thugs at the voting booth making sure you vote the right party now!?

One could make the argument that corporations and lobby groups do that very thing


Nazi Germany was doomed before it started the only thing that kept it going for as long as it did was quick victories and the subsequent raping of resources in Europe


I respectfully disagree

John Howard - Australia seems to be doing ok.

if Australia really was doing we;ll it would have nothing to do with John Howard

Churchill - Erm why is he on this list?

proposed sterilization of 100,000 "mental degenerates" and sending many more to state run labor camps, gassing of Kurds("I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes" was his view), Palestinians in 1937: "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

should I go on?

Hussein - His country had a fantastic infrastructure, health, education, security

don't be silly


So for me Blair is by far the worst.

fell asleep during the Ireland peace talks then?

I forgot to add Maximilien Robespierre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robespierre) infamous leader of France during the Reign of Terror and Philippe Pétain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Philippe_P%C3%A9tain) leader of Vichy France.

One could make the argument that corporations and lobby groups do that very thing

only that argument would be false as they don't have goons watching voters vote, beating to a pulp all those who vote the wrong way

I respectfully disagree

so you think corruption and building a large army for no apparent reason is good for the economy? how about the lack of consumer goods (which led to Germans saving large amounts of money so they could go on cruises) in the name of making the Germans look wealthy? how about the large monopoly's that where forming?

Who has been the worst leader of any Nation ever?

George Bush or Margerat Fatcher?
Italian or French?

VOTE!
:headbang: If this is Spam I will be angry!!:headbang:

Why am I the only one who voted John Howard?

so you think corruption and building a large army for no apparent reason is good for the economy? how about the lack of consumer goods (which led to Germans saving large amounts of money so they could go on cruises) in the name of making the Germans look wealthy? how about the large monopoly's that where forming?


well, that is a good point, but you can't necessarily judge the Fascist German economy by the same standards as you would a capitalistic one. The monopolies weren't so much a sign of a lack of a new market as much as it was the strength of the established one

well, that is a good point, but you can't necessarily judge the Fascist German economy by the same standards as you would a capitalistic one.

...yes you can economics doesn't suffer from rule changes

The monopolies weren't so much a sign of a lack of a new market as much as it was the strength of the established one

yeah giant corporations with massive power in government slowly suffocating any economic progress and setting prices at whatever they damn well feel like...

sounds like a utopia!

The Endsvillains, I agree with you wholeheartedly about Hitler. Great leader, horrible person. As for Bush, would you rather we have a traitor such as John Kerry in power? Yes, that's right, traitor. Negotiating arms deals with the NVA in FRANCE while the war was still going on. That's called treason by any definition. Bush is a late addition to the list of leaders who illustrate the phrase, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Stalin--scaring people into submission does not count as leadership. It counts as scaring the living crap out of people.

Saddam--same as Stalin. But worse. Stalin killed enormous numbers of people. Saddam killed enormous numbers of people in ways that most of us here would have a hard time imagining.

Tony Blair--I don't live in the UK, so I don't know.

Winston Churchill--whatever you're smoking, gimme some!

Any French leader--okay, how many times have the other nations of the world had to save their ass?

Any Italian leader--apart from Mussolini, I don't know of any that can really make the 'Worst Leaders' list.

Anyone who condemns a leader based purely on liberal ideology and beliefs of what the world 'should be' needs to wake up. Yes, we all want the world to be perfect, but you can't make it so. Survival first, niceties later.

It should be 76 people and 100% on Hitler. What he did could never be forgotten and the repercussions still exist today. George Bush is doing what he thinks best for America and the world and frankly I think there was no other option. Hitler without a doubt.

well, Forsakia you make a good point.

Not everything that Hitler did was legal, but then again, the same could be said of American politics.


My point was that what he did was universally acceptable for most democracies, even by today's standards. Also, he did technically go through the proper legal channels in bringing about change to Germany. Yes, he did use, shall we say, unsavory tactics, such as bribes, intimidation, etc.


what he did at the elections in 1932 was unacceptable by todays standards. In most democracies Ive never heard of a guy saying he's '''planning to use democracy to destroy democracy'''. But your last sentence contradicts your argument, though.

Also what's with that 'any French leader' ? De Gaulle and Mitterrand weren't that bad.

No, hate free speech much? or did you think that you were being clever?Did you think you are getting anywhere with your whining?

so you think corruption and building a large army for no apparent reason is good for the economy? how about the lack of consumer goods (which led to Germans saving large amounts of money so they could go on cruises) in the name of making the Germans look wealthy? how about the large monopoly's that where forming?

Machiavelli says that there can be no good government without good soldiers. National defense is the most important thing a nation has because without it, there is no nation.

"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."


Makes sense to me. I agree.

Winston Churchill was the coolest dude who ever lived.

Machiavelli says that there can be no good government without good soldiers. National defense is the most important thing a nation has because without it, there is no nation.

seems to be a few that prove Machiavelli wrong on that... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces)

and there is no point building a large war machine if you can't maintain it, I have no idea how you can argue such a thing

Makes sense to me. I agree.

so what your saying is that whites are a stronger race than both aboriginals and native Americans?

Winston Churchill was the coolest dude who ever lived.

naw he just copied fads like when he firebombed German cities because everyone else was doing it

the poll is neck and neck between hitler and thatcher.

how very appropriate.

Churchill on there? C'mon...seriously?

Yeah, what's up with that?

Yeah, what's up with that?

drunken sloth who ordered chemical gas used on civilians, ordered the dresden bombing, brutally crushed the malaysian and mau mau rebellions etc

Lord North , Jim Callaghan, Anthony Eden

?? whats wrong with Kohl ?

OT: I'd say Milosevic.

Apart from how he pretends to stand over the Grundgesetz and screwed the German economy over in the unification and came to power by unethical tactics... not much.

seems to be a few that prove Machiavelli wrong on that... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces)

and there is no point building a large war machine if you can't maintain it, I have no idea how you can argue such a thing


None of the nations on that list have a standing army but they all have means of defense. Call it a regional security system, a special security unit, a very powerful ally, whathaveyou. If any of those countries were invaded for any reason, there would be armed resistance. Interesting but not relevant, The US constitution does not grant power to the Federal government to make an army of any kind. That right is supposedly reserved by the states.


so what your saying is that whites are a stronger race than both aboriginals and native Americans?

That isn't true today, but when Australia and America colonized, it was true. And the color of their skin doesn't matter. The European culture and technology was superior to that of the primitive natives.


naw he just copied fads like when he firebombed German cities because everyone else was doing it

Yeah, Hitler was the original trend setter.

drunken sloth who ordered chemical gas used on civilians, ordered the dresden bombing, brutally crushed the malaysian and mau mau rebellions etc

So what exactely made him a bad leader?

drunken sloth who ordered chemical gas used on civilians, ordered the dresden bombing, brutally crushed the malaysian and mau mau rebellions etc

Well, this is a poll on worst leader ever. Not worst person ever. Churchill might have done terrible things, but was still a pretty convincing leader. Same for Hitler, for that matter. Hitler commited innumerable atrocities, but was still a skillful leader. How else would he have climbed, and clung, to power?

/disapproval of the thread's wording :p

Hitler, followed by Chamberlain.

Both failed to secure their own aims, and in so doing, greatly compromised the security of their respective nations, and the world at large.

Bush over Hitler? Christ! Yeah, he sucks, but he isn't that bad.

Yeah seriously. He may not be the greatest president ever but the guy isn't going to set up Auchwitz Baghdad, come on.

If any of those countries were invaded for any reason, there would be armed resistance.

from the people in the case of Liechtenstein which hasn't had a professional army since 1868

That isn't true today, but when Australia and America colonized, it was true. And the color of their skin doesn't matter. The European culture and technology was superior to that of the primitive natives.

thats not what Churchill was saying though is it

So what exactely made him a bad leader?

rampant alcoholism? racism? allowing 5 million people to stave? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943)

You forgot Robert Mugabe.

Yeah seriously. He may not be the greatest president ever but the guy isn't going to set up Auchwitz Baghdad, come on.

Bush might not be 100% bloodthirsty, but he is a pretty bad leader.
Charisma check = fail

I'd say Charles II of Spain. Retarded, physically deformed, and impotent as a result of the Hapsburg's famed inbreeding tactics (For example, Empress Maria Anna was simultaneously his aunt and grandmother), Charles was rather useless in the midst of things and his reign, consequentially, accelerated the collapse of Hapsburgian Spain (plus, as he could bear no children, his death resulted in a power struggle which sparked the bloodbath known as the War of Spanish Succession).

the fact that GB has more votes than adolf hitler is sad...GB..doesn't attempt to execute 12 million people due to their race/religion..he also hasn't led to the complete destruction of his country...the way hitler did...you people are idiots...but hey what can you expect from liberals...

the fact that GB has more votes than adolf hitler is sad...GB..doesn't attempt to execute 12 million people due to their race/religion..he also hasn't led to the complete destruction of his country...the way hitler did...you people are idiots...but hey what can you expect from liberals...

In Hitler's defense, he did recover Germany from the Great Depression and the Treaty very well.

only to have the entire country in complete ruin, occupied, and worse off than when he took over to begin with.....

only to have the entire country in complete ruin, occupied, and worse off than when he took over to begin with.....

I'm not sure it was worse off... It was pretty bad there post-WWI.

Considering the fact that the country was split in half after WWII. Yeah I'd say it was worse off.

the fact that GB has more votes than adolf hitler is sad...GB..doesn't attempt to execute 12 million people due to their race/religion..he also hasn't led to the complete destruction of his country...the way hitler did...you people are idiots...but hey what can you expect from liberals...

The poll said worst leader, not worst person. I'm not a conservative nor a liberal but I can understand clearly the exact context of a given statement or question. That you cannot and are simply pointing fingers at everyone else but yourself shows your true character and lays bare your prejudices and insecurities. I pity you sir.

the fact that GB has more votes than adolf hitler is sad...GB..doesn't attempt to execute 12 million people due to their race/religion..he also hasn't led to the complete destruction of his country...the way hitler did...you people are idiots...but hey what can you expect from liberals...

That depends on does killing other people make someone a bad leader (ie. a person whose commands/wishes/suggestions people will willingly follow)?

Hitler was a great leader up until late WWII when things went to hell (for him and his side). If you look at Germany's economy, industry & morale before Hitler's rise to power up until mid parts of the WWII...He was undoubtedly a cruel & ruthless sociopath, but then again so were Napoleon, Stalin, Genghis Khan and Caesar.

GWB managed to alienate the rest of the world and his own people with a war of dubious goals. Hitler united the nation and made strong allies with a nationalistic racist, rethoric and mentality - He made people follow him, Bush just f*ed it up using the same themes. Therefore as a leader Bush is utterly outclassed by Hitler.

OTOH as a ruthless, savage tyrant Bush is like a friggin' kindergartner compared to Hitler...Which is indeed a blessing as the last thing we need is a genocidal war against members of certain religion...

As for the worst leader on that poll? Tony Blair Because of being George W. Bush's lapdog: Following a p*ss poor leader makes you even worse a leader. One might even ask, whether Tony Blair actually was a leader in the first place (at least where foreign non-EU policy is concerned) or just a lackey.

well, Forsakia you make a good point.

Not everything that Hitler did was legal, but then again, the same could be said of American politics.


My point was that what he did was universally acceptable for most democracies, even by today's standards. Also, he did technically go through the proper legal channels in bringing about change to Germany. Yes, he did use, shall we say, unsavory tactics, such as bribes, intimidation, etc.
When did widespread attacks on other parties become acceptable, especially by today's standards?



And towards the end of the war, the economy of Germany can't really be blamed on Hitler. Any nation that is on the brink of losing a war is going to have a bad economy.

He took them to war. The upshot of Fuhrer prinzip, all comes back to him more or less.


But you are right, Hitler did surround himself with some extremely talented advisors and generals. But again, that's another part of his political genius, he knew a well qualified person when he saw one, and used them.
And then got rid of them and appointed someone else in his place, namely Goring who was a catastrophe there.


Well, this is a poll on worst leader ever. Not worst person ever. Churchill might have done terrible things, but was still a pretty convincing leader. Same for Hitler, for that matter. Hitler commited innumerable atrocities, but was still a skillful leader. How else would he have climbed, and clung, to power?

/disapproval of the thread's wording :p

Gallipoli, Norway. Churchill made some pretty bad decisions, as did Hitler (Barbarossa etc). Their oratory skills were their biggest weapon, doesn't make them great leaders.

Hitler, followed by Chamberlain.

Both failed to secure their own aims, and in so doing, greatly compromised the security of their respective nations, and the world at large.
Any Prime Minister in Chamberlain's position would have aimed for peace in Europe. WWII was hardly a desirable option. Hitler was hellbent on a course that made war inevitable. There was nothing more Chamberlain could have done to achieve his objectives.

Britain was in no state to go to war at the time, and declaring war at that time wouldn't have helped in the slightest.


In Hitler's defense, he did recover Germany from the Great Depression and the Treaty very well.

Germany's economy was already rebounding somewhat when the Nazis came to power. He backed a winner in appointing Schacht but things like the Reich Entailed Farm Law and Law to Protect Retail Trade killed the economy. He found Germany in economic hardship and left her there.

All I know is that Emperor Norton I was the greatest national leader ever :)

Adolf Hitler
Pol Pot
Francisco Macías Nguema
(The latter two due to the proportion of their populations they killed)

drunken sloth who ordered chemical gas used on civilians, ordered the dresden bombing, brutally crushed the malaysian and mau mau rebellions etc

The Mau Mau were terrorists.

In no particular order: Grover Cleveland, Andrew Jackson, and Ulysses Grant. Garfield and Harrison weren't exactly inspiring, either.

In no particular order: Grover Cleveland, Andrew Jackson, and Ulysses Grant. Garfield and Harrison weren't exactly inspiring, either.

What was bad about Cleveland, if you don't mind my asking?

The US constitution does not grant power to the Federal government to make an army of any kind.

While I'm probably at least as much an antifederalist as you, you're wrong here. See bolded.

Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have power

to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Wow. Does it strike anyone as bizarre that George Bush in this poll is considered even worse than the man who exterminated literally millions of Jews and plunged all of Europe into economic ruin? No rationality or objectivity there, obviously.

Wow. Does it strike anyone as bizarre that George Bush in this poll is considered even worse than the man who exterminated literally millions of Jews and plunged all of Europe into economic ruin? No rationality or objectivity there, obviously.

Nah, we get some of the crackpot Bush=Hitler crowd here. I'd take it with a heaping bucketfull of salt. ;)

Wow. Does it strike anyone as bizarre that George Bush in this poll is considered even worse than the man who exterminated literally millions of Jews and plunged all of Europe into economic ruin? No rationality or objectivity there, obviously.

Welcome to NationStates General.

Bush isn't worse than Hitler. Warren G. Harding, on the other hand...

Bush isn't worse than Hitler. Warren G. Harding, on the other hand...

Thank God we rarely elect senators president. :p

Bush isn't worse than Hitler. Warren G. Harding, on the other hand...

Warren Harding wasn't that bad. Corrupt as hell, but at least he left people alone.

Wow. Does it strike anyone as bizarre that George Bush in this poll is considered even worse than the man who exterminated literally millions of Jews and plunged all of Europe into economic ruin?

Hitler was neither a president nor a prime minister though :p

(I was hoping someone else would post this fact)

Hitler was neither a president nor a prime minister though :p

(I was hoping someone else would post this fact)

But in the op and poll, it said "leader". :)

Hitler was neither a president nor a prime minister though :p

(I was hoping someone else would post this fact)

Eh, good point. :p

But even so, there have been much worse presidents and prime ministers than Bush.

OK! EVERYONE I DO NOT WANT A BIG DEBATE HERE!
Ok, right now Hitler fan I know, I know Hitler was a good leader and had a point. HE HAS A GOOD SIDe BUIT I was forced to put him on!
Not many of these leaders are present. In fact only 2 of them are.

Also Bush does make good things happen. But for The 2004 Elections And what happend to Al Gore I had to put him on the List.

I felt pretty sorry for Saddum Hussein but, sorry I had to.

And as for the protest of "Bad poll", "This Sucks" and "Why have'nt you got these leaders? Well There was'nt ANY SPACE!

Also, most of these are Prime Ministers(or were) or Presidents.

I like Italy, but could'nt remember which Italian Leader was bad.

The same thing to France

Well, Hitler was a Leader

let's see:

- Ivan the Terrible
- Nero (put his horse in charge)
- Mugabe (another big killer)
- Milosevic (genocidist)


:confused:

Well, Ivan IV Groznyj was the first real reformer of Russia; without him, the russian aristocracy would have held sway for centuries while keeping the peasants in misery. There is a chain of great russian leaders who strove for the modernisation of the country: Ivan IV, Pëtr I, Ekaterina, Lenin, Gorbac'ëv.

Nero wasn't such a terrible leader. At least, under his rule, the Roman Empire didn't lose territory. Also, he was a patron of arts. Caligula and Hadrian were far worse: one totally out of his mind, the other dedicated to hedonism only.

Mugabe is too little a man to be quoted amongst impressive characters. A peripheral dictator, making into the news just because he's in a Commonwealth country.

Milosevic, while a corrupt leader, didn't attempt genocide on the Albanians more than Rugova and his boss Berisha did on Serbs. Look just at the numbers of "kosovo albanian refugees in Albania" given by the UNHCR in 1999. They were about two times than the UN estimate of the ethnically albanian population of Kosovo. Somewhat fishy, don't you think?

OK! (snipped for mercy)

Generally, it isn't a good idea to post everything in size 6. It won't make you appear any smarter.

Expecially, when your post is so semantically garbled that it could mean anything and its contrary.

Expecially, when your post clearly proves that you and grammar live at each other's antipodes.

TO CAPTURE ATTENSION

Okay guys I mean to make a point here, I mean on this poll George Bush is rated THE WORST RULER EVER!!! What the hey! You even put him ahead of people who killed their own people against their will (men wemon and children) for sport!! Of course he did make some mistakes, but I never said he was some kind of bloody fricken geinous or anything!! I do believe that flattening out the terrorists was a good course of action, however he went about it all wrong. You only think that bush is satin incarnate beacuse he's the only one that you've really had any personal expierence with, however I promise that there are countless people who are worse than Bush and many are on this list!! Geez! Open your fricken eyes people! Bush isn't a tyrant he's just a politician (a mark against him for being such) who is a bad lair! And for [I]that[I] you give him loads of crap, well I'm sorry but ple-a-eese people be reasonable.

TO CAPTURE ATTENSION

Okay guys I mean to make a point here, I mean on this poll George Bush is rated THE WORST RULER EVER!!! What the hey! You even put him ahead of people who killed their own people against their will (men wemon and children) for sport!! Of course he [I]did[I make some mistakes, but I never said he was some kind of bloody fricken geinous or anything!! I do believe that flattening out the terrorists was a good course of action, however he went about it all wrong. You only think that bush is satin incarnate beacuse he's the only one that you've really had any personal expierence with, however I promise that there are countless people who are worse than Bush and many are on this list!! Geez! Open your fricken eyes people! Bush isn't a tyrant he's just a politician (a mark against him for being such) who is a bad lair! And for [I]that[I] you give him loads of crap, well I'm sorry but ple-a-eese people be reasonable.

You're probably right, to some degree, about people knowing no other leader in their lifetimes. That's true of a good number of internet-users, I'm sure. :p

But I'm guessing that most people just voted that way for whatever personal reasons they might have, and not because they honestly buy the Bush=Hitler line. Also, your html (or whatever it's called) tags are a bit off - might want to use the ones above the posting window. They work fine. ;)

:confused:

Nero wasn't such a terrible leader. At least, under his rule, the Roman Empire didn't lose territory. Also, he was a patron of arts. Caligula and Hadrian were far worse: one totally out of his mind, the other dedicated to hedonism only.

Milosevic, while a corrupt leader, didn't attempt genocide on the Albanians more than Rugova and his boss Berisha did on Serbs. Look just at the numbers of "kosovo albanian refugees in Albania" given by the UNHCR in 1999. They were about two times than the UN estimate of the ethnically albanian population of Kosovo. Somewhat fishy, don't you think?

Nah, Nero was insane. He burnt down his own city ( Rome ) in order to create space for his new palace and blamed christians and jews for it. And he left a bankrupt empire.

Milosevic was absolutely terrible. He didnt only murder Albanians, but Bosnian Muslims as well, and invaded all his neighbour countries.

Hitler was neither a president nor a prime minister though :p

(I was hoping someone else would post this fact)

Actually, he was BOTH.

Hitler's Nazi party (NSDAP) won the parliamentary snap elections of June 1932, following the resignation of the Von Papen cabinet. He had 230 seats, so no-one could form a new cabinet without him. The Von Papen cabinet lost the confidence of the Reichstag (Parliament) and President Paul Von Hindenburg refused to appoint Hitler as Reichskanzler (PM), so new snap elections were held in November 1932.
Again, the NSDAP was the largest party in the Reichstag. Hindenburg appointed General Von Schleicher who again failed to receive the confidence.
A lobby formed by former Reichskanzler Von Papen, former president of the Reichsbank Schlacht, businessmen Hugenberg (media) and Thyssen (steel), pressed Hindenburg to appoint Hitler. In January 1933, Hitler was sworn in as Reichskanzler, having a parliamentary majority granted by the alliance between the NSDAP and the conservative DNVP (Deutsche Nationale VolksPartei).
Hitler, though, managed NOT to attain the confidence vote - he didn't want to have the DNVP as a key member of his alliance - , and Hindenburg had to call for new snap elections. The elections were scheduled for March, 6.
On February 27, the Reichstag building was set on fire. Communists were blamed for that; the cabinet enacted with a decree on February, 28. This decree suspended civil rights, and was used to eliminate the left-wing opposition, most notabily the Communist party (KPD).
The elections, held in a coup d'etat political climate, gave the NSDAP 43% of the polls. Hitler again had to form a coalition with the DNVP. He didn't: instead, he had the Reichstag pass a bill (the Enabling Act) giving the Reichskanzler also legislative power for the next four years. Hitler needed a 2/3 majority to do so: the Catholic Centre Party (DZP, Deutsche Zentrumpartei) voted in favour. (The Enabling Act was, in 1937 and 1941, re-instated again by a vote of the Reichstag, thus making Hitler's dictatorship legitimate). The Hitler dictatorship began here, with the suppression of all opposition parties, the elimination of workers' unions, and the imprisonment and murder of political oppositors.
When, in summer 1934, President Paul Von Hindenburg died, Hitler didn't call for new presidential elections, and used the vast power he was given by the Enabling Act to pass a bill that declared the Presidency "dormant" and gave all the powers and the title of Head of the State to the Reichskanzler, creating the title "Führer und Reichskanzler". These bills were confirmed by a plebiscite with 84% of the votes in favour.

So, yes, Hitler was Head of State (not a "Reichspräsident", but a "Führer") AND Prime Minister ("Reichskanzler").

Okay guys I mean to make a point here, I mean on this poll George Bush is rated THE WORST RULER EVER!!! What the hey! You even put him ahead of people who killed their own people against their will (men wemon and children) for sport!!

Well, he isn't the worst ruler ever... but he sent the US soldiers to be killed in Iraq against their will (:confused: generally, people don't like to get killed, but your post looks like claiming the contrary) ON AN OUTRIGHT LIE.

...and... wemon?:confused:

Nah, Nero was insane. He burnt down his own city ( Rome ) in order to create space for his new palace and blamed christians and jews for it. And he left a bankrupt empire.


I was told back in gradeschool that, while Nero was certainly a nut, he probably didn't instruct anyone to burn Rome. Not sure what the straight dope is on that though, really. ;)

Biased against Thatcher much? Did she piss in your pudding?

Bah. There is far, far worse than her (which is not to even say she was bad.) Yeltsin is one example that comes to mind.

I know I'm not going to gain any popularity over this, but I've done some pretty extensive research into this for the past several years, and I must say, according to the absolute diction of the poll, one must rate these leaders in accordance to their LEADERSHIP, not necessarily their historical legendry.

Meaning, we must grade them based upon their abilities as a leader, not on what they did to other people.
Based on his abilities to lead lambs to the slaughter, yes, he was the best. As others have noted though, his economic reforms were the work of Schacht, and even then, would not have garnered much prosperity beyond 1939 (there is one interpretation of the war that says economic conditions are what ultimately pushed the war ahead.)


Anyway, the ones I like least are: Hitler, Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, Bush Jr, Blair, Milosevic, Yeltsin, Putin, Mao (he does qualify, right?) and Mugabe. Stalin gets away by virtue of not being a president/PM.

I was told back in gradeschool that, while Nero was certainly a nut, he probably didn't instruct anyone to burn Rome. Not sure what the straight dope is on that though, really. ;)

Well he certainly became crazy late in his reign, but largely the view of Nero as an omnipotent dictator is false, he had little real power and eventually the army took over and he committed suicide.

Well he certainly became crazy late in his reign, but largely the view of Nero as an omnipotent dictator is false, he had little real power and eventually the army took over and he committed suicide.

Yeah, that sounds much more likely. Less fun, maybe, but more likely. :p

Who has been the worst leader of any Nation ever?
Me! Me! ME! Vote for ME! :p

Owwww, I'm not in the poll... :(

TO CAPTURE ATTENSIONI stopped reading there.
Besides, it's spelt 'attention'. Props however, for not using gun smilies in your first post.

Actually, I lied, I did not even read your red lines.:p

Nah, Nero was insane. He burnt down his own city ( Rome ) in order to create space for his new palace and blamed christians and jews for it. And he left a bankrupt empire.

Actually, there is no historical proof that the fire was started on Nero's orders - except for Christian claims, of course, but I doubt that Christian sources can be seen as unbiased about Nero. Jews? He didn't blame jews, iirc.

Anyway, fires were quite common in ancient Rome - most insulae (residential blocks) had lots of wooden parts, and there was no fire brigade.
Of course, Nero used the fire to a double end:
1.create an "enemy syndrome" in the Roman public, just like Hitler used the Reichstag fire, or Bush used the 9/11 - although (little difference...not) we're pretty sure that Hitler actually planned the Reichstag fire. Usually people cling to "strong" leaders when affected by an "enemy syndrome".
2.rebuild large areas of Rome according to his urbanistical and architectural ideas - and enlarging the Domus Aurea (his own villa in the city) a lot.

Milosevic was absolutely terrible. He didnt only murder Albanians, but Bosnian Muslims as well, and invaded all his neighbour countries.

You are stating plain falsehoods, and I'm going to prove that.

1.Serbia wasn't involved in the Bosnian war. Bosnians Serbs weren't under the control of Milosevic. Go read some documentation. The "president" of the Bosnian Serbs was Karadzic, and the commander of their militia was Mladic. Also: at the time, the President of Jugoslavia wasn't Milosevic; it was Stipe Mesic, croat, today President of Croatia. If the Jugoslav Army was somewhat involved in the Bosnian war, it is Mesic who should be held responsible, since the President of the Jugoslav Federation also controlled the Army.

By the way, government of the Federal Republic of Jugoslavia (successor of the Socialist Federal Republic of Jugoslavia):

President
- 1992 - 1993 Dobrica Ćosić
- 1993 - 1997 Zoran Lilić
- 1997 – 2000 Slobodan Milošević
Prime Minister
- 1992 - 1993 Milan Panić
- 1993 - 1998 Radoje Kontić
- 1998 - 2000 Momir Bulatović

Surprise, surprise: Slobo didn't held any executive position during the was in Bosnia.
The War in Bosnia and Herzegovina (...) took place between March 1992 and November 1995. (wiki)

2.Neighbouring countries of the Socialist Federal Republic of Jugoslavia in 1991.
Italy: wasn't invaded by Serbs (or by anyone else).
Albania: as above
Greece: as above
Bulgaria: as above
Romania: as above
Hungary: as above
Austria: as above

Neighbouring countries of the Federal Republic of Jugoslavia in 1992.
Croatia: we might say that one of it regions, Kraijna (meaning "border") was "invaded" by Serbia. It must be noted, though, that Kraijna was historically home of at least a huge minority - Serbs claim a majority - of ethnical Serbs, and that it was taken by Tito from Serbia and given to Croatia during the SFRJ. Hence, this conflict can also be seen as a local Serb uprising supported by Serbs from Serbia, fueled by fears of ethnical cleansing after Croatia illegally seceded from Jugoslavia (they didn't receive the support of all other federated republic, like Slovenija did and like it was requested by federal law).
Bosnia: it is notorious that some serbian ultras (not regular serbian/jugoslav troops) fought in the Bosnian war: this doesn't constitute a serbian invasion of Bosnia, though, as stated by former US Vice-Secretary of State, Mr.Holbrook, in 1996/7 at the Bosnian peace talks (more or less "Milosevic is the only one in the Balkan region with whom you can talk peace").
Macedonia (FYROM): not invaded by Serbs; albanian militias attemped invasion of Macedonia in 2000-2001.
Albania: not invaded by Serbs, or by anyone else.
Bulgaria: as above
Romania: as above
Hungary: as above.

Hence, you stated falsehoods.
Maybe you should read some documentations, like newspapers of the years 1991-2000, before duckspeaking pro-Albanian propaganda.

Actually, there is no historical proof that the fire was started on Nero's orders - except for Christian claims, of course, but I doubt that Christian sources can be seen as unbiased about Nero. Jews? He didn't blame jews, iirc.
Did he blame the Commies? <.<

I would say Abraham Lincoln.

He started a war over slavery and ended state's rights. It was a horrible blow to the U.S.

The problem with the "state's rights" line on this issue is that it necessitates the acceptance of human enslavement as a legitimate activity of government/society. A state/society/government has no more legitimate right to engage in such behavior than individual persons, obviously. No such "right" of the "state" exists. The notion of so-called "national sovereignty" fails for the same reason in the international sphere.

Therefore, the crushing of immoral, unjust, and criminal government from among its own ranks is actually the United States' greatest victory, one of the (rare) examples of it actually standing up for and defending its stated ideals. Nevermind that we'd have just become Western Europe again had the union failed.

As to the list of worst "leaders," Ray Nagin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Nagin) and Michael D. Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEMA#Hurricane_Katrina_.E2.80.93_2005) should be in there somewhere. Or maybe they're some kind of "best" leader for their ability to cause such horrible human suffering with no effort at all.

Did he blame the Commies? <.<

He didn't, but just because Karl Marx was 1800 years in the future.;)

andrew jackson - indiginous genocide
george washington - village burner
alexander 'the great' (genocidal slaughters in afghanistan and india)
cunaligula
tzar nikolas
vlad the impaler
son of the wolf (persian mid 1800s)
pol pot
malosavitch
idiot amin
elizabeth of bathory
ulissis s grant
and yes shrubry the simple does belong in this company, but he has lots of company in it.

By the way, government of the Federal Republic of Jugoslavia (successor of the Socialist Federal Republic of Jugoslavia):

President
- 1992 - 1993 Dobrica Ćosić
- 1993 - 1997 Zoran Lilić
- 1997 – 2000 Slobodan Milošević
Prime Minister
- 1992 - 1993 Milan Panić
- 1993 - 1998 Radoje Kontić
- 1998 - 2000 Momir Bulatović

Surprise, surprise: Slobo didn't held any executive position during the was in Bosnia.

Wrong:He served as President of Serbia from 1989 to 1997 and then as President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1997 to 2000.( WIKI )

Bosnia, including Srebrenica and a few other enclaves were raided by Bosnian Serbian troops, equipped and supported by the Serbia gvt. with weapons from the Serbian army. Those forces weren't able to execute military operations independently and received weapons. Serbia was smart enough to let others do the dirty job of course. No, those B-S forces werent under direct control of Milosevic, and Milosevic probably didnt directly order genocide, but he didnt prevent it, and he knew that B-Serbian forces were overrunning Bosnia, and supported them.

And I think that's terrible leadership.

Yeah seriously. He may not be the greatest president ever but the guy isn't going to set up Auchwitz Baghdad, come on.

Why would he need to when Auchwitz, Guantanamo Bay is working out so well for him?

Wow. Does it strike anyone as bizarre that George Bush in this poll is considered even worse than the man who exterminated literally millions of Jews and plunged all of Europe into economic ruin? No rationality or objectivity there, obviously.

This poll is about leaders and leadership. Killing people doesn't make anyone a bad leader per se as long as people voluntarily (or involuntarily, see Stalin) still follow his or her lead. Aside from racial rethoric and actions concerning certain ethnicities Hitler was a competent leader: You have to be a true leader(tm) in order to have millions of people voluntarily throw down their lives or kill fellow compatriots for the flimsiest reason. Compare his leadership ability (we're talking about leaders, not saints) to G.W Bush's or Tony Blair's: "Only" few thousand dead soldiers and people are abandoning them en masse.

Yes, it's true the actions of Hitler were beyond appalling...However this poll isn't about kindness or ethics but capability as a leader, as someone whose commands people are willing to follow.

You must also remember that his actions and decisions before mid-WW II were good for majority of the country (just see Germany's economy figures before his rise to power all the way up to WW II) and its people humiliated by the repercussions of WW I.

I'll vote for Bush over Hitler on this one, because it's not the 'most evil leader ever' poll. Hitler did terrible things but the thing is, he knew excatly what he was doing. Bush appears not to have a clue about anything, really. This is just my interpetation of 'worst', though.

Robert Mugabe seems to be ticking all the boxes for an extremely bad leader.

The poll is about worst leader ever, not about how evil they were....Please don't start calling me a Nazi but Hitler, while he was an evil son of a bitch and a terrible military strategist was a relatively good leader. He took Germany out of the depression, convinced a majority of the population to vote for him, and put the fire of patriotism in anyone who wanted to call themselves German.

Worst leader....no
Evil son of a bitch who deserved a far worse fate than the one he got and whom we can be sure is rotting in hell....defiinetly

I confess... I am really disappointed in everyone who voted for Bush in this poll. In fact, I just didn't vote, because the really, really bad leaders weren't given any attention.

Neville Chamberlain? Not a mention
Mao Zedong? Apparently unfit to share company with Hitler.
Joseph Stalin? ..... This poll is full of lose.
The Pre-Civil War or the "Gilded Age" presidents, or, heck, even Grant? Not present.
Mugabe? Nope, but obviously Bush is the worst leader EVAR!!!11

But obviously, our times are the most epic. Our leaders are the best (or the worst), and our conflicts are the most sweeping and most important. After all, leaders who ran their relatively prosperous countries into the ground and got millions of people killed for political reasons are a shadow compared to the black pits of evil that are today's leaders.

I confess... I am really disappointed in everyone who voted for Bush in this poll. In fact, I just didn't vote, because the really, really bad leaders weren't given any attention.

Neville Chamberlain? Not a mention
Mao Zedong? Apparently unfit to share company with Hitler.
Joseph Stalin? ..... This poll is full of lose.
The Pre-Civil War or the "Gilded Age" presidents, or, heck, even Grant? Not present.
Mugabe? Nope, but obviously Bush is the worst leader EVAR!!!11

But obviously, our times are the most epic. Our leaders are the best (or the worst), and our conflicts are the most sweeping and most important. After all, leaders who ran their relatively prosperous countries into the ground and got millions of people killed for political reasons are a shadow compared to the black pits of evil that are today's leaders.

Try reading the thread. Just because the OP didn't include people in the poll doesn't mean they haven't been discussed. And I think most of the people you've mentioned have been covered.

You're saying Bush was better than every French president ever? As for Chamberlain already posted what I think of him.

Bush is better at keeping his country from getting occupied by another army. and the french are all liberal pacifists.

I'll vote for Bush over Hitler on this one, because it's not the 'most evil leader ever' poll. Hitler did terrible things but the thing is, he knew excatly what he was doing. Bush appears not to have a clue about anything, really. This is just my interpetation of 'worst', though.

but shouldnt the evilness of a leader be factored into how bad they are? Bush by no means is as evil as Hitler was. But you are right, it depends on how you interpret the worst leader, which is Hitler

Well, he isn't the worst ruler ever... but he sent the US soldiers to be killed in Iraq against their will (:confused: generally, people don't like to get killed, but your post looks like claiming the contrary) ON AN OUTRIGHT LIE.

...and... wemon?:confused:

George Bush did not alone send the troops into Iraq, congress did as well.The troops knew the risk when they went into the army any way. There is always a chance you will get killed in a war. If you joined the army, and didnt want to fight for your country , then you should not have joined the army in the first place.

The Pre-Civil War or the "Gilded Age" presidents, or, heck, even Grant?

Well, I'd say both Chester Arthur and Grover Cleveland were both good leaders for their time. Arthur went from being one of the most corrupt politicians in the country to passing the Pendleton Civil Service Act in 1883, which destroyed the Jacksonian "Spoils System" and pushed our government to a higher standard, while Cleveland's term as our 22nd President is noted by many Historians as one of the greatest Presidencies since the establishment of the office (although his handling of the Panic of 1893 was rather poor, the man at least stood on his principles and refused to give into GOP manipulation). I'd also bet Garfield would have been a very proficient President had he not been assassinated.

But yes, gentleman like Grant, Pierce, Buchanan, and Tyler should be noted in this thread.

the french are all liberal pacifists.

That's funny, since the French have only had 1 leftist president (Mitterand) since WWII.

Carry on..

Stalin and Hitler are the standouts. Whatever horrors Mao was responsible for have yet to be fully revealed to the world - I'm sure we will find out eventually. Hitler is the only one of the 3 in the poll so he gets my vote.

No little boots? Aw.

For some reason Abraham Lincoln didn't make the list, shame...I would have voted for him had he been on there. Bush would have topped it for being the most incompetent I think. As atrocious as Hitler was he wasn't a bad leader as he brought Germany's economy from utterly nothing, so I can't call him a bad leader just a sick son of a bitch.

Lincoln saved the Union... and for that (and other reasons, such as his poise, character, etc...) was probably the greatest president in US history. When the democrats wanted to quit (sound familiar?), Lincoln kept us fighting. If not for his willingness to bring the South back into the fold, we may still be divided. And the South may still have slavery.

You might say that slavery was not his primary aim (that is true) -- his primary aim was to save the union.

Is that actually being taught these days, that Lincoln was one of our worst presidents?

If so, that is f'd up and a logical absurdity.

and it goes without saying...

and i shouldn't bite...

but the votes for President Bush are meritless, given the title of this topic. He doesn't belong on that list. I noticed that there are no communists on that list either (Mao, Stalin, killers of millions of their OWN people)...

But then the blind-hate level for the Prez is high, as is the joking-around level of this forum... so I'm going to assume that the vast majority of those votes are for the latter reason. Surely nobody really thinks he's the worst leader ever. To say so would be to admit an incredible amount of naivete, a pretty young age, a willingness to be cowed by the leftist (side of the..) media, or a total lack of historical knowledge (and current world events -- there are many leaders today who are worse than Bush).

Trying to help another country is a fundamentally noble thing, the tax cuts worked (as they logically should...) to get money back into the markets, we have not been hit since 9/11, the economy is strong, Saddam has been deposed, Bush isn't a quitter (that's how I see this, anyway: winners vs. losers, perseverance vs. quitting), etc. Those are some of the marks in his favor.

George W. Bush definately :rolleyes:

Wrong:He served as President of Serbia from 1989 to 1997 and then as President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1997 to 2000.( WIKI )
Just what I said. President of SERBIA, not of JUGOSLAVIA. Remember that Serbia didn't have an army. There was the Jugoslav Army, under the control of the Jugoslav Presidency and Cabinet.


Bosnia, including Srebrenica and a few other enclaves were raided by Bosnian Serbian troops, equipped and supported by the Serbia gvt. with weapons from the Serbian army.
Again, there was no Serbian Army. It wasn't an independent State!


Those forces weren't able to execute military operations independently and received weapons.
Really? Then how could the Muslim Bosnians execute their own military operations (and they did)? Two answers possible, tertium non datur:
1.They were supported by some external force (US, Albania, Turkey, Al-Qaida... choose allegation here), hence they qualified as internal agents of a foreign power or of a terrorist organisation.
2.It was possible to execute military operation without external support.

Actually, as I said previously, it is a fact that Serbs para-military groups entered Bosnia to support the Bosnian Serbs: this, however, is quite different than saying that Milosevic used his own power to send regular serb military units (because there was NO REGULAR SERB ARMY) to fight in Bosnia.
Note that the trial against Milosevic at the Hague managed to certify a lot of such allegations as totally insubstantial (ref: newspapers of about 3-4 years ago), and many of the "witnesses" presented by prosecutor Carla del Ponte had to be subsequently retired from the trial by the prosecutor herself, as they were considered unreliable.


Serbia was smart enough to let others do the dirty job of course. No, those B-S forces werent under direct control of Milosevic, and Milosevic probably didnt directly order genocide,

See what I meant? Slobo wasn't "the new Hitler" as some American, European and (almost all) Albanian sources claimed.
Oh, and by the way, did you notice that you just said that they were Bosnian Serbs (B-S), and not "Serbian" Serbs?


but he didnt prevent it, and he knew that B-Serbian forces were overrunning Bosnia, and supported them. And I think that's terrible leadership.

Actually, it wasn't exactly Milosevic behind the Bosnian Serbs: they were more closely linked to the extreme nationalists like:
Vojislav Šešelj (Serbian Cyrillic: Војислав Шешељ, pronounced /ˈvɔjislav ˈʃɛʃɛʎ/) (born 11 October 1954 in Sarajevo, People's Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, FPR Yugoslavia) is a Serbian politician, and the founder and president of the Serbian Radical Party, the largest party in the Serbian parliament.
He was indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity[1] by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and is currently in The Hague awaiting trial. Šešelj was not handed over to United Nations personnel; he flew to The Hague by choice in February 2003.
As of November 2006 he is still awaiting trial in custody.
...
In 1989 Šešelj went to the United States where Momčilo Đujić, a Chetnik leader from World War II, granted him the title voivoda (Grand Duke) of the Chetniks.
Together with Vuk Drašković and Mirko Jović, Šešelj founded the anti-communist Serbian National Renewal (SNO) party in 1989. Šešelj later split off his faction into the Serbian Radical Party. During the early 1990s, Šešelj founded a number of paramilitary units, most notably the White Eagles, which committed some of the worst crimes against civilians and POWs during the Yugoslav Wars (including Vukovar and Voćin massacres).
His relations with President Slobodan Milošević’s Socialist Party was amicable during the first years of the Yugoslav Wars until September 1993, when he came into conflict with Milošević over Milošević's withdrawal of support for Republika Srpska in the Bosnian War. Šešelj also landed in jail in 1994 and 1995 for his opposition to Milošević.



Momčilo Đujić was accused and sentenced in absentio for war crimes by the Communist government of FPR Yugoslavia, but the US government never did send him back, stating "a lack of evidence" as their reason. When he first arrived in the United States, Đujić lived in Gary, Indiana before moving to California where he lived until his death.


(wiki)

Interesting, neh? Looks like some Serbian WW2 war criminal (sentenced), who was granted refugee status by the US (hence, clearly not a pro-commie), managed to create some of the basis for nationalistic uprising and unrest first, and then open war, that would have led to the dissolution of Jugoslavia and the pro-Albanian intervention of a NATO coalition in the Balkans.

...eh.

Hitler/Stalin's agiven, so Thatcher it is.

He was buying necessary time for us to re-arm: All of our governments since the start of the Depression had failed to keep the defence budget high enough... (For example: at the time of Munich the RAF had a grand total of approximately 50 Spitfires & Hurricanes, but during the months from then until the actual outbreak of war in Europe that number was increased to approximately 500...)

He wasn't re-arming to capacity though. We still had 2million unemployed who could have been used to help us re-arm even faster. He also offered Hitler substantial colonies for peace before he was forced from power in 1940.

Goodness knows why this poll has decided that every leader in France, apart from Napolean they haven't had too many bad leaders, and Churchill should be on this poll but Stalin and Mao, the two biggest killing leaders of all time, do not make this poll. Maybe we should decide whether we are deciding on whether the worse leader should be someone who has made errrors but tried to do soem good or a mass murderer.

George Bush did not alone send the troops into Iraq, congress did as well.The troops knew the risk when they went into the army any way. There is always a chance you will get killed in a war. If you joined the army, and didnt want to fight for your country , then you should not have joined the army in the first place.

Well, actually, the opinion of the Congress isn't that important to the POTUS, is it? Veto power and the like...

Anyway, the bit about soldiers getting killed, well, the post I was answering to was claiming that leader X and Y were evil because "they killed people against the will of these people". If you want to disprove what I replied to that, you'll have to prove that every single US soldier that has been killed in Iraq really WANTED to die - not that he was accepting merely the risk of being KIA.

Then again, I could also reply that maybe, many US soldiers that have been sent to Iraq come from the reserve: they expected to be employed in case of war on the US territory (like an invasion), not to be scrambled to Middle East to seize the oilfields of another country - this doesn't mirror exactly everyone's idea of "fighting for one's country", does it?

Anyway, again, Bush jr is too little a man to be the "most" at everything.

Again, there was no Serbian Army. It wasn't an independent State!

Officially not. But the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia consisted of Serbia and Montenegro. You can call it whatever you want, but the tanks of FRY were driven by Serbians or Montenegrens ( Sp ? ) Milosevic had more influence than you might think.

Actually, as I said previously, it is a fact that Serbs para-military groups entered Bosnia to support the Bosnian Serbs: this, however, is quite different than saying that Milosevic used his own power to send regular serb military units (because there was NO REGULAR SERB ARMY) to fight in Bosnia.

So ? He could´ve supported them with ( FRY ) arms.

But it´s difficult anyways to accuse the right ( one ) person. Suppose you compare Seselj with Eichmann, and Milosevic with Hitler, then who´s guilty ? Both. Note that the Holocaust was executed by Himmler, Eichmann, etc etc.
What I´m saying is that certain people literally execute certain sentiments created by a leader, and therefore should be prosecuted both.

But I don´t understand your defending of Milosevic. Sure, one can´t accuse him of every crime committed in Bosnia, but he definitely played an important role in all this, and proved himself a bad ´Yugoslavian´leader. In fact, running the 90´s, he proved himself only being a Serb nationalist.

And I aint Bosnian or Albanian, and Im not a Muslim. Im from western Europe. ( Albanian propaganda ?? )

and it goes without saying...

and i shouldn't bite...

but the votes for President Bush are meritless, given the title of this topic. He doesn't belong on that list. I noticed that there are no communists on that list either (Mao, Stalin, killers of millions of their OWN people)...

But then the blind-hate level for the Prez is high, as is the joking-around level of this forum... so I'm going to assume that the vast majority of those votes are for the latter reason. Surely nobody really thinks he's the worst leader ever. To say so would be to admit an incredible amount of naivete, a pretty young age, a willingness to be cowed by the leftist (side of the..) media, or a total lack of historical knowledge (and current world events -- there are many leaders today who are worse than Bush).

Trying to help another country is a fundamentally noble thing, the tax cuts worked (as they logically should...) to get money back into the markets, we have not been hit since 9/11, the economy is strong, Saddam has been deposed, Bush isn't a quitter (that's how I see this, anyway: winners vs. losers, perseverance vs. quitting), etc. Those are some of the marks in his favor.

It's the semantic argument of what worst means. Evil, in which case Hitler/Stalin/etc are front runners, or incompetent, in which Bush comes to the fore. Sometime quitting is the sensible option. Demonstrated admirably by this smiley. :headbang: Iraq is a mess and was always going to be, and hence although perhaps 'noble' was a stupid decision.

Hey, where's Benedict *spelling* Arnold? D: He was teh worst US military general...

Out of that list, Hitler. Obviously. In all of history? hard to say without a better definition of 'worst'.

So ? He could´ve supported them with ( FRY ) arms.

But it´s difficult anyways to accuse the right ( one ) person. Suppose you compare Seselj with Eichmann, and Milosevic with Hitler, then who´s guilty ? Both. Note that the Holocaust was executed by Himmler, Eichmann, etc etc.
What I´m saying is that certain people literally execute certain sentiments created by a leader, and therefore should be prosecuted both.




NO. Those German Generals vowed their life to Hitler so they did as he said. Others though, like Field Marshall Erwin Rommell, didn't like how Hitler was in charge and doing everything. Hitler then accused Rommell, an amazing German General, of treason, so Rommell committed suicide by capsule.

That proves that not all soldiers/generals will obey their leader so you can't blame the generals. NOT all of them liked Hitler's idea, man!

Where's LBJ?

He killed more Americans than have been wounded following the actual war in Iraq, yet he doesn't get the nod for leading America into a country that didn't serve any one of her goals - including oil, for those that believe that we're in Iraq for oil.

If you want to circle jerk about "Worst Prez Evah" being Bush, at least put in an option for those that have a different opinion. But Bush is certainly not Stalin, and most certainly not Hitler.

Using Hitler as an example, just because you're a psychopath doesnt make you a bad leader. He was horrible, yes, but did great things for Deutshland, and the germans loved him for it. I'm leaning towards Nero, what with the crazy and all.

Where's LBJ?

He killed more Americans than have been wounded following the actual war in Iraq, yet he doesn't get the nod for leading America into a country that didn't serve any one of her goals - including oil, for those that believe that we're in Iraq for oil.

If you want to circle jerk about "Worst Prez Evah" being Bush, at least put in an option for those that have a different opinion. But Bush is certainly not Stalin, and most certainly not Hitler.

...get out


Civil rights

President Johnson signs the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964In conjunction with the civil rights movement, Johnson overcame southern resistance and achieved passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which effectively outlawed most forms of racial segregation. In 1965, he achieved passage of a second civil rights bill, the Voting Rights Act, that outlawed discrimination in voting, thus allowing millions of southern blacks to vote for the first time. Shortly thereafter, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73-27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that, as he put down his pen, Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation," anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party.[18]

In 1967, Johnson nominated civil rights attorney Thurgood Marshall to be the first African American Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. After the murder of civil rights worker Viola Liuzzo, Johnson went on television to announce the arrest of four Ku Klux Klan's men implicated in her death. He angrily denounced the Klan as a "hooded society of bigots", and warned them to "return to a decent society before it's too late." He turned the themes of Christian redemption to push for civil rights, thereby mobilizing support from churches North and South.[19] At the Howard University commencement address on June 4, 1965, he said that both the government and the nation needed to help achieve goals: ...To shatter forever not only the barriers of law and public practice, but the walls which bound the condition of many by the color of his skin. To dissolve, as best we can, the antique enmities of the heart which diminish the holder, divide the great democracy, and do wrong—great wrong—to the children of God...'.[20]


Great Society
The Great Society program became Johnson's agenda for Congress in January 1965: aid to education, attack on disease, Medicare, urban renewal, beautification, conservation, development of depressed regions, a wide-scale fight against poverty, control and prevention of crime, and removal of obstacles to the right to vote. Congress, at times augmenting or amending, enacted many of Johnson's recommendations.


Federal aid to education
Johnson had a lifelong commitment to the belief that education was the cure for both ignorance and poverty, and was an essential component of the American Dream, especially for minorities who endured poor facilities and tight-fisted budgets from local taxes. He made education a top priority of the Great Society, with an emphasis on helping poor children. After the 1964 landslide brought in many new liberal Congressmen, he had the votes for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. For the first time large amounts of federal money went to public schools. In practice ESEA meant helping all public school districts, with more money going to districts that had large propositions of students from poor families (which included all the big cities). However, for the first time private schools (most of them Catholic schools in the inner cities) received services, such as library funding, comprising about 12% of the ESEA budget. As Dallek reports, researchers soon found that poverty had more to do with family background and neighborhood conditions than the quantity of education a child received. Early studies suggested initial improvements for poor kids helped by ESEA reading and math programs, but later assessments indicated that benefits faded quickly and left students little better off than those not in the programs. Johnson’s second major education program was the “Higher Education Act of 1965" which focused on funding for lower income students, including grants, work-study money, and government loans. He set up the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts, to support humanists and artists (as the WPA once did). Although ESEA solidified Johnson's support among K12 teachers' unions, neither the Higher Education act nor the Endowments mollified the college professors and students growing increasingly uneasy with his war in Vietnam.[21]


War on Poverty
In 1964, upon Johnson's request, Congress passed a tax-reduction law and the Economic Opportunity Act, which was in association with the War on Poverty.


Medicare and Medicaid
Millions of elderly people were aided by the 1965 Medicare amendment to the Social Security Act. Poor people received federal money for medical care through the Medicaid program.[22]


That is wikipeida. He's not such a bad guy/

Using Hitler as an example, just because you're a psychopath doesnt make you a bad leader. He was horrible, yes, but did great things for Deutshland, and the germans loved him for it. I'm leaning towards Nero, what with the crazy and all.

Do you mean Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus?

Well, that guy made rules that protected and pleased the lower class but having the rich and powerful suffer. How is that wrong? And don't tell me about the War with Parthia and the rebellions, revolts, conspiricys.

...get out

That is wikipeida. He's not such a bad guy/

Clearly, you have mistaken the intentions of my post. I never said that LBJ was "Teh Worst Prez Evah;" I said that, for leading his country into a fight that never served her intentions, LBJ should at least get the nod to be on the "shit list" of PMs and Prezes.

I searched 4 names. Which means what should have taken me 2 minutes now takes at least 12 minutes.
You do realize that 180 seconds is three minutes, right? 4 x 3 = 12 ~Mod
Yup. Hence the "at least 12 minutes" part.

The first search has no waiting period, so it's a minimum of 9 minutes.

On topic...you're all retarded if you think Bush is really the worst leader ever.

Unless the US is currently involved in ethnic cleansing and its economy is collapsing to the point of widespread starvation, I'm pretty sure there have been much worse leaders.

Clearly, you have mistaken the intentions of my post. I never said that LBJ was "Teh Worst Prez Evah;" I said that, for leading his country into a fight that never served her intentions, LBJ should at least get the nod to be on the "shit list" of PMs and Prezes.

Alright, sorry about that. I was thinking, "D: What the-" All fixed up now.... :D

The first search has no waiting period, so it's a minimum of 9 minutes.

On topic...you're all retarded if you think Bush is really the worst leader ever.

Unless the US is currently involved in ethnic cleansing and its economy is collapsing to the point of widespread starvation, I'm pretty sure there have been much worse leaders.

Hey, hey! We don't need to flame. People are entitled to their own opinions.

Possibly one of the most underrated British Prime Ministers ever, I'm not saying he was great but he doesn't deserve all the criticism he gets.

I read a biography on him. He was an idiot. He had a nazi as a top aide(if I remember correctly).

Using Hitler as an example, just because you're a psychopath doesnt make you a bad leader. He was horrible, yes, but did great things for Deutshland, and the germans loved him for it. I'm leaning towards Nero, what with the crazy and all.


exactly, everyone's naming the people that went and killed everyone, dont get me wrong, Hitler was a douche killing the Jews, invading france, russia, and all that jazz, but he was still a pretty good leader, ya know...besides wanting to bulldoze Berlin for his super city...so, other than Berliners most people loved him. But, he was also a shitty general, he probably could have won WWII if he let his generals be generals and do things their own way, and not been an idiot in attacking Russia so soon. So, he was good with some stuff, but he was crappy otherwise.

And Churchill, he wasn't great, but the guy's country got attacked by Hitlers Lufftwaffe (sorry on spelling, airforce, you know what i mean :P) and, if he did have a Nazi as an Aide, I'd want someone who knew how the enemy worked, functioned and stuff too.

And Bush and LBJ were definately not the worst presidents we've ever had. Let's see, I'd say Nixon, Vietnam War, messin with the Soviets, and the only president to resign from office.

Alright, sorry about that. I was thinking, "D: What the-" All fixed up now.... :D

Well, there's an argument to be made against LBJ, but I'm not one to make it simply because LBJ led the country into a war - he didn't commit genocide or completely destabilize the economy.

But, at the same time, Bush isn't the same kind of "ebil" uber-dictator like Stalin or Hitler. Bush didn't lead his country into economic ruin; there were outside actions that led to that happening. He did, though, lead us to war, which is why people are criticizing him as the Worst Prez Ever

And Bush and LBJ were definately not the worst presidents we've ever had. Let's see, I'd say Nixon, Vietnam War, messin with the Soviets, and the only president to resign from office.

Oh, so blame the guy that got the US out of 'Nam. Nice.

Oh, so blame the guy that got the US out of 'Nam. Nice.

Have you ever heard of the Watergate Scandal?

Have you ever heard of the Watergate Scandal?

Yes. And your point is what? He was the worst Prez or PM for having a coverup scandal?

ok, he got us out of nam, after what, almost ten years of American involvement, and LBJ got us into nam in the first place too, but you can make arguments either way about any president really, from Washington, to Lincoln, to Bush.

Of your list, Hitler is the worst. But where the F*** is Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong?!

Yes. And your point is what? He was the worst Prez or PM for having a coverup scandal?

let's see, US presidential coverups...not exactly rare....

and spying on the opposing political party=bad....

yeah, but...ya know..the US doesnt seem to have the best track record of good prezzies...and when we do get a good one, he gets killed :/

let's see, US presidential coverups...not exactly rare....

Er... that was my point.

There's more to the anti-bush argument than just "he led us to war."


Bush, in his nearly seven years of being in office, has singlehandedly:


Reversed over thirty years of congressional legislation in which the government of the United States was made more transparent, more accountable, and more in tune with and to its citizens.


Created one of the largest rifts within a strongly united nation (unity which resulted after 9/11) by introducing discriminitory laws into the constitution, such as the "defense of marriage act" which is really anything but.


Destroyed what President Clinton created in his eight years of presidency in regards to socialzed healthcare reform.

Also destroyed the nearly balanced budget of the Federal government that was also created under President Clinton.

Manipulated the American public with intentional errors of omission and known lack of any substantial evidence concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Even the United Nations declared that Saddam did not have the weapons Bush accused him of having.

So, being scared shitless, Congress gave Bush the power to invade Iraq, and lo and behold, NO weapons were found.

And, in attempts to get great photo ops, Bush further put the troops in harms way when in late 2003 he was asked how the United States military would handle any insurgency in Iraq, Bush responded "Bring it on."

Bush has also devestated the image and credibility of the United States on the international stage. Now, no matter what intelligence the US may receive on any particular nation, it will be much harder to get a coalition of nations together to make a joint, bilateral operation. This means more American troops will be put in harms way in any future conflicts, and more American dollars will be spent. This either means more taxes on Americans, or an unprecedented under-funding of necessary social programs, including the defense of our nation (our military).


The list goes on and on with what Bush has done. No, he has not quite run the US into the ground economically or militarily speaking, but in relative to the greatness of our nation that he inherited in 2000 to the state that the union is in now, yes, he is indeed one of our worst presidents ever.

Pol Pot.


The End.


Wiki him. Google him. Not many people know about him but he did NOTHING good for Cambodia, was the worldest worst leader and biggest douche ever. Killing teachers, leaders, parents...brainwashing kids....

Oh yeah, and the USA supported him cause he didn't like Vietnam.

Great foreign policy.

Hey, where's Benedict *spelling* Arnold? D: He was teh worst US military general...

Who just so happened to capture Fort Ticonderoga (whose guns allowed General Washington's army to force the withdrawal of Howe and the British from Boston) and lead the Continentals to victory at Valcour Island (well, a strategic victory in this case), Lake Champlain, and, most importantly, Saratoga (which prompted the French to join the war on our side). The same man who nearly took Quebec in the middle of winter against a superior enemy force. Oh yes, how terrible of a commander he was...

I read a biography on him. He was an idiot. He had a nazi as a top aide(if I remember correctly).

No reasons?

Chamberlain gets criticised for what he did but few can say what he should have done. USA was Isolationist, France was unwilling to commit forces. Italy was allied with Germany and the Russians were looking for war as much as the Germans, then signed the non-aggression pact.

Is it really that hard to understand why the leader of a country who'd not so long before gone through a devastatingly huge war, followed by years of depression and with no definite allies and a military force that wasn't exactly in great shape, tried to avoid and delay war for as long as possible? Going through diplomatic channels and trying to rectify an unfair punitive treaty that was causing the problematic situation?

Declaring war in 1938 was not to Britain's benefit.

Hmm, this was a hard one, since you only can vote on one person... I choosed Margerat Thatcher anyhow.

Hitler was not a bad leader...he just wasn't very nice to some people

Declaring war in 1938 was not to Britain's benefit.
There are historians who posit that had Britain not declared war then, it'd have been economically inefficient to do so later (with regard to armaments.) The same applied for Germany, of course. Both countries were nearing their peak, and would find it sub-optimal to declare war at a later date.

Hmm, this was a hard one, since you only can vote on one person... I choosed Margerat Thatcher anyhow.
Who is this "Margerat" person you speak of?

He isn't up there but I'm voting for Jimmy Carter as worst US president followed closely by Bush Jr. Carter is also one of the worst. Despite Hitler being a total whack-job he was a great leader in a purely political science way of looking at it but he was still a total and complete nutcase.

As an American, I am not starving to death as a direct result of my leader so despite my seething hatred for Bush, I would have to put leaders like Mugabe and Kim Jong Ill in front of him.

There are historians who posit that had Britain not declared war then, it'd have been economically inefficient to do so later (with regard to armaments.) The same applied for Germany, of course. Both countries were nearing their peak, and would find it sub-optimal to declare war at a later date.


Eh? Britain declared war in 1939 didn't they?

Carry on..

I am patently concerned that a significant number of people see Bush as worse than Hitler...

I am patently concerned that a significant number of people see Bush as worse than Hitler...Under the right... or rather wrong... circumstances Bush would surely surpass Hitler by far. Only the limits of his office seem to keep him from turning the US into a worse state than Germany in the 1930s.

Under the right... or rather wrong... circumstances Bush would surely surpass Hitler by far. Only the limits of his office seem to keep him from turning the US into a worse state than Germany in the 1930s.
I see your subscription to reality ran out. What in the world could make you think such a silly thing? What, pray tell, about Bush makes him capable of more evil than Hitler? He's idiotic, not particularly charismatic and I doubt he has much ambition.

I see your subscription to reality ran out. What in the world could make you think such a silly thing? What, pray tell, about Bush makes him capable of more evil than Hitler? He's idiotic, not particularly charismatic and I doubt he has much ambition.

I'd also doubt whether he decides policy as much as his advisors do, whereas Hitler dictated Nazi policy alone.

I am patently concerned that a significant number of people see Bush as worse than Hitler...

In terms of achieving his aims Bush seems to be worse than Hitler.

In terms of achieving his aims Bush seems to be worse than Hitler.

Yeah, but Bush's aims don't involve world conquest or the extermination of anyone who doesn't fit his racial fantasies...

Yeah, but Bush's aims don't involve world conquest or the extermination of anyone who doesn't fit his racial fantasies...

So it's back to a question of semantics. Do you define worst by competence or morality, I think/hope many of those who voted Bush did so going by the former.

let's see:

- Hitler (WWII, attempted genocide)
- Stalin (the purges -- something like 20 million murdered)
- Mao (also murdered millions of his own countrymen, stole money/property)
- Pol Pot (another big killer)
- Ivan the Terrible
- Nero (put his horse in charge)
- Mugabe (another big killer)
- Milosevic (genocidist)
- Saddam (Mr. Acid Bath)

your poll is pretty good with some real scum.
ahmanutjob is worse then half of those on the op's poll,he has managed to wreck the country in a few years,economically and politically,and if he aint carefull,things are going to start exploding over there,and further hurt his country.
just about any general/president for life in africa probably qualifies as well.

how can anyone say Maggie was anything but great, she broke the trade unions, she defended the British citzens of the Falklands against Argentina

Winston Churchill was the man who led Britain out of her darkest hour and made it her finest hour, the only people who could think he was the worst leader ever is a Nazi of anti British

Yeah, but Bush's aims don't involve world conquest or the extermination of anyone who doesn't fit his racial fantasies...

Actually theres substantial evidence that Hitler never planned WWII to try and gain world conquest, sure he had ideologies but he never expected that the British would call his bluff on Poland because they never interfered in the Rhineland, Austria or with the Czechs. You should read up on AJP Taylor for more on this.

Winston Churchill was the man who led Britain out of her darkest hour and made it her finest hour, the only people who could think he was the worst leader ever is a Nazi of anti British

He was an imperialist at best who started warmongering against the Soviets just after his people had been through WWII, he can't have been so great if his people gave him the boot just after the war ended.

he was a war leader and was his war mongering right yes. Also if he did such a bad job why was he elected again in 1951

Well, I'm no bush supporter by any stretch of the term but how do you think hes worse than hitler?

Statistically Hitler killed 12 million people. Bush hasn't killed near that yet.

Well, I'm no bush supporter by any stretch of the term but how do you think hes worse than hitler?

Statistically Hitler killed 12 million people. Bush hasn't killed near that yet.

I was watching that 'Last comic standing' the other night and one chap cracked a very funny joke about Bush and Hitler, a bit near the knuckle but still very funny:

'I'm not one of these Bush haters, but I have a friend who is, he was ranting on an on the other day Bush this and Bush that until finally he compeared him to Hitler, I told him that's out of order Hitler was a fantastic public speaker'

Officially not. But the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia consisted of Serbia and Montenegro. You can call it whatever you want, but the tanks of FRY were driven by Serbians or Montenegrens ( Sp ? ) Milosevic had more influence than you might think.


Influence isn't direct responsibility, afaik, when there's an elected government in charge etc etc. Anyway.

But it´s difficult anyways to accuse the right ( one ) person. Suppose you compare Seselj with Eichmann, and Milosevic with Hitler, then who´s guilty ? Both. Note that the Holocaust was executed by Himmler, Eichmann, etc etc.
What I´m saying is that certain people literally execute certain sentiments created by a leader, and therefore should be prosecuted both.

Well, I don't compare Seselj with Eichmann and Slobo with Hitler.
Seselj is an ultranationalist warmongering agent of a foreign power. Slobo is a nationalist corrupt leader.
Eichmann's and Hitler's crimes and roles were quite different, don't you think so?


But I don´t understand your defending of Milosevic. Sure, one can´t accuse him of every crime committed in Bosnia, but he definitely played an important role in all this, and proved himself a bad ´Yugoslavian´leader. In fact, running the 90´s, he proved himself only being a Serb nationalist.

I'm not claiming that Slobo was a "good leader" or "good guy". He was a moderate nationalist leader (compared to guys like Seselj or Kostunica), and a corrupt one to boot: but western pro-albanian propaganda has used Slobo to have a scapegoat and hide the project of destabilisation of Souther Europe (cfr. US conservative Paul Wolfovitz about the need of a low-intensity war in the Balkans to weaken the EU).
Surely, Slobo deserved to be tried for his crimes (like corruption, inciting disorders etc) against Jugoslavian law. Carla del Ponte's accusations at the Hague tribunal were about to be toppled when Slobo died in jail.


And I aint Bosnian or Albanian, and Im not a Muslim. Im from western Europe. ( Albanian propaganda ?? )

I'm not accusing you of being a pro-Albanian propagandist, nor did I say that you are Bosnian or Albanian or Muslim (remember that excusatio non petita... ;) ). I'm not taking this on a personal level, and I'm sorry if I haven't managed to make this very clear.

I'm just telling you that, back in 1998-1999, Rugova, Berisha, and the US administration were quite keen about shouting "aiee!!! Slobo is the new Hitler!". Here in Italy we had Rugova on air every other evening at the news, giving speeches and urging the NATO to attack Jugoslavia. That's pro-Albanian propaganda, else I'm Napoleone Bonaparte.

Btw, did you know that:
1.Carla Del Ponte was state prosecutor of the Canton Ticino (Switzerland)
2.She always rejected international rogatoria coming from the Mani Pulite investigation team of Milan about illicit trafficks connecting mafia-style organisations from Regione Puglia (south-eastern Italy), albanian criminal groups and italian politicians.
3.Shortly after the transferral of Carla Del Ponte to the Hague Tribunal, most of the prosecutorial offices of the Canton Ticino were accused (and some of them sentenced) by other swiss magistrates for accepting bribes from Pugliese mafiosi.

...Giulio Andreotti used to say "Thinking bad of someone is a sin, but you often guess right".

Even considering Winston Churchill is blasphemy! You Bast'ards!

Nice poll, I voted 'Any French one' because of how they treated the British and Americans after being liberated.

Even considering Winston Churchill is blasphemy! You Bast'ards!

Nice poll, I voted 'Any French one' because of how they treated the British and Americans after being liberated.

i agree

Even considering Winston Churchill is blasphemy! You Bast'ards!

Nice poll, I voted 'Any French one' because of how they treated the British and Americans after being liberated.

Hows that?

He was an imperialist at best who started warmongering against the Soviets just after his people had been through WWII, he can't have been so great if his people gave him the boot just after the war ended.

hmmm.... so being popular equates to being a good leader? Simply being elected renders one "great"? What a stunning endorsement of demagoguism. The British electorate is, was, and always be, for the most part, stupid, and politically illiterate. To suggest that their collective opinion is a guarantor of greatness rather reduces the lustre of the term.

Churchill was great. One cannot criticise him for imperialism any more than one can Disraeli, Nelson or Wellesly; they were educated, and matured, in a colonial paradigm, whereas you seek to impose a post-colonial morality upon them.

Equally, Churchill simply sought to oppose Stalin, not create a second war. Indeed, in light of the terrors visited upon Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and others by the USSR, one might suggest that Churchill's opposition to apparent Soviet expansionism was a further heroic quality.

Lastly,

Equally, Churchill simply sought to oppose Stalin, not create a second war. Indeed, in light of the terrors visited upon Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and others by the USSR, one might suggest that Churchill's opposition to apparent Soviet expansionism was a further heroic quality.


Indeed, in light of the terrors visited upon Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and others by the Nazis and their allies, one might suggest that Churchill's likings for Mussolini and Hitler previous to 1939 somewhat diminishes his heroic qualities. Oh well... ;)

I wouldn't say that Churchill was a great leader, comparing him to other leaders who were contemporary to him - like F.D.Rooseveldt, or Gandhi, or De Gaulle. He, very likely, was the right man on the right spot in the right moment - but he could have performed better, and avoided to be blinded by his hatred of communism. I think that Churchill overlooked, for too much time, the threat posed by nazism and fascism.

Indeed, in light of the terrors visited upon Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and others by the Nazis and their allies, one might suggest that Churchill's likings for Mussolini and Hitler previous to 1939 somewhat diminishes his heroic qualities. Oh well... ;)

I wouldn't say that Churchill was a great leader, comparing him to other leaders who were contemporary to him - like F.D.Rooseveldt, or Gandhi, or De Gaulle. He, very likely, was the right man on the right spot in the right moment - but he could have performed better, and avoided to be blinded by his hatred of communism. I think that Churchill overlooked, for too much time, the threat posed by nazism and fascism.

De Gaulle who do you think made him the leader of the free french, the americans wanted the Vichy french leaders to lead th free french. It was Churchill who got De Gaulle talking to the americans. Also did Roosevelt make inspirational speeches that kept the morale of an entire Nation up, his speeches were legendary. Of all the world war 2 leaders he played the largest and most successful role in the war stategy

I would say the worst priminister was the one who lost the 13 colonies, after washington won the battle of yourktown.

Indeed, in light of the terrors visited upon Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and others by the Nazis and their allies, one might suggest that Churchill's likings for Mussolini and Hitler previous to 1939 somewhat diminishes his heroic qualities. Oh well... ;)

I wouldn't say that Churchill was a great leader, comparing him to other leaders who were contemporary to him - like F.D.Rooseveldt, or Gandhi, or De Gaulle. He, very likely, was the right man on the right spot in the right moment - but he could have performed better, and avoided to be blinded by his hatred of communism. I think that Churchill overlooked, for too much time, the threat posed by nazism and fascism.

Churchill never overlooked, or for that matter, appeased, Nazism. It was his resolute, bellicose stance upon said issue that rendered him politically impotent for much of the 1930's.

In any case, neither De Gaulle nor Roosevelt can claim to any better; De Gaulle, if one does subscribe to the "right man" hypothesis, is much the same. A nationalist who worked at such a time when the likes of him were necessary. Where Roosevelt is concerned, a truly heroic, altruistic leader would not have delayed intervention, and in so doing doomed many Europeans to great sorrow.

Gandhi is not a leader in any case. His accomplishments are singular; the establishment of an independant India, and even that was achieved many years later than it ought to have been.

In regards to Churchill's "likings" for Mussolini and Hitler; they never existed. Churchill alone of the British polity refused to deal with them.

Clearly, you have mistaken the intentions of my post. I never said that LBJ was "Teh Worst Prez Evah;" I said that, for leading his country into a fight that never served her intentions, LBJ should at least get the nod to be on the "shit list" of PMs and Prezes.

Except for the fact that Johnson didn't get us into the Vietnam War. That honour goes to John F. Kennedy.

I think that Churchill overlooked, for too much time, the threat posed by nazism and fascism.

I always thought it was Chamberlain...

but he could have [...] avoided to be blinded by his hatred of communism.

And become second FDR, worshipping benevolent Uncle Joe? No, thanks.

Are people getting bored of this?

I vote Joseph Stalin. He was a douchebag.