Most infamous man of the 20th century

Most Infamous man of the 20th Century

  • Mao Tse-Tung

    Votes: 5 10.9%
  • Adolf Hitler

    Votes: 30 65.2%
  • Joseph Stalin

    Votes: 6 13.0%
  • Benito Mussolini

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • Francisco Franco

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Emperor Hirohito

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • Pol Pot

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • Idi Amin

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Papa Doc

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 4.3%

  • Total voters
Please, don't occupy yourself with demagogy. :D

Why not, you asked didn't you?

Wow, thanks for the advice! :cool: 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? :D 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. :bow:

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

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:
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.
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..


'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.


'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.


'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?
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.
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 :LOL:. 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.:mad:(did you notice that this emotionic behaves like Hitler, lol)
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.
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.


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...
My votes:

For his own people:

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

For the rest of the world:

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.
Exactly my views Angela, very well argumented too, thanks.
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.
Plus Hitler attacked more countries, and thanks to this, one might say that Hitler had a better PR to become the most infamous.
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.
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.

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

This thread has been viewed 63661 times.