# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Most infamous man of the 20th century

## Mycernius

The 20th century is seen as one of the bloodiest centuries during history. Two world wars and the collapse of the 19th century Empires led to dictators and tyrants coming to power and the slaughter of millions of people. I have listed the main ones, but other might be worse. For example Hitler was the leader of a country full of tyrants and brutal men, each could be considered themselves. Hirohito might have been only a figurehead and the main blame could be laided at Hideki Tojos feet, but both are better 'known' for their involvment in these bloody conflicts and oppression.
Just a few facts:
*Hitler, Adolf* - Leader of Germany. His actions led to WW2 in which an estimated 50 million people died. 11 million in the Holocaust, including 6 million Jews. 20 million Soviets
*Stalin, Iosif Vassarionovich* - During his hold on power in the USSR estimates of the amount of people wo died under him ranges from 10 million to 50 million. EU official figures puts the figures at 20 million,
*Mao Tse-Tung* - Willing sacrficed his own troops during WW2 to gain political power within the communist leadership. During the great leap forward estimates of 20 to 43 million died due to starvation and deprivation due to policies for production of grain that was sent overseas. The cultural revolution some 500 000 thousand killed for being 'against' the regime. Thousands of of pieces of Chinas historical heritage destroyed. (My votes with him)
*Mussolini, Benito* - Dictator of Italy. Slaughter of most of the population of Ethiopia when the Italians invaded. His system of government was a model for Hitlers policies and economics.
*Franco, Francisco* - Dictator of Spain. While not as bloody as the above still responsible for the deaths of 40 000 people. While neutral during WW2 Spain was used as a base for the German Navy
*Emperor Hirohito* - Emperor of Japan. Under his rule Japan became a nationlist state and expanded its sphere of influence beyond its borders into Korea and China. I'm sure you can read the plenty of threads on this forum about the aftermath of policies employed by the Japanese during WW2 and before in Manchuria and Korea.
*Pol Pot* - Born as Saloth Sar. Responsible for Year Zero in Cambodia. 1 in 8 Cambodians died due to his communist ideal, about 2 million people. Intellects (even those that looked like intellects), the crippled, disabled, minorites were all killed.
*Idi Amin* - Ugandan president and an utter thug IMO. 300 000 to 500 000 killed during his eight years of rule. Forced 50 000 Indian families to leave beacuse it was "revealed to him by God"
*Papa Doc* - Francois Duvalier and ruler of Haiti. Out of a 5 million population resposible for the deaths of 30 000 people, mainly opponents to his regime. Used Vodun and superstition to maintain control. Claimed that he put a curse on JFK and that is why he was assassinated. Forced people to give blood for about $2 approx and then sold it to the US for blood transfusions for $24approx

----------


## mad pierrot

Great idea for a thread.


I definately think Mao takes the cake, hands down.

----------


## Frank D. White

I feel Lee Harvey Oswald's killing of 1 man changed the world. Till Kennedy's death, the nation seemed to be filled with hope for the future. His death seemed to have killed our generation's dreams. I often wonder if the world would be vastly different if he had lived?

Frank

 :Sou ka:

----------


## RockLee

Adolf, he's worse than Mao IMHO.

----------


## MeAndroo

I voted Hitler. He had the "advantage" of gaining notoriety in the first half of the century, thus ensuring his influence would spread over the rest of that 100 years. His visage is likely more recognizeable worldwide, he perpetuated arguably the most infamous "single" atrocity of the century, the Holocaust, and started a war that stretched across the globe. In terms of infamous figures of WWII, Stalin, Mussolini and Hirohito all take a back seat to Hitler, who's fiery oratory style and distinctive organization, the Nazis, are probably more well-remembered world wide than any of the other options.

----------


## Glenn

I go with Hitler, too. He's the most well-known and well-referenced of all of them. That's the reason that there's the theory that the first person to bring up Hitler in an argument automatically loses, and there's the theory that says that the longer an argument goes on, the more likely someone will refer to Hitler. It's "most infamous," not "most reprehensible."

----------


## Sensuikan San

A most excellent thread!

And IMO your list, Mike, was pretty much "on the nail".

...But (just to be picky) I did think you were a little kind to Franco. 40.000 as far as I'm aware is the official figure regarding deaths directly attributed to the SCW. I think a little digging will possibly help you to prove that _El Caudillo_ was probably responsible for (wait for it ... ) almost _2,000,000_ lives that were lost, or at least destroyed or grievously affected by that rather horrible man. The persecution of Spanish dissidents and Republican sympathisers lasted way beyond 1939 ... right up to Franco's (drawn-out) death in the early 1970's. Quite a few people didn't even come out of hiding until he was deceased! He even "rubber stamped" the execution of some of his own relatives!

... And you didn't mention Augusto Pinochet or Muammar Gaddafi ... admittedly, small beer compared to the others ... but they did have their moments!

My own vote went for Hitler (Of course) ... but on further reflection ... perhaps Pol Pot should be right up there.

Nicely proposed and presented.

W

----------


## Mycernius

Thanks for the numbers on Franco, but I could only seem to come up with the 40 000 figure on most places I looked. It oesn't surprise, though, that he was responsible for more deaths.
I did think about Pinochet, along with General Lon Nol, Kim Il Sung, "Emperor" Bokassa, Jim Jones, but if I kept up with those the list would have been very long, so other seemed a better chioce. I left out Gaddafi because he is still in power and currently behaving himself up to a point. I think they need a few years of history to judge them after they have gone or left power to comment on. You never know Gaddafi might become a humanitarian (Oo, look a flying pig)
The Votes for Hitler doesn't surprise me, as Glenn and MeAndroo have pointed out he is the most referenced and probably influence most people because of that. I did go for Mao because of two books I have read, Wild Swans and Mao by Jung Chang. Mao is still semi-protected by the party line in China, so we don't hear as much about the atrocities he did,. The Cult of Mao still exists. Hitler might have been responsible for the holocaust and the war, but I find Mao worse because of his general disdain for his own people. If you dig around for Hitlers personal life you will find he had some good character traits, Mao didn't seem to have any.

----------


## Reiku

Well, infamy isn't about how bad you were, but about how many people remember it--in that respect, Hitler wins hands down. Ask the average 12-year old who Stalin or Mussolini or Mao are, and they'll probably say they've never heard of them--but you can almost garuntee they've heard of Hitler and the Nazis.

In western society, the only better known villain is the devil.  :Laughing:

----------


## Glenn

I agree with Reiku on that point. However, Mycernius has made me think a little deeper about this. I still think that Hitler is the most infamous, but if Mao's actions were to be as well known as Hitler's, would he surpass him? It's mere speculation at this point, but interesting to think about. I wonder if it has something to do with western bias in the media (although that seems paradoxical if you think about it. If there were western bias you would assume that they would focus more on the atrocities of the non-western dictators/murderers, etc.).

----------


## No-name

I voted Hitler. Stalin and Mao may have had him on numbers, but Hiltler's evil was perpetrated on a much tighter time schedule. Also I think the number of deaths over all in WWII is a bit higher-- and he has to bear credit for starting it.

----------


## Mahoujin Tsukai

No doubt Hitler is the most infamous.

Stalin actually killed more people than Hitler, but he is not as notorious. Stalin should be no.1 when it comes to body count.  :Shocked: 

You should also have mentioned Saddam Hussein, Nicole Caessaeu, and that nutcase  :Laughing:  in North Korea. Some people might even want to add G.W. Bush to that list (lol).

----------


## Index

How about Maciamo?

After that I think Stalin, becuase aside from his purgres, his actions and those of his successors resulted in half of Europe sitting around in a grey communist smog while the rest of Europe developed and moved on.

----------


## bossel

> Stalin actually killed more people than Hitler, but he is not as notorious. Stalin should be no.1 when it comes to body count.


I think, Mao tops both Stalin & Hitler: Acc. to latest numbers by Rummel; Mao is responsible for 77m deaths. Hitler with a mere 21m & the SU with 62m are 3rd & 2nd on that list.





> I voted Hitler. Stalin and Mao may have had him on numbers, but Hiltler's evil was perpetrated on a much tighter time schedule. Also I think the number of deaths over all in WWII is a bit higher-- and he has to bear credit for starting it.


Well, the war was already going on in Asia, when the Nazis attacked Poland. What's more, Poland was also attacked from the SU (strangely enough that wasn't enough reason for the Western allies to declare war on the SU, too).

----------


## Sensuikan San

> Thanks for the numbers on Franco, but I could only seem to come up with the 40 000 figure on most places I looked. It doesn't surprise, though, that he was responsible for more deaths........


Hi Mike!

I'm not surprised! 

Discussing numbers like casualties (or anything else) with regard to the Spanish Civil War becomes somewhat giffyh. Spain was the only Fascist dictatorship to survive 1945 (by many ... some thirty) years ... and many statistics were altered, covered up, hidden or denied until forgotten by all. 
Essentially one has to rely upon authorative sources, but at the same time accept that there is a degree of geducated estimationh in many of those figures. However, using several sources, the base source being Hugh Thomas' authoritative gThe Spanish Civil Warh (My gBibleh on this subject .... !), we can find the following – bear in mind that my last post mentioned _more than deaths alone_:

*Deaths:*

i)Directly due to combat: Nationalist – Approx. 90,000

ii) Republican – Approx. 110,000

iii)Murders/Executions behind the lines: Nationalist – Approx. 75,000

iv) Republican – Approx. 55,000

v)Air raids: An allowance (not verified) of approx.10,000.

vi)Malnutrition and disease attributable to the war – estimated at 25,000.

vii)Executions/Murders subsequent to the war, but attributable to it – 100,000 (... there must have been some authentication for _that one_ !)

*Total Deaths – perhaps 465,000* (give or take a few .... )

(If we take the gofficialh (Spanish Government ?) figure of 40,000 – then approximately 36 people per day died from all causes attributable to the war .... heck! The United States is possibly matching that figure in Bagdhad, right now! I can't believe it.)

*Bereaved:*

For each of the above – allow perhaps two parents and one sibling (who might have been on the other side ...!) or wife or girlfriend and/or children. Say, 1,395,000 folks.

*Permanent Loss of Population:*

Republicans who left the country as refugees and never returned – approx. 300,000

... at this point I will stop, without getting into the disasterous effect of the SCW on the economy of the country, the loss of jobs, impoverishment of working class society, loss of civil liberties etc. etc. etc.

No wonder Spain didn't gtake parth in WWII – it couldn't afford it, and internally ... the whole damned thing would have flared up again! But we all know where Franco's heart lay .... he equipped a whole division and sent his Falangist volunteers to Russia ...in Waffen SS uniforms! And if you were escaping from occupied Europe, Spain was not always the best gneutralh territory to head for during the war either. If you were Jewish, Communist an ex-Republican Spaniard ... or just weren't wearing the right colored socks ... you could end up in a concentration camp ... and/or get sent back! (And we haven't counted the deaths attributable to that ...!)

And as Mycernius states, Franco provided (covert) U-boat facilities and even (covert) air bases for Germany's use during WWII.

When I was younger, I always used to wonder what so many British tourists saw that was so attractive about Spain .... I don't think they cared ..........

I'm rambling now. Sorry folks! ... but the Spanish Civil War is a little ghobby-horseh of mine. A study of it would be good for younger folks ... it helped to shape the world we live in today. Trust me!

Apologies for rambling, but ... "Non Pasaran!"

W

----------


## Mars Man

Indeed an interesting and informative thread. I think it well balances the 'Greatest Contribution' threads while at the same time, avoids generalizations in that it points to the served rather than the servers. 

Well, I thought about it. . . honestly, and just couldn't help but think that as far as the adjective 'infamous' goes--famous in a negative manner--Hitler would be my vote. It seems that on the international scale, over the time that has passed since WW II, that name comes up more often than not.

We would seldom hear or read someone being called, or compared to anyone other than, Hitler. It has happened even, saddly, on the forum before.

----------


## godppgo

When I was in highschool we did a project on Hitler and I've always wonder what will happen if he would just become an artist.... As a young boy, Hitler loved to spend his time drawing pictures of houses and buildings in the small town he lived in. One thing remarkable about Hitler is his abilit to look at a building for a minute and then later draw a detail sketch of it. When he noticed this talent of his, he dreamed of becoming a painter. It has been estimated, that if Hitler would have had a chance to study art, he could have had a decent career as a painter, or even a notable career as an architect – and even better; the world would have been saved from many evils.

Here are some of his paintings.

----------


## Maciamo

Mao or Stalin because of the higher death toll, but I will go for Mao as he effectively destroyed the biggest part of the cultural and historic heritage of the Chinese civilisation.

----------


## Silverbackman

Whoa, only two people voted for Stalin? WTF? :Shocked:   :Shocked:   :Shocked:   :Shocked:   :Shocked:   :Shocked:   :Shocked:   :Shocked:   :Shocked:   :Shocked:   :Shocked:   :Shocked:   :Shocked:   :Shocked:   :Shocked:   :Shocked:   :Shocked:   :Shocked:  
Stalin is the most "evil" man in world history! Hitler was evil, but he was only evil to those who he thought were "demonic" and "beastly" or weren't of his own. Hitler would never kill people he knows and respects, even if they messed up (he would at worse fire them). Hitler at least cared for a few people (close officials, Eva Braun, mother, other relatives, allies) as well as non-Jewish Germans (please note I am not apologizing for anything Hitler dead, I'm just trying to show that there is no comparison to Stalin). 
Stalin has killed more people in pure genocide and indiscriminately killed. It didn't matter who you were, even if you glorified Stalin you can be labeled as a threat and put to death. Stalin killed all his close friends and evidence shows he even killed his wife too. He let his son rot in a Nazi prison. He literally didn't care about ANYONE! Stalin even killed his police chief! He hated his parents. Although I don't blame him for hating his dad, his hate for his mom had no need.
Mao did many similar things, but he learned it from Stalin. During WWII his Maoist philosophy was still in its infancy and copied many of the purge ideas of Stalin.
I cannot stress how much no one (except maybe Mao) comes close to how cold-hearted and brutal Stalin was to ANYONE!
It goes like this;
1. Stalin
big gap here
2. Mao
big gap here
3. Hitler
big gap here
4,5,6, everyone else.

----------


## Silverbackman

How come Saddam isn't in that list? How about Kim Jong II and maybe even Fidel Castro?

----------


## Maciamo

> How come Saddam isn't in that list? How about Kim Jong II and maybe even Fidel Castro?


Not very evil if you ask me. To be really evil you must be reponsible for the deaths of millions (like Hitler, Stalin, Mao...), not a few thousands.

----------


## Silverbackman

> Not very evil if you ask me. To be really evil you must be reponsible for the deaths of millions (like Hitler, Stalin, Mao...), not a few thousands.


We really don't know how many Kim Jong II has killed. The country is so isolated. It may well be in the millions. We didn't figure out all the horrors of Saddam either until we occupied his country.

Saddam's greatest idol was Stalin and his administration was modeled after the Third Reich. Saddam would have killed as much people as Stalin or someone else if he stayed in power but we took him out before had the chance to do so. His intentions were all the same so it is almost as bad. If I tried to kill you and fail it wouldn't change the fact that I meant to kill you whether you are dead or not. Where as if I accidently killed you but it was accident it is a lot different. I didn't initially mean to kill you so it really isn't as bad as if I tried to kill you and fail.

Saddam maybe as evil as even the top 3 excluding numbers. Unlike other dictators he witnessed a lot of his killings. While say Hitler may have ordered the deaths of many many people, it was almost as if Saddam killed many of his victims with his bare hands.

As for Castro........well........he maybe more mild than the other 3 but to be honest we really don't know much since information is so tightly kept. Fidel would have you believe the approval rating is at 100% and everyone knows that isn't true.

----------


## Maciamo

> As for Castro........well........he maybe more mild than the other 3 but to be honest we really don't know much since information is so tightly kept. Fidel would have you believe the approval rating is at 100% and everyone knows that isn't true.


I think Americans have a very skewed view of Cuba (ironically as it is their neighbour). Maybe that is a remnant of the Cold War. In fact, US citizens are still not allowed _by their own government_ to go to Cuba (the Cuban government welcomes them though). Cuba has been a touristic destination for Europeans for decades, and I have never heard of any "atrocity" or "fear-instilled people" or other signs of evil dictatorship. Actually Cubans tend to be very joyful people, and contrarily to North Korea Castro has managed to make communism work quite effectively for the good of the nation in Cuba. I am sure that Cubans are happier than their non-communist Haitian neighbours (maybe even than several other central American countries). 

Cuba is the Dinseyland of Communism. Cuba is the party land of salsa, mambo, rumba and chachacha. In fact it gets over 1 million tourists per year (despite being offlimits to US citizens !), more than Portugal or Peru.

----------


## Kinsao

I'm picking Hitler, simply as most 'infamous' (not saying that he was necessarily the 'worst'). But they all come pretty close... 

Props for a good list!
Also I think it's good for me to think more about those other people and what they have done... continue a bit with my education.  :Cool:  
I have to say though, that at least in Europe, Hitler tends to be the one that gets mentioned whenever someone wants to illustrate an epitome of 20th-century evil.

----------


## Mycernius

> How come Saddam isn't in that list? How about Kim Jong II and maybe even Fidel Castro?


Several reasons. If I had picked every person who is regarded as infamous the list would have been longer than the polls allow. Saddam is more a 21st century tyrant. Fidel Castro is hardly a tyrant or evil to most people in the world except to Americans, who seem to think that Fidel is poised to invade Florida at any second. The fact is George W. Bush is is probably more infamous than he is. Fidel is just sticking two fingers up at the US since he gained power and the US government don't like it and portray him as an evil dictator.

----------


## Minty

> I think Americans have a very skewed view of Cuba (ironically as it is their neighbour). Maybe that is a remnant of the Cold War. In fact, US citizens are still not allowed _by their own government_ to go to Cuba (the Cuban government welcomes them though). Cuba has been a touristic destination for Europeans for decades, and I have never heard of any "atrocity" or "fear-instilled people" or other signs of evil dictatorship. Actually Cubans tend to be very joyful people, and contrarily to North Korea Castro has managed to make communism work quite effectively for the good of the nation in Cuba. I am sure that Cubans are happier than their non-communist Haitian neighbours (maybe even than several other central American countries). 
> Cuba is the Dinseyland of Communism. Cuba is the party land of salsa, mambo, rumba and chachacha. In fact it gets over 1 million tourists per year (despite being offlimits to US citizens !), more than Portugal or Peru.


Well illness is forcing the Cuban leader to cede power temporarily to his brother...

What would this mean? Star Bucks, Mc Donald’s, Coca Cola on their way to Cuba or the next dictator would be like the last and the cold war continues...

----------


## Crazy Russian

> After that I think Stalin, becuase aside from his purgres, his actions and those of his successors resulted in half of Europe sitting around in a grey communist smog while the rest of Europe developed and moved on.



Actually, I am not surprised that the Pole voted against Stalin. Many Poles love to whimper and say that it is the USSR that messed up their lives. I wonder, why do not they say anything like that about the Russian Empire? :rolleyes:


Nice thread... To tell the truth, I do not hate Stalin, nor Hitler. Sometimes I say that I do, but, in reality, I do not. Yes, Stalin killed 40 million Russians and almost destroyed the Russian culture and Russian national identity; Hitler considered the Slavs an inferior race, was going to annihilate most of the Russians and to make slaves to so-called superior Aryan race of the rest of the Russians. And, in fact, he succeeded, in some sense, in that, having killed 20 million Russians.

Fear and respect are the reverse of the medal called hatred. I do not why, but I do not even despise them at all.


So my choice is hypocritical [email protected] *Winston Churchill*. I also do not know why, but I am disgusted by him.

He said, _eWhat is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?f_ and then *agreed with Stalin* upon dividing post-war Europe into two halves (Stalin owned and controlled the Eastern part of Europe; Churchill & Co. owned and controlled the Western part). In addition, he made the world much more muddled by unleashing the Cold War. Very nice...

I also despise Maggie Thatcher. Malicious b!tch...  :Laughing:

----------


## Maciamo

> Nice thread... To tell the truth, I do not hate Stalin, nor Hitler. Sometimes I say that I do, but, in reality, I do not. 
> ...
> So my choice is hypocritical [email protected] *Winston Churchill*. I also do not know why, but I am disgusted by him.
> He said, _eWhat is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?f_ and then *agreed with Stalin* upon dividing post-war Europe into two halves (Stalin owned and controlled the Eastern part of Europe; Churchill & Co. owned and controlled the Western part). In addition, he made the world much more muddled by unleashing the Cold War. Very nice...


Churchill didn't have much choice in the agreement of diving Europe in two halves. At the end of WWII, the influence of Churchill had faded to the profit of president Roosevelt then Truman, on the Allied side. Anyway, the USSR already occupied Eastern Europe and Stalin was never going to surrender these territories from the Soviet sphere of influence. What would you have done in the position of the Allied ? Continue the war against the USSR ? That would have been suicidal (for both sides). Churchill reluctantly agreed to divide Europe, but he was the first to forsee the Cold War coming. 

However it wasn't him, nor Britain, that were the main cause of the Cold War, but the two main protagonists : the USA and the USSR. Western Europeans hardly cared about the Communist block at all during most of the Cold War. On the capitalist side, it is only Americans that were paranoiac about the Communists. The best proof is that countries like France and Italy have had Communist parties in their parliaments from the end of WWII to this day, while it used to be a crime to even call yourself communist in the US.

----------


## Mitsuo

I believe that Hitler was the worst. 

Wasn't he known to be bi-polar? I think he was Half Jewish too. In any case, he was insane.

----------


## Maciamo

> I believe that Hitler was the worst. 
> Wasn't he known to be bi-polar? I think he was Half Jewish too. In any case, he was insane.


Are all bi-polar and half (or full) Jewish people insane ? How much have you read about Stalin and Mao ? What do you about Hitler's private life and character ?

----------


## Mycernius

AFAIK the half-jewish story is urban myth bought about by some very suspect family history.
Hitler wasn't bi-polar, just a very single minded man with total conviction in what he believed. Various people like the madness to explain what he did, but he was a product of the times and an very intelligent man. Because of what he did he cannot be viewed very objectively by a great many people.
As for insanity you could call a great many people from history insane depending on your standpoint. Was Joan of Arc insane? She swore blind she saw angels from God, yet the French admired her. Nowadays we call it hallucinations and lock her up.

----------


## Maciamo

> As for insanity you could call a great many people from history insane depending on your standpoint. Was Joan of Arc insane? She swore blind she saw angels from God, yet the French admired her. Nowadays we call it hallucinations and lock her up.


For many people insanity is not being "like everyone else". In our Western individualist societies, insanity is often associate with mindset or behaviours we cannot understand. I could refer to all practising Muslims as "insane" because they pray 5x a day toward Mecca. Likewise, they could refer to all non-Muslims as insane because they don't. It's all relative, and certainly very subjective.

----------


## Mitsuo

> Are all bi-polar and half (or full) Jewish people insane ?


Was that a rhetorical question?





> How much have you read about Stalin and Mao?


 I have read enough about Stalin. Yes, Stalin was a ruthless man, killing Millions to get the power he wanted in the Communist Party. Stalin killed more people than Hitler. But Hitler is the man I think about when this "Most Infamous" question is asked. About Mao, I have only tentative learning about the guy. Besides the holocaust is something that gets to me everytime I hear about it.





> What do you about Hitler's private life and character ?


I know he was an extraordinary painter. But I don't need to know anything about his private life and character. All I need to know is what his intentions were and what he has done to become the most infamous man in my mind.

----------


## Crazy Russian

Insanity is one of the labels a man with tunnel vision pins on inexplicable behaviours, deeds, etc. As to you, Mitsuo Oda, I hope that by calling Hitler insane, you just expressed your negative feelings about him.  :Wink: 





> *Originally posted by Mitsuo Oda:*
> 
> I know he was an extraordinary painter.



What do you mean by _an extraordinary painter_? In my opinion, extraordinary painters are Salvador Dali, Hieronymus Bosch, Rembrandt, et cetera. Hitler was not an extraordinary painter. I have seen his paintings. They are absolutely untalented. My cat paints better! And, please, do not judge Hitler from Hollywood films.

By the way, Salvador Dali said that Hitler's back had a fascination for him. In 1937, he even painted The Enigma of Hitler. Afterwards, Dali said that Hitler had been a complete masochist who had unleashed the war for the sole purpose of losing it.  :Laughing: 





> *Originally posted by Mitsuo Oda:*
> 
> But I don't need to know anything about his private life and character. All I need to know is what his intentions were and what he has done to become the most infamous man in my mind.



If a man invents the race theory, kills 6 million Jews, it does not mean that he is mistaken about everything in the world and cannot be, for example, a good father, friend, husband, etc.

Many Russians want a monument to Stalin to be erected in every city. Yes, they are aware of his purges, etc. But they consider him a man who won one of the greatest victories in Russian history (perhaps, in the world history as well). What do you think about it?

As to me, I think it was the people and the talented generals who won the victory. (Any war is won most of all by _people_.) When Stalin made a military decision, the army failed.

What will one say, if the Germans erect a monument to Hitler and argue for his having cared for the Aryan race? Erecting a monument to Stalin (as well as to Hitler) is totally ludicrous.

----------


## Mitsuo

> Insanity is one of the labels a man with tunnel vision pins on inexplicable behaviours, deeds, etc. As to you, Mitsuo Oda, I hope that by calling Hitler insane, you just expressed your negative feelings about him.




Or you'll what? Say that I'm a man with tunnel visions?
When I say that he's "insane", I don't mean it in the literal sense. When I say that, it means he did things that would make you question his insanity. YOU need to be able to distinguish among literal phrases and non. Perhaps a remedial English class will help. Just a suggestion.




> What do you mean by _an extraordinary painter_? In my opinion, extraordinary painters are Salvador Dali, Hieronymus Bosch, Rembrandt, et cetera. Hitler was not an extraordinary painter. I have seen his paintings. They are absolutely untalented. My cat paints better! And, please, do not judge Hitler from Hollywood films.


UH, yeah, you heard correctly. He was a good painter. This is my opinion. Deal with it. Although many of his paintings were copies of post cards, they are quite impressive. Not very many people can replicate pictures so well. Trust Me.
Why are you even questioning me about this? You make no sense bud.

Who said anything about Hollywood Films? 




> By the way, Salvador Dali said that Hitler's back had a fascination for him. In 1937, he even painted The Enigma of Hitler. Afterwards, Dali said that Hitler had been a complete masochist who had unleashed the war for the sole purpose of losing it.


Your point?




> If a man invents the race theory, kills 6 million Jews, it does not mean that he is mistaken about everything in the world and cannot be, for example, a good father, friend, husband, etc.


Really? So you mean he COULD have been a great father, friend, or husband? Wow, I didn't know that. Do you think he liked flowers too?
You misunderstand what I'm saying Crazy Russian. The question for this thread is "Who do you think is the most infamous man...". I do not need to consider if he liked to stop and smell the roses, liked long walks on the beach, romantic candle light dinners, or if he was a good father or not. None of those matter to me. They don't negate his intentions, and his actions. His actions made him the most infamous man in MY MIND. Do you like him or something? 




> Many Russians want a monument to Stalin to be erected in every city. Yes, they are aware of his purges, etc. But they consider him a man who won one of the greatest victories in Russian history (perhaps, in the world history as well). What do you think about it?


It doesn't matter what I think about it. I'm not here to talk about Stalin. 




> As to me, I think it was the people and the talented generals who won the victory. (Any war is won most of all by _people_.) When Stalin made a military decision, the army failed.
> What will one say, if the Germans erect a monument to Hitler and argue for his having cared for the Aryan race? Erecting a monument to Stalin (as well as to Hitler) is totally ludicrous.


You are getting way off topic here. No one is talking about a monument to Hitler, except you. You are analyzing things way too much. 
I have made my choice. So deal with it.

----------


## kellymich

> Whoa, only two people voted for Stalin? WTF?                  
> Stalin is the most "evil" man in world history! Hitler was evil, but he was only evil to those who he thought were "demonic" and "beastly" or weren't of his own. Hitler would never kill people he knows and respects, even if they messed up (he would at worse fire them). Hitler at least cared for a few people (close officials, Eva Braun, mother, other relatives, allies) as well as non-Jewish Germans (please note I am not apologizing for anything Hitler dead, I'm just trying to show that there is no comparison to Stalin). 
> Stalin has killed more people in pure genocide and indiscriminately killed. It didn't matter who you were, even if you glorified Stalin you can be labeled as a threat and put to death. Stalin killed all his close friends and evidence shows he even killed his wife too. He let his son rot in a Nazi prison. He literally didn't care about ANYONE! Stalin even killed his police chief! He hated his parents. Although I don't blame him for hating his dad, his hate for his mom had no need.
> Mao did many similar things, but he learned it from Stalin. During WWII his Maoist philosophy was still in its infancy and copied many of the purge ideas of Stalin.
> I cannot stress how much no one (except maybe Mao) comes close to how cold-hearted and brutal Stalin was to ANYONE!
> It goes like this;
> 1. Stalin
> big gap here
> 2. Mao
> ...


I agree Stalin, hands down.

----------


## Crazy Russian

*The quotes from the Mitsuo Oda's post:*




> 'When I say that he's "insane", I don't mean it in the literal sense. When I say that, it means he did things that would make you question his insanity.'


Please, don't occupy yourself with demagogy.  :Laughing: 





> 'YOU need to be able to distinguish among literal phrases and non. Perhaps a remedial English class will help.'


Wow, thanks for the advice!  :Cool:  I will try to do.  :Wink: 





> 'He was a good painter.'


You say he was _an extraordinary painter_, then you say that he was _a good painter_. Was it my casting doubt on his having been an extraordinary painter that forced you to call him a good painter, not an extraordinary painter again?  :Laughing:  Is it so easy to make you change your mind? 

Have you seen his paintings? Has anyone here seen his paintings? Do you agree with Mitsuo Oda that Hitler was an extraordinary – or, at least, a good – painter?





> 'Trust Me.'


Oh, I trust You. Amen.  :Bowing: 





> 'Who said anything about Hollywood Films?'


I did.  :Wink: 





> 'Your point?'


That was just _a lyrical digression_ concerning Salvador Dali's views on Adolf Hitler.  :Wink: 





> 'I do not need to consider if he liked to stop and smell the roses, liked long walks on the beach, romantic candle light dinners, or if he was a good father or not. None of those matter to me.'


However, whether Hitler was an extraordinary painter or not seems to matter to you.

I always try to be beyond moral judgements. Nevertheless, let us suppose that Hitler was not born. Do you 100 per cent sure, that the world would have been 'better?' Are you able to objectively assess his deeds and their consequences?





> 'Do you like him or something?'


The only thing I can say is that I am grateful to him for his having invaded the USSR. 





> 'It doesn't matter what I think about it. I'm not here to talk about Stalin.'


Actually, I posed the question to _everyone_, not only to you.  :Wink: 


Concerning what belongs to greatness (just food for thought): 

Who can attain to anything great if he does not feel in himself the force and will to inflict great pain? The ability to suffer is a small matter: in that line, weak women and even slaves often attain masterliness. But not to perish from internal distress and doubt when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of it – that is great, that belongs to greatness. 

 :Evil:   :Evil:   :Evil: 
I am sorry for my sarcastic tone.


P.S. _If Hitler did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him_?

----------


## Maciamo

> If a man invents the race theory, kills 6 million Jews, it does not mean that he is mistaken about everything in the world and cannot be, for example, a good father, friend, husband, etc.


I seriously doubt that Hitler _invented_ the race theory (that is to say "Racism"). Genocides have happened throughout history, even before the rise of civilisations (tribal genocide). Hitler did not even invent anti-semitism. Anti-semitism has a long history going back to the early days of Christianity. But Hitler was mostly inspired by many 19th-century writers and the prevalent mood in Germany in the early 20th century.

As for his personal life, he seemed to have been loved by at least three women. In a documentary I saw about his life recounted by people who have known him, some witnesses explained that he looked so normal in real life that no one could have guessed he was chancelor by seeing him in the street.
It is also said that Hitler had a profound and deep love of animals, and he was a notorious vegetarian. There are reports of him disgusting his guests by giving them graphic accounts of the slaughter of animals in an effort to make them shun meat (surprising for someone associated with death camps !). He also had a habit to stroll everyday in the nature around his house in Bavaria. He was a rather reclusive and reserved man, who only opened up in the presence of people close to him. He was also a fervent anti-smoking campaigner before his days, and refrained from drinking alcohol.

So in many ways, he was some sort of role model for society in his private life. Even as chancelor he managed to make the German economy recover from the post-WWI crisis as well as from the world-wide economic depression starting from 1929. He reduced unemployment drastically and modernise the country's infrastructure. Had it not been for his social repression, warmongering and racist ideologies leading to the holocaust, history might have remembered him as a great leader and capable politician. It is undeniable that he lost most of his sanity in the late years of his life, but this alone does not represent his whole life.

In comparison Mao Zedong destroyed most of the country's cultural and historical heritage and caused the death of at least 5x more of its own people (30 to 40 million) than the number of Jews who died during the holocaust. Mao also caused the Chinese economy to plumet to its lowest historic level in comparison to the rest of the world, and to brainwash his people so well that it took several more decades after his death from old age for the country to start recovering.

Stalin cannot be said to have made of the USSR a modern and developed nation either, and his brutality far exceeded that of the Nazis. At least the Nazis treated occupied countries in Western Europe (France, Benelux, Denmark, Norway...) with respect. German troops were happy to enter into Paris, not just because of the victory, but because of the admiration and romantic feelings they had for it. German officers were often seen at the opera or other cultural events in France. In contrast, Stalin and Mao repressed both foreign and national cultures to levels never seen in a civilised nation.

----------


## Crazy Russian

*Maciamo*, much of what you say I agree with. I have read about his private life as well. And I also can say that Hitler was a nice person in his daily lives that were not related to politics. That is though he invented the race theory and killed 6 million Jews, he was a nice person in his private life. You illustrated my words well. :)

However, I disagree with you on several points.

Hitler's race theory was not only about anti-Semitism. Here are several statements from the theory:


_The Aryans are the superior race (or the master race). 

The Jews, Gypsies, Slavs are the inferior races. (Though Wikipedia does not indicate the fact that Hitler considered the Slavs an inferior race.)

The white race is superior to the black race.

The Aryans are more intelligent (genetically) than the Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and the black men._ 

And so on...


Hitler brought something new to the word 'racism.' Besides, Mein Kampf popularised the statements.





> 'Hitler was mostly inspired by many 19th-century writers and the prevalent mood in Germany in the early 20th century.'


I am sure that he was inspired not only by 19th- and 20th-century writers and not only by writers.

For example, Tacitus wrote, 'The Jews are the people who were created to be slaves.'

One more example. Hitler adored Wagner's music. Perhaps, because Wagner was a staunch anti-Semite. So, in a certain sense, his music inspired Hitler.





> 'His [Stalin's] brutality far exceeded that of the Nazis.'


Only in terms of the number of people killed. The Nazis treated with Jews much more terrible (cruel tortures, gas chambers, ovens, etc.). Stalin, basically, just killed people or sent them to work in Gulags. The Nazis made candles and soap out of fat of Jews (even Kurt Vonnegut Jr. wrote about it). Stalin did not do anything like that.





> 'At least the Nazis treated occupied countries in Western Europe (France, Benelux, Denmark, Norway...) with respect.'


Nevertheless, they treated with Jews in those countries with disrespect.






> 'German troops were happy to enter into Paris, not just because of the victory, but because of the admiration and romantic feelings they had for it. German officers were often seen at the opera or other cultural events in France.'


Hitler wrote that he was disgusted by the French and the French culture. Moreover, France was a good place for the Nazis to steal the French material values (virtus, e.g.). (They did it all round Europe.)

Hitler wanted Germany, Britain and Italy to unite their forces to defeat France, Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.


...I do not know whether Hitler was half-Jewish or not. But I know that to be both Jewish and anti-Semite is possible. Good example – *Otto Weininger*. He was both Jewish and anti-Semite. Paradox?


Maciamo, was invading the USSR the most serious mistake of Hitler?

----------


## Mycernius

> One more example. Hitler adored Wagner's music. Perhaps, because Wagner was a staunch anti-Semite. So, in a certain sense, his music inspired Hitler.


I happen to like Wagner's music. Does that make me an anti-semite?

The reason the "inferior" races were treated so badly is because Hitler saw them as just that ie: sub-human. A true racist looks upon those below as animals and not worthy of giving his time. They are only vermin and should be treated as such. That is why those killed in the death camps had the remains used for other things. To them it was a useful by-product from something that was otherwise useless.
Hitler might have been a racist, but he did show affection for other people and admiration for foreign powers achievements (If they were white). In fact he admired the British Empire.
Stalin and Mao were both selfish and couldn't see beyond themselves. Hated everybody, Stalin and Mao didn't particularly like their own familes, so what chance had anyone else got. Mao didn't overly admire Stalin, but was scared of him and saw him as a way of supporting his own dictatorship. Maos stance towards the USSR changed after Stalin died. Stalin didn't overly admire Lenin and only saw him as a step up in the power structure. Neither showed much appreciation to anything cultural, be it foreign or from their own countries..
If we compare Hilter, Stalin and Mao to school children. Hitler was the nerdy, picked on boy, who would eventually pay the bullies back. Stalin and Mao were the bullies.

----------


## Mitsuo

> Please, don't occupy yourself with demagogy.


Why not, you asked didn't you?





> Wow, thanks for the advice!  I will try to do.


Hey no problem. I do hope you "try to do". Good luck.




> You say he was _an extraordinary painter_, then you say that he was _a good painter_. Was it my casting doubt on his having been an extraordinary painter that forced you to call him a good painter, not an extraordinary painter again?  Is it so easy to make you change your mind?


No, don't flatter yourself. The fact that you say that he wasn't a good painter just shows how much you actually know. I changed it because I realized that I have only seen the paintings that he copied off of post cards.
Since I have not seen anything original done by him, I can't say he was an extraordinary painter. Because let's face it. It takes an extraordinary painter to come up with his own unique paintings. So I just merely corrected my mistake from my first post.






> Oh, I trust You. Amen.


Oh, good. Now I know you have some sense. Good for you dude!




> I did. :


Yup, which just shows how inconsistent you are. 




> That was just _a lyrical digression_ concerning Salvador Dali's views on Adolf Hitler.


Exactly. Your point in stating so?




> However, whether Hitler was an extraordinary painter or not seems to matter to you.


No, you're the one who seems to care, since you criticized me for stating so.





> P.S. _If Hitler did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him_?[/COLOR]


Don't you mean, ".....would it be" Take away "it". Hope your class helps!! :Cool:

----------


## Mitsuo

For the sake of this thread. I am done posting on this.

So, Hitler was my choice and still is.

----------


## Maciamo

> Hitler's race theory was not only about anti-Semitism. Here are several statements from the theory:
> _The Aryans are the superior race (or the master race). 
> The Jews, Gypsies, Slavs are the inferior races. (Though Wikipedia does not indicate the fact that Hitler considered the Slavs an inferior race.)
> The white race is superior to the black race.
> The Aryans are more intelligent (genetically) than the Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and the black men._


I am pretty sure that some Japanese think (or thought during and before WWII) that the Japanese were a superior race too. It was probably worse than Hitler because only one linguistico-ethnic group was considered superior tp the rest of the world, and even the Chinese and Korean, who look physically very alike to the Japanese, were seen as inferior. Hitler at least didn't say that it was only German speakers of pure German blood that were superior, but almost any European (Italians included). Many North Slavs (Russia, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks...) being blond and physically similar to the Germanic type (probably an inheritance of Swedish Viking and German blood), I doubt that he saw them as an inferior race. After all, he annexed the Czech Republic to Germany because he considered it part of it, then invaded Poland on the pretext that half of it used to be German... I am not sure of Hitler's position about fair-skinned Indians, which are the true Aryans by definition, by the way, or East Asians. I do not recall Hitler ever mentioning that the Chinese, Thai or Indonesians were an inferior race. The Japanese did.




> Only in terms of the number of people killed. The Nazis treated with Jews much more terrible (cruel tortures, gas chambers, ovens, etc.). Stalin, basically, just killed people or sent them to work in Gulags. The Nazis made candles and soap out of fat of Jews (even Kurt Vonnegut Jr. wrote about it). Stalin did not do anything like that.


Are you sure that life in the Gulags was better than in the Nazi concentration camps ? What makes me see Stalin as worse is that he even killed his own people, just on a whim, not because he was convinced that they were a harmful race to society... Stalin's lack of passion in his crimes make him look even more cruel and cold-hearted.




> Nevertheless, they treated with Jews in those countries with disrespect.


That is a matter of fact.




> Hitler wrote that he was disgusted by the French and the French culture.


Really ? Then this feeling was certainly not shared by most of his trrops and supporters. As for other Germanic countries (Scandinavia, Benelux, Britain...) he considered them as "cousins" and treated them as well as if they were Germans (e.g. in Denmark and the Netherlands).




> Hitler wanted Germany, Britain and Italy to unite their forces to defeat France, Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.


Really ? France never showed much resistance to Nazi Germany, and many French people collaborated with them because they were not entirely against Hitler's regime. That is why half of France remained "free" (Vichy government) whereas the Nazi could have taken it as easily as the rest of the country. It showed a clear favouritism to France. I think that the Nazi only occupied the North and West of France to pursue their failed invasion of Britain, and protect the coast from Anglo-American invasions. Otherwise I could have imagined a puppet French government nationwide instead of a partial occupation.




> Maciamo, was invading the USSR the most serious mistake of Hitler?[/COLOR]


Militarily, yes. It was also Napoleon's worse mistake.

----------


## Maciamo

> The reason the "inferior" races were treated so badly is because Hitler saw them as just that ie: sub-human. A true racist looks upon those below as animals and not worthy of giving his time. They are only vermin and should be treated as such. That is why those killed in the death camps had the remains used for other things. To them it was a useful by-product from something that was otherwise useless.


This explains why Hitler couldn't stand the barbary of killing a chicken or a pig to eat it, but had no problem extermining the "inferior races". 




> Hitler might have been a racist, but he did show affection for other people and admiration for foreign powers achievements (If they were white). In fact he admired the British Empire.


Yes, he was strictly speaking a racist, but not an ethnocentrist. Even his racism was fairly limited as it only concerned the 2 main minority groups in Europe (the Jews and the Gypsies) and didn't care much about other ethnicities worldwide. It always surprised me that Hitler is known as an anti-semite, while he had no plan to destroy the vast majority of the Semitic people on Earth, the Arabs. It could even be argued that the European Jews were not really semites anymore after centuries of intermingling with Europeans. Religion-wise, Christianity is closer to Judaism than to Islam. I doubt that religion had much to do with Hitler's theories anyway as he was not really a Christain himself (although he deeply believed in god, more as a Deist).




> Stalin and Mao were both selfish and couldn't see beyond themselves. Hated everybody, Stalin and Mao didn't particularly like their own familes, so what chance had anyone else got.
> ...
> Neither showed much appreciation to anything cultural, be it foreign or from their own countries..


Precisely.

----------


## Crazy Russian

*Mycernius.*




> 'I happen to like Wagner's music. Does that make me an anti-semite?'


Of course not. I like some of his stuff as well. Liking his music does not make me an anti-Semite either.


*Maciamo.*




> 'I am pretty sure that some Japanese think (or thought during and before WWII) that the Japanese were a superior race too. It was probably worse than Hitler because only one linguistico-ethnic group was considered superior tp the rest of the world, and even the Chinese and Korean, who look physically very alike to the Japanese, were seen as inferior.'


(Almost) every nation, to a greater or lesser extent, considers itself a 'better' nation than the other ones. Long ago, the Chinese also thought that the other nations outside China were stupid barbarians and that China was the centre of the universe. In other words, they thought that they had more rights to exist than the others.





> 'Hitler at least didn't say that it was only German speakers of pure German blood that were superior, but almost any European (Italians included).'


Do you know that the Nazis selected pure-blooded Aryan Germans with fair hair, blue/green/grey eyes and antimongoloid slant? They did it for the sole purpose of 'breeding' pure-blooded Aryan race. Such people were allowed to have sex only with each other. I do not know how the Nazis controlled that. Probably, the people were separated from the rest of the German society. And, in fact, many pure-blooded children were born. Nowadays, they try to find their parents unsuccessfully, as one mother could have children from many fathers. 





> 'Many North Slavs (Russia, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks...) being blond and physically similar to the Germanic type (probably an inheritance of Swedish Viking and German blood), I doubt that he saw them as an inferior race.'


I am sure that the Nazis considered _all_ Slavs an inferior race. 

*Wikipedia:*




> 'Nazi Germany, whose proponents claimed a racial superiority for the Germanic people, particularly over Semitic and Slavic peoples, plotted an enslavement of the Slavic peoples, and the reduction of their numbers by killing the majority of the population. As a result, a large number of people considered by the Nazis to have Slavic origins were slain during World War II.'


I have read _Mein Kampf_ and can say that the Nazis did consider _all_ Slavs an inferior race.

In addition, it was the Nazis who began saying that the word _Slav_ derived from the Latin word _sclavus_, which meant _slave_.

It is true that many North Slavs are blond and physically similar to the Germanic type. I am also blond and my eyes are light grey-green. But! For example, the Serbians and Bulgarians are not blonde and their eyes are mostly brown, simply because they were under the Turkish yoke for many centuries. The Russians were also under the Tatar-Mongolian yoke for a long time. That is why there are many Russians with black hair. But Turks treated with the Serbians and Bulgarians much more 'unceremonious.'





> 'Are you sure that life in the Gulags was better than in the Nazi concentration camps?'


This is a philosophical question. What would you choose: whether spending a 'good' time in Gulag or spending a 'good' time in the Nazi concentration camp? 

In the USSR, the people died not only in Gulags and not only by shooting. They also died of starvation. In the 1930's, it was a crime to type in newspapers and to utter the word _starvation_. Something like, 'No starvation. Everything is alright.' However, millions of people died of starvation. In order to survive, they were forced to eat birch bark (in winters) as well as nettle and moss (in summers). Terrible and desperate times...

I visited some concentration camp in Poland. I saw the gas chambers with wooden walls pitted with the marks left by human finger-nails, Nazi ovens... In the camp, I watched a documentary about the dying bony prisoners of the camp. That was ****ing terribly. 

I wonder, will the 21st century be 'better?'





> '...although he deeply believed in god...'


What kind of god?

----------


## Nicolas Peucelle

Maybe I can suggest here that one evil has roots and is not allone growing.. so we may look at ways how Lenin becomes a revolutionary, why his friends wish to kill Romanovs and befriend with Stalin who also left his church classes through some strange experiences... and why especially during and after World War I so many persons where walking arround having the most evil experiences and acting with brutality against those they fear and wish to destroy. So who was the most evil person starting all this? Was it the terrorist throwing the bomb between the legs of the unfortunate Tsar Alexander II .. who is the worst person of our european recent history? Was it Gavrillo Princip, who unleashed the torrents of bestiality culminating like waves of unprecedented evil on the lands of impressionist painters.. killing our "Belle Epoque"...What about this postcard painting austrian guy having just refused to serve his military time in his army.. Is he than the most evil person of the century?? Will a man living in the USA called Truman not laugh if a japanese would show up and tell him.. in 40 years you will kill everybody in my town with a single phone call... What is the evil of the century? Is it not something far more outreaching than an individual, than? Beside this general consideration... I think that once some persons, are eliminated, the world is able to change dramaticaly in other tracks... and therefore humans will continue to use more or less important physical eliminations of others as a way to get forward with their plans.

----------


## LeBrok

Wow Nicolas, you went so...deep and almost poetic. I'm pretty sure you wrote it after finishing a bottle of whisky, lol.

So R1a Slavic gen turned to be pure Aryan one, how ironic  :Laughing: . Life turned to be more interesting than fiction once again. This news would single handedly destroy third reich.

By the way, I voted for Stalin, pure sadistic monster with over 50 million kills in many nations. :Angry: (did you notice that this emotionic behaves like Hitler, lol)

----------


## Nicolas Peucelle

A few things I noticed through lectures about Stalin's personality : He very much liked to spend his free time reading books about history. He liked to drink alcohol and make sure that people arround him participate at such drinking events. Somebody who wouldn't enjoy to get drunk once in a while cannot be right and it was fun for him to see members of his inner circle get completely drunk during such moments of fun. He also openly threatened "important" persons with jail and deportation, using such "jokes" at table to remind them that their fate can be set in a heartbeat if necessary. Stalin still had good relations with a Priest who used to be one of his early teachers in Georgia. He invited this old man also when Stalin was already a high ranking member of the Soviet Regime. He choose a few Georgian's to run his most intimate secret world like "Berija" whom he called "This is my Himmler" when introducing Berija to Roosevelt. He very much loved his daughter and he felt at some point powerless to be all time the right father in full control about her life which shows that even such a dictator has limits in his personal life experience. One of his sons was made prisoner of war by the german army after 1941. Some time later a nephew of Hitler (Heinz) was also captured by the soviet forces. There may have been a possible trade proposed, but nothing happened. (Heinz was dead soon after) Stalin's son suicided by throwing himself in the electric fence of his camp. Stalin's comment: "He was not so bad after all". I am asking myself to which point Stalin was impressed by the tsar Peter the great about whom he had for sure read a lot of litherature.

----------


## Segia

> A most excellent thread!
> 
> And IMO your list, Mike, was pretty much "on the nail".
> 
> ...But (just to be picky) I did think you were a little kind to Franco. 40.000 as far as I'm aware is the official figure regarding deaths directly attributed to the SCW. I think a little digging will possibly help you to prove that _El Caudillo_ was probably responsible for (wait for it ... ) almost _2,000,000_ lives that were lost, or at least destroyed or grievously affected by that rather horrible man. The persecution of Spanish dissidents and Republican sympathisers lasted way beyond 1939 ... right up to Franco's (drawn-out) death in the early 1970's. Quite a few people didn't even come out of hiding until he was deceased! He even "rubber stamped" the execution of some of his own relatives!
> 
> ... And you didn't mention Augusto Pinochet or Muammar Gaddafi ... admittedly, small beer compared to the others ... but they did have their moments!
> 
> My own vote went for Hitler (Of course) ... but on further reflection ... perhaps Pol Pot should be right up there.
> ...


I'm quite far from being a Franco's supporter, but he didn't begin the spanish war. The militar "coup" was made by Mola and Sanjurjo -Franco joined in the last minutes, some soldiers had recieved the orther to execute him if he didn't- under republican flag to restore a system who had been bolchevized by most of the leftist dirigents. 

Mola and Sanjurjo died -misteriously...- in a planecrash, and then Franco took the power. But he is not responsible of 2.000.000 victims (exagerated number), it was a shared responsability by all the participants in the conflict. When the war ended Franco became a dictator -it wasn't Mola's idea- who evolutioned from fascist policies to pro-western ones. Spain during the 60's and 70's was a paradise when compared to other regimes.

I don't like Franco, but Spain is -along with Chile- the only country in the world where totalitarian leftists have been considered as defensors of human rights and democracy. Both Franco and those "democrats" were the same, or very similar: a piece of shit. I don't want to make history-fiction, but I can imagine that the consecuences of living in a stalinist Spain would have been worse. 

What would you choose, Franco or the USSR? Blame on both, but...

----------


## Segia

My votes:

For his own people:

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

For the rest of the world:

Hitler.

----------


## ^ lynx ^

> How come Saddam isn't in that list? How about Kim Jong II and maybe even Fidel Castro?


These are not in the same evil league as Hitler or Mao.

----------


## Angela

Hard to pick in a way. Stalin definitely killed more people, I think, and killed mostly people of his own nationality. On top of that, the system he enforced had long lasting terrible effects on his people and his culture.

For sheer evil though, I think Hitler probably wins in my eyes. (What a word to choose). I think the inhumanity, bestiality, really of what he persuaded so many people to do to men, women, and children, coupled with that uber efficient, modern, mechanized, method of destruction, takes it to a higher and ultimately more horrific level for me. Then add that in order to do it, he had to hurt his own war effort, and you get insanity on top of it. 

Stalin just always strikes me as a prototype of an insane gangster suddenly in charge of a country and mentally terrorizing and paralyzing a nation. Hitler on the other hand is for me the insane race hater releasing the demons of his own people, and then willing to destroy himself and them in pursuit of his sick goals.

----------


## LeBrok

Exactly my views Angela, very well argumented too, thanks.

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

Killing is killing! Mass-murder is mass-murder!
What sence does it make to debate about which lunatic was more evil because the people killed were more comprised of his own people or not? Or if he killed on larger or lower scale (because in the end he simply was overthrown before he got even more dangerous)?

When it comes to psychoanalysis, Hitler was probably the sickest or most psychotic character with his world views.

----------


## LeBrok

Plus Hitler attacked more countries, and thanks to this, one might say that Hitler had a better PR to become the most infamous.

----------


## Antigone

I think it probably depends on where you live and how your country and family were effected by each particular man as to which would be the most infamous. Hitler would win the prize in Europe, Stalin for Russians and eastern block countries, Hirohito definitely for China, Asia and Australia.

----------


## Sirius2b

I think that Hitler, Pol Pot and Idi Amin are more or less close to each other as the most evil, and similar in murderous psychology. In this club I also miss not to see Pinochet or Videla. 

Benito Mussolini (creator of Faschism), Francisco Franco and Papa Doc form a club of dictators, not so oriented to blood shed, but follow as most negative. 

Stalin and Mao both were responsible for mass murder... but their final legacy to their own countries is still debated. Without the industrialization program of Stalin, the USSR probably would have fall in WWII. And Mao put the basis (later used by others) to what is the modern China. 

Hiroito was just a symbol of Japanese Imperialism in WWII, but he himself had little involvement in the decisson making during those times. 

Regads.

----------


## LeBrok

Sirius, it's not the first time you excused communist tyrants off their genocidal crimes and psychopathic behaviour. What is this, a double standard?

----------


## hangman

All of them are a nasty beasts.

----------

