NationStates Jolt Archive

What do ya'll believe it to be, and why? Numbers killed, methods used, people targeted, etc are all valid reasons.

For me I would say that the Japanese Empire was among the top, considering what they did to China, Korea, the Philippines, etc. Taking comfort women, killing for no reason other than to kill, using civillians as bayonet practice. That's pretty dang terrible if you ask me.

Centralism.

I believe Stalin's purges made the century's record.

In terms of cultural impact, the Holocaust. In terms of numbers killed, the Holodomor. In terms of numbers killed per capita, the Khmer Rouge.

pol pot's genocide in cambodia. fewer numbers than stalin but a larger percentage of the population.

American Idol. *nod*

If there was a "worst," does that mean there is a "best" atrocity?

American Idol. *nod*

and here I was thinking Spice Girls...

...


yeah, Spice Girls were worse.

If there was a "worst," does that mean there is a "best" atrocity?

Of course not. Worst is simple implying that there were many bad things that happened, and we are talking about the worst of the bad things. You really can't have a best bad thing, only less bad, i guess.

Weaponisation of poison gas.

Toss up between the horrors of Nazi Germany (Japan may have been bad, but the Nazis were far worse) and the Great Leap Forward/Cultrual Revolution unleased by Mao.

Actually it would be the ignorance and irresponsibility of mankind that harmed the most persons.

and here I was thinking Spice Girls...

...


yeah, Spice Girls were worse.

Please, Paris Hilton was worse than all those combined.

Anyway, I name the Holocaust, simply because even though others killed more, the Holocaust's death toll was only cut short by Hitler's defeat. Had Hitler held on for a few more years, the death toll would have been significantly higher. Had he won, over half of the human race would have ultimately perished in the death camps.

I like how all the following posts are pretty much my own post but made redundantly long.

Actually it would be the ignorance and irresponsibility of mankind that harmed the most persons.

Pfft, that's hardly unique to the 20th Century :p

Second World War and associated awfulness.

If there was a "worst," does that mean there is a "best" atrocity?

Indeed, when doing sliding scales there are certain things that are less bad than others, resulting in the development of a "best" bad.

Indeed, when doing sliding scales there are certain things that are less bad than others, resulting in the development of a "best" bad.

Sounds pretty retarded.

Sounds pretty retarded.

Your mom's face.

and here I was thinking Spice Girls...

...


yeah, Spice Girls were worse.

We'll call it a draw. :p

Your mom's face.

Which is worse, getting raped and killed by Bob, or getting raped and killed by James?

Which is worse, getting raped and killed by Bob, or getting raped and killed by James?

Getting raped and killed by Bob and James.

American Idol. *nod*

and here I was thinking Spice Girls...

...


yeah, Spice Girls were worse.

We'll call it a draw. :p

I top those with Uwe Boll. The only German monster responsible for countless crimes against humanity who has not been put on trial at Nurenburg.

I top those with Uwe Boll. The only German monster responsible for countless crimes against humanity who has not been put on trial at Nurenburg.

At the very least, maybe we can get him to take poison capsules in a hidden bunker somewhere. :p

Hayden Christensen...

Oh wait, people have already made those sorts of jokes :(

I'm-a say Khmer Rouge.

It says 20th century.
Paris Hilton didn't become a real celebrity until the 21st century
and American Idol premeired in 2002.

Spice Girls win

It says 20th century.
Paris Hilton didn't become a real celebrity until the 21st century
and American Idol premeired in 2002.

Spice Girls win
Empirical evidence solves yet another problem!

Caddyshack II

Sounds pretty retarded.

I see killing one person as "less bad" than killing a million. If I had to, I would take one life to save a million.

Threeway tie between the holodomor, the holocaust and the hippie movement.

Damn, I expected some clown to say Bush already.

I see killing one person as "less bad" than killing a million. If I had to, I would take one life to save a million.

Well yeah, and killing 0 is much less bad than killing 1. But I don't know that killing 1 million is "less bad" than killing 1.1 million. I mean at a certain level of atrocity, it's all atrocious and can't really be said to be "less atrocious," for even that would be euphemism.

Damn, I expected some clown to say Bush already.

omg Bush wuz worse than Hitler. omg.

omg Bush wuz worse than Hitler. omg.

Lol, I knew you would come through... :tongue:

Pol Pot, for sure. Also, the atrocities of the Serbians against their people

Threeway tie between the holodomor, the holocaust and the hippie movement.
whats wrong with hippies

Well yeah, and killing 0 is much less bad than killing 1. But I don't know that killing 1 million is "less bad" than killing 1.1 million. I mean at a certain level of atrocity, it's all atrocious and can't really be said to be "less atrocious," for even that would be euphemism.

Yes. Still, for hypothetical purposes, this thread is about the worst atrocity...in other words, if you could go back in time and stop one, which would you pick?

whats wrong with hippies

Lazy no good, std spreading druggies..... What's not to like?




















:p

Definitely the Holocaust. It really set the "gold" standard with the sheer number and diversity of its crimes and its ruthless, terrifying efficiency; the Japanese certainly committed their fair share of horrific crimes, but they didn't have the same kind of cold blooded, mechanistic system that the Nazis set up with their concentration and extermination camps. Most other genocides lacked that same kind of cold purpose and determination; they wanted a group eradicated for whatever reason, but it often didn't have the same kind of long-term vision or purpose that, say, Generalplan Ost possessed.

The Nazis not only killed, but they were able to extract value for their war effort through the process, and that part in particular really makes it stand out as a terrible atrocity. As disturbing as it might seem, their scientific research in the camps is in some cases the only data we have for certain medical conditions.

whats wrong with hippies

They're scum. They have no respect for anyone that's not one of them, they're hypocrites. They think they can take down the corporations by getting stoned and eating funonions and doritos, and drinking pepsi. Good freaking plan. They are responsible for the myths about vietnam, which we did win, btw. They spit on my football coach when he came back from the Navy.

As disturbing as it might seem, their scientific research in the camps is in some cases the only data we have for certain medical conditions.

For example, almost everything we know about the stages of hypothermia, came from Nazi research in the concentration camps.

Flame on!

For example, almost everything we know about the stages of hypothermia, came from Nazi research in the concentration camps.

And I believe a lot of what we know about the effects of nerve agents on the human body.

Flame on!

http://entertainment.upperdeck.com/ArticleImages/VsSystem/August/HumanTorch.gif

Flame on!

Are you quoting Hitler now?

And I believe a lot of what we know about the effects of nerve agents on the human body.

I didn't know that, but I'm honestly not surprised.

That punk kid Elvis, with his goddamned Rock 'n' Roll noise, thrusting hips, baby-faced complexion and inexplicable movie career. Harum Scarum? Who possibly could have thought that was a good idea?

*shakes fist, jowls and cane simultaneously*

That punk kid Elvis, with his goddamned Rock 'n' Roll noise, thrusting hips, baby-faced complexion and inexplicable movie career. Harum Scarum? Who possibly could have thought that was a good idea?

*shakes fist, jowls and cane simultaneously*

He stole your best girl didn't he?

Personally, I would say the Balklands war had the grimest human war crimes attorcities, especially for late eighties-early nineties. It's disturbing stuff.

Personally, I would say the Balklands war had the grimest human war crimes attorcities, especially for late eighties-early nineties. It's disturbing stuff.

But compared to the holocaust, or stalins purges and purposeful famines?

But compared to the holocaust, or stalins purges and purposeful famines?

Maybe it doesn't any where near match in numbers but im just throwing ideas out there.

Rwanda is also another place of mass genocide.

I think it would be hard to argue any atrocity being worse than another. It would all depend on how each one affected you personally.

If there was a "worst," does that mean there is a "best" atrocity?

Barney the dinosaur.

Barney the dinosaur.

OMG, telletubbies!

Definitely the genocides in Africa. I find it horribly ironic the cradle of human life is also the cradle of human extermination.

The Macarena, or Ace of Base. I can't decide.

I believe Stalin's purges made the century's record.

Yeah, the Great Purge gets my vote, too.

Haven't heard about the Rwandan genocide yet. So I'll nominate it for this morbid popularity contest.

Teletubbies and reality tv

Please, Paris Hilton was worse than all those combined.

Anyway, I name the Holocaust, simply because even though others killed more, the Holocaust's death toll was only cut short by Hitler's defeat. Had Hitler held on for a few more years, the death toll would have been significantly higher. Had he won, over half of the human race would have ultimately perished in the death camps.

The extent of your speculation didn't actually happen... so it doesn't really count. For example, had we elected Al Gore in '00, he would have taken over the entire world and killed everyone everyone to stop people from polluting, so that, clearly is the worst. Oh wait, he didn't actually win, and so such speculation is beyond consideration. (No I don't really think that would've happened)

And Stalin's purges... or Pol Pot's thing. Both took large percentages of the population... and conservative estimates (that I've heard from a Russian Professor) go as high ~40 million (conservative estimates, mind you), while the high end of Hitler's estimates are about 6 million Jews... so a big difference there... we were just fighting the Nazis... so thats what we heard about.

The extent of your speculation didn't actually happen... so it doesn't really count. For example, had we elected Al Gore in '00, he would have taken over the entire world and killed everyone everyone to stop people from polluting, so that, clearly is the worst. Oh wait, he didn't actually win, and so such speculation is beyond consideration. (No I don't really think that would've happened)

And Stalin's purges... or Pol Pot's thing. Both took large percentages of the population... and conservative estimates (that I've heard from a Russian Professor) go as high ~40 million (conservative estimates, mind you), while the high end of Hitler's estimates are about 6 million Jews... so a big difference there... we were just fighting the Nazis... so thats what we heard about.

6 million jews, and 5-6 million other people. Its hard to tell extactly because many records were destroyed.

Sounds pretty retarded.

Not at all... an atrocity against, say, ten people is terrible. Indeed, it's an atrocity. That said, however, it is still much better than an atrocity against 40-60 million.

Still bad? Still terrible? Yep. Still better? Yep.

Sounds, unlike 'retardedness' to actually make a lot of sense....

6 million jews, and 5-6 million other people. Its hard to tell extactly because many records were destroyed.

Yeah... I've extremely high estimates (I believe it's the most common number used) at about 20 million total killed... though I'm not sure it was that high... still and all it's well below half the population of occupied territory that Germany controlled.

In my opinion Japanese crimes in China, especially in Nanjing, were the worst. Perhaps they lacked the scope of the Holocaust or Stalin's purges, but they exceed anything else in sheer brutality. Women as young as 9 and as old as 80 were raped and then mutilated, men were used for bayonet practice, family members were forced to publicly commit incest before they were killed, fetuses were pulled out of pregnant women, Japanese soldiers competed to see who could cut off the most Chinese heads. If you need proof that evil exists, look no farther. The most horrific event ever recorded.

Well yeah, and killing 0 is much less bad than killing 1. But I don't know that killing 1 million is "less bad" than killing 1.1 million. I mean at a certain level of atrocity, it's all atrocious and can't really be said to be "less atrocious," for even that would be euphemism.

Oh... ok, so your message to people who want to to bad things is: "Go big, the more you kill... the less of an atrocity it will seem like"?

Because if they are already planning to kill 1 million, why not 50-100 million? Seeing as how after 1 million, killing more people isn't any more wrong....

Wait, yeah it still is.

The fall of the Soviet Union.

...and 5-6 million other people.

Taken out of context, that could sound bad.

World War One

Everything after that was a result of it in some shape or form.

In my opinion Japanese crimes in China, especially in Nanjing, were the worst. Perhaps they lacked the scope of the Holocaust or Stalin's purges, but they exceed anything else in sheer brutality. Women as young as 9 and as old as 80 were raped and then mutilated, men were used for bayonet practice, family members were forced to publicly commit incest before they were killed, fetuses were pulled out of pregnant women, Japanese soldiers competed to see who could cut off the most Chinese heads. If you need proof that evil exists, look no farther. The most horrific event ever recorded.

For most horrific ever, I'd look closer at Genghis Khan, who exterminated entire populations, except those he wanted to use as live human shields against the next town to resist him.

It is doubtless that all sides of WWII raped women... probably of many different ages, and atrocities, though dispicable, have gone hand-in-hand with war since time out of mind.

What makes the Purges, or the Holocaust so terrible is that they were done outside the framework of war. Hitler didn't just kill Jews in the conquest, but sought them out intentionally... Stalin's Purges were likewise not related to war.

Terrible? Yes, but really not much more terrible than to be expected in such a war.

World War One

Everything after that was a result of it in some shape or form.

Perhaps the Treaty of Versais... which was an atrocity of justice... but the war itself was only bad in its foolishness, really.

I vote that we strike all mentioning of Wilhelm II from the records, and bring Bismarck back into power... he was amazing.

For most horrific ever, I'd look closer at Genghis Khan, who exterminated entire populations, except those he wanted to use as live human shields against the next town to resist him.

It is doubtless that all sides of WWII raped women... probably of many different ages, and atrocities, though dispicable, have gone hand-in-hand with war since time out of mind.

What makes the Purges, or the Holocaust so terrible is that they were done outside the framework of war. Hitler didn't just kill Jews in the conquest, but sought them out intentionally... Stalin's Purges were likewise not related to war.

Terrible? Yes, but really not much more terrible than to be expected in such a war.

Except that these were all civilians being killed, over a period of 6 weeks after the Japanese had captured Nanjing. 300,000 people were killed in this way, and all the women were killed after they were raped-- which is the more horrifying because we all expect to be able to die a dignified death... the sadism involved in the rape of Nanjing is unparalleled.

Im not sure you can really top the Holocaust, kinda goes without saying really...

Definitely the Holocaust. It really set the "gold" standard with the sheer number and diversity of its crimes and its ruthless, terrifying efficiency; the Japanese certainly committed their fair share of horrific crimes, but they didn't have the same kind of cold blooded, mechanistic system that the Nazis set up with their concentration and extermination camps. Most other genocides lacked that same kind of cold purpose and determination; they wanted a group eradicated for whatever reason, but it often didn't have the same kind of long-term vision or purpose that, say, Generalplan Ost possessed.

The Nazis not only killed, but they were able to extract value for their war effort through the process, and that part in particular really makes it stand out as a terrible atrocity. As disturbing as it might seem, their scientific research in the camps is in some cases the only data we have for certain medical conditions.

Good point.

Quoting Triniteras: "Actually it would be the ignorance and irresponsibility of mankind that harmed the most persons."

The strive for real peace and love - and that's what's necessary for the better living people want - will always be difficult while mankind keeps on caring about exploiting each other more than unifying powers for everyone's gain.

Im not sure you can really top the Holocaust, kinda goes without saying really...

It might be fun to try, but probably not on Jews. Everybody fucks with the Jews. SOme people just have no sense of creativity you know?

If I were going to try to top the Holocaust, I'd probably target hair stylists. There are millions of them and after you begin rounding them up into concentration camps and dropping anvils on their heads while screaming, "Bad Hair Day, Motherfucker!!!" People will laugh it off for years until they begin to realize that their hair is getting long and that Flowbee thing on the vacuum cleaner really kind of bites.

But it will be too late by then, millions of hair stylist dead, millions more deathly afraid of touching a comb for fear that the Hairstapo will snatch them up and take them away. WOmen everywhere will suddenly discover their real hair color and shriek in horror. And in the history books, the chapter on the Hairocaust will begin, "It seemed like a good idea at the time but..."

Okay, maybe that won't top the Holocaust but like I said at the beginning, it might be fun to try. :)

Except that these were all civilians being killed, over a period of 6 weeks after the Japanese had captured Nanjing. 300,000 people were killed in this way, and all the women were killed after they were raped-- which is the more horrifying because we all expect to be able to die a dignified death... the sadism involved in the rape of Nanjing is unparalleled.

Source?

Secondly ,I didn't say it wasn't that bad, or that it was ok... I just said that the Holocaust, and Stalin's Purges were worse.

Yes. Still, for hypothetical purposes, this thread is about the worst atrocity...in other words, if you could go back in time and stop one, which would you pick?

Chixculub impact, thus preventing every single atrocity ever perpetrated by mankind.

Except that these were all civilians being killed, over a period of 6 weeks after the Japanese had captured Nanjing. 300,000 people were killed in this way, and all the women were killed after they were raped-- which is the more horrifying because we all expect to be able to die a dignified death... the sadism involved in the rape of Nanjing is unparalleled.
Here's the difference though, The Rape of Nanking was an army turned lose. It was brutal, it was savage, and the final death toll will probably never be known (current historians (by which I mean NOT Japanese or Chinese) estimate it to be around 200,000 to 300,000). That said, compared to what Nazi Germany did, the systamatic attempt to kill all of certain populations and the very efficent cold blooded way in which they went about it, efficently, makes it worse. Murder one is a much more serious crime than manslaughter for example, even though both end up with a dead body (And before you say so, yes I know the analogy is not perfect).

Banning DDT.

I am with A Balanced Breakfast here, the crimes perpretrated by the Japanese during World War II were, in my view, far worse than the Holocaust and what adds insult to injury is that while the Germans are truly remorseful for their role in the Holocaust and have apologised countless times to the Jewish population, the Japanese refuse to even acknowledge their horrors, let alone apologise to the millions of victims.

It wasn't just the Rape of Nanking either, we all forget about Unit 731, the location of some of the worst testing on humans ever - a facility which in my mind rivals and could possibly be worse than the human experimentation conducted at Auschwitz. We also forget about the terrible conditions in which Prisoners of War were held and how they were forced in half starved conditions to conduct heavy labour for the Japanese - the Death Railway was a classic example, something that resulted in the deaths of 106,000 including 16,000 British, Australians, Dutch and Americans; another example was the Palawan Massacre where a number of prisoners of war were burnt alive.

Many posters have commented that the Nazis were ruthlessly efficient, and while I grant that, consider that the Japanese did attempt to completely destroy China with the Three Alls Policy, an event that resulted in the deaths of more than ten million Chinese civilians. While it may not have been as efficient as the Holocaust, it was nevertheless extremely brutal.

I could go on about what happened in the Occupied Phillippines, or comfort women, or other Japanese brutalities. In my view, the Japanese crimes were worse than the Holocaust; however, that isn't the worst atrocity against mankind in my view - that honour has to go to Communism; nothing can beat the horror of the Great Leap Forward, or of the Siberian Gulag, or the Ukranian famine, or Democratic Kampuchea, or the countless other acts that were perpretrated in the name of Communism.

The Federal Reserve.

Second World War and associated awfulness.

First World War, which largely set the stage for the second.

For Raw numbers. great leap forward/cultural revolution
For % of total population Pol Pot.
For Ruthless Efficiency the holocaust
Overall (close 2nd in all categories) Lenin/Stalin Russia/USSR

And Stalin's purges... or Pol Pot's thing. Both took large percentages of the population... and conservative estimates (that I've heard from a Russian Professor) go as high ~40 million (conservative estimates, mind you), while the high end of Hitler's estimates are about 6 million Jews... so a big difference there... we were just fighting the Nazis... so thats what we heard about.

Stalin's purges didn't kill that many people; the vast majority were due to utter incompetence on the part of the Soviet government that led to famine and death on a massive scale. Of course, there is that ongoing debate as to whether or not the Holodomor was a genocidal program; personally, I'm of the opinion that there certainly were sentiments towards that aim but that it was not a centrally sanctioned and implemented genocide like the Holocaust.

Regardless, 30-40 million people dead from famine, oppression and political purges is hardly a minor point.

Banning DDT.

Who wants to take the risk that there might be some long-term health consequences of using DDT to control malaria? I mean, malaria couldn't be that bad, except for all that excruciating, debilitating febrile illness, convulsions, pain and all sorts of wonderful things including but not limited to death.

Probably the rise of Christianity, think of the millions & millions that have died in crusades, inquisitions, Catholic v. Protestant wars, wars of conversion all over the world, such as the Catholic conquests of the Americas, & even the Holocaust stems from Christian hatred of Jewish "Christ Killers"

This (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page)

I am with A Balanced Breakfast here, the crimes perpretrated by the Japanese during World War II were, in my view, far worse than the Holocaust and what adds insult to injury is that while the Germans are truly remorseful for their role in the Holocaust and have apologised countless times to the Jewish population, the Japanese refuse to even acknowledge their horrors, let alone apologise to the millions of victims.



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

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article384365.ece

It really bothers me that people consistently believe the propaganda from China and the rest of the West.

There are cultural reasons behind the treatment of prisoners of war, one of these being that many Japanese generals saw these prisoners as weak for allowing themselves to be captured, rather than committing suicide. Not saying it's an excuse, just an explanation for the harsh treatment.

There are cultural reasons behind the treatment of prisoners of war, one of these being that many Japanese generals saw these prisoners as weak for allowing themselves to be captured, rather than committing suicide. Not saying it's an excuse, just an explanation for the harsh treatment.

That's true. Japan had some seriously backward and brutal ideas and values during the time of WWII, but I think like any nation that's made a terrible moral error it has owned up to its mistakes and made what amends it could. It already paid a terrible price for its decisions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so I really don't think there is much more atonement they could have possibly done...they suffered a lot for their actions during the 1930's and 1940's, so to continue to perpetrate the idea that they've somehow glibly continued to celebrate or otherwise condone those actions is a real insult to what have really been years of contrition on a national scale.

Of course, they should remove war criminals from any shrines or memorials...it's just a good move.

I am with A Balanced Breakfast here, the crimes perpretrated by the Japanese during World War II were, in my view, far worse than the Holocaust and what adds insult to injury is that while the Germans are truly remorseful for their role in the Holocaust and have apologised countless times to the Jewish population, the Japanese refuse to even acknowledge their horrors, let alone apologise to the millions of victims.
Yeah, it's not like there's a long list of apologizes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan) issued by people within the Japanese government (Including a number of prime ministers) as well as by the Showa Emperor and Emperor Akihito.

It wasn't just the Rape of Nanking either, we all forget about Unit 731, the location of some of the worst testing on humans ever - a facility which in my mind rivals and could possibly be worse than the human experimentation conducted at Auschwitz.
Highly doubtful.

We also forget about the terrible conditions in which Prisoners of War were held and how they were forced in half starved conditions to conduct heavy labour for the Japanese - the Death Railway was a classic example, something that resulted in the deaths of 106,000 including 16,000 British, Australians, Dutch and Americans; another example was the Palawan Massacre where a number of prisoners of war were burnt alive.
*cough*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#POW_Camps *Cough* I'm sorry, you were saying?

Many posters have commented that the Nazis were ruthlessly efficient, and while I grant that, consider that the Japanese did attempt to completely destroy China with the Three Alls Policy, an event that resulted in the deaths of more than ten million Chinese civilians. While it may not have been as efficient as the Holocaust, it was nevertheless extremely brutal.
Except that the Three Alls was NEVER an attempt to destroy China. It was in 5 providences in northern China and the death toll is estimated at around 2.5 million. That is, of course, a horrific number, but far, far short of 10 million. And, again, the Three Alls didn't come close to the cold, ruthless efficient kills carried out by the Nazis.

Mao's regime killed more Chinese (estimated 50 million during peacetime, according to the most recent Mao biography) than the Japanese did

There are cultural reasons behind the treatment of prisoners of war, one of these being that many Japanese generals saw these prisoners as weak for allowing themselves to be captured, rather than committing suicide. Not saying it's an excuse, just an explanation for the harsh treatment.
Another part of the problem is that Japan never signed the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of POWs.

Of course, they should remove war criminals from any shrines or memorials...it's just a good move.
Unfortunately given that Yasukuni is now private and they refuse to budge...

For me, it's a tossup between Stalin's purges and forced collectivizations, and the Khemer Rouge in Cambodia, but I think Stalin edges out the 'win' for maintaining power for what, 25 years?

Also, I'm surprised it took 31 posts for someone to mention GWB, and 85 for someone to mention Christianity, y'all are slipping.

Probably the rise of Christianity, think of the millions & millions that have died in crusades, inquisitions, Catholic v. Protestant wars, wars of conversion all over the world, such as the Catholic conquests of the Americas, & even the Holocaust stems from Christian hatred of Jewish "Christ Killers"

Jokes probably aren't appropriate in a thread of this seriousness.

Perhaps you can name a modern religion (including athiesm) that hasn't been propogated by warfare?

But maybe you just didn't think that humanity is generically to blame for war, than any specific religion... which is probably the case, it seems.

Highly doubtful.


What I find highly doubtful is that justice will ever reach the people behind and those who composed unit 731. The only ones who were closest to receiving justice were those in Soviet hands while those in Allied hands were coddled in exchange for their data.

Kill 10 people to find out how long they took to die, and you're a mass murderer who gets put away. Kill 50,000 people and learn something out of that killing, and you get highly placed jobs for life.

Also, I'm surprised it took 31 posts for someone to mention GWB, and 85 for someone to mention Christianity, y'all are slipping.

This makes me laugh. Theres no thumbs up smiley (except as a post icon)... so you can just visualize it.

Also, note that the GWB post was an "inb4" and the Christianity post was from teh n0obz... so do either really count?

What I find highly doubtful is that justice will ever reach the people behind and those who composed unit 731. The only ones who were closest to receiving justice were those in Soviet hands while those in Allied hands were coddled in exchange for their data.
Given that (IIRC) all of them have since died...

Kill 10 people to find out how long they took to die, and you're a mass murderer who gets put away. Kill 50,000 people and learn something out of that killing, and you get highly placed jobs for life.
Ah, the joys of international politics where we can all compromise our morals just because the Commies might get their hands on biological warfare data and we couldn't have a bio gap!

I'll go for the opposite end of the spectrum from genocide...

...the assassinations of Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King.

I'll go for the opposite end of the spectrum from genocide...

...the assassinations of Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King.

Agreed that they were good people, and shouldn't have died... but martyrdom adds a lot of strength to a message like theirs... one could almost say that the assassins were doing an unwitting service to the causes they tried to stop, or slow.

Not that I'm advocating assassination... just pointing out....

Stalin's artificial famines, and the numerous purges, no doubt those were the worst.

Agreed that they were good people, and shouldn't have died... but martyrdom adds a lot of strength to a message like theirs... one could almost say that the assassins were doing an unwitting service to the causes they tried to stop, or slow.

Granted...I just didn't feel like being the umpteenth person to say Mao's policies or the Holocaust.

Who was joking?

Granted Christianity wasn't at its worst in the 20th century, which is the time period in question here, so I guess it is out by default. Anyway I'm not anti-Christian, nor am I a Jew, Atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or anti-any of them in general, I was just trying to establish that instead of looking for monsters among those not like oneself that a little reflection would do everyone some good.

Further, humanity as a whole isn't to blame for atrocities; individual humans & the ideas they promulgate to artificially divide the masses into "us" & "them": religion, nationalism, etc. are the real culprits. That is why it is ridiculous to hate all Jews, because some are Zionists, or blame all Germans for the crimes of the Nazis, or blame all Turks for what happened to the Armenians. Hate/blame the real guilty parties if it makes you feel better, in the end we all rot the same, sinner or saint.

Granted...I just didn't feel like being the umpteenth person to say Mao's policies or the Holocaust.

No one likes originality.

Stop being a show off.

:tongue:

No one likes originality.

Stop being a show off.

:tongue:

Death first, motherfucker!!!

:tongue:

--snip--
Perhaps it's all a matter of perspective. We Asians and people from the Pacific war theatre have been more affected by Japanese atrocities than the Holocaust or the Soviet gulags.

Of course, I would go on with the things I am familiar with. The Death March, the destruction of Manila (IIRC my city was the second most destroyed city after Warsaw during WWII), the random killings, and as AP pointed out, the bayonet practice, etc. I wouldn't rely on body count as a measure. Perhaps the Nazis had a list or record of who they wanted to kill and exterminate; but Japs randomly killed, raped, and burned... The casualty count here will only remain as rough estimates.

In the point of view of many Asians, the Japanese "apologies" are not enough. Despite the repeated statements of apologies and million$ of aid, many Asian countries do not really believe these. With their repeated visits and/or honoring of the war criminals in shrines and memorials, and their perceived militarism, does not really go down well with many Asian countries, especially China and Korea.

I think it's all a matter of perspective and which had been more publicized.

Highly doubtful.

... why?

Since the wiki links are flying like mad. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Vivisection)

I think it's perfectly reasonable to say this rivals Auschwitz.

The Cultural Revolution in China, Chairman Mao was the most dangerous librarian of all time.

The Cultural Revolution in China, Chairman Mao was the most dangerous librarian of all time.

A good reason to stay silent in the libraries.