History's most Brutal Dictators?

[Traitorfish]

Stalin thought he was unifying class division, Mao thought he was advancing the economy...

Actually, Stalin was very similar to Saddam. His communist rhetoric was a tool used to rally the masses, just as Saddam's Arab nationalism was.
As for Mao, it's debatable exactly what he really thought. Maintaining power was certainly an important to his regime, but whether this for purely selfish reasons- as with Stalin- or because of some delusions of "greater good"- as with Hitler.

 

[luiz]

Actually, Stalin was very similar to Saddam. His communist rhetoric was a tool used to rally the masses, just as Saddam's Arab nationalism was.
As for Mao, it's debatable exactly what he really thought. Maintaining power was certainly an important to his regime, but whether this for purely selfish reasons- as with Stalin- or because of some delusions of "greater good"- as with Hitler.

I think there was more good in Stalin than in Mao. There simply is no indication that Mao had any sort of conscience.

 

[cybrxkhan]

^yea. at least 30 million dead under Mao, i have heard... up to 100 million and maybe more... i mean, theres something a bit weird (and definitely depressing) about that.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think there was more good in Stalin than in Mao. There simply is no indication that Mao had any sort of conscience.

Hmm, not sure about that... At most, Stalin may have believed that people were better off under his rule- as your average medieval despot did- but he certainly didn't have any intention of implementing the communist ideology which he manipulated for his own ends.
Of course, the same applies to Mao, so I don't know... Really, when normal people attempt to comapre tyrants like those, they're bound to run into trouble. However distinct they are from each other, they're virtually identical when measured up against you're average halfway decent person. It's like someone who lives in a desert being asked to distinguish between kinds of snow.
(And nobody needs to point bother pointing out that deserts can have snow, it's just a metaphor.)

 

[luiz]

Hmm, not sure about that... At most, Stalin may have believed that people were better off under his rule- as your average medieval despot did- but he certainly didn't have any intention of implementing the communist ideology which he manipulated for his own ends.
Of course, the same applies to Mao, so I don't know... Really, when normal people attempt to comapre tyrants like those, they're bound to run into trouble. However distinct they are from each other, they're virtually identical when measured up against you're average halfway decent person. It's like someone who lives in a desert being asked to distinguish between kinds of snow.
(And nobody needs to point bother pointing out that deserts can have snow, it's just a metaphor.)

Yeah, I agree... ultimately the two were quite similar in their inhumanity. In fact Stalin is one of the great resposibles for Mao's succesful rise to power, maybe the reason for such support is he sensed some similarity.

 

[Elrohir]

Pol Pot is a hero. He saved more people than he killed...if he killed anyone.

Please tell me you're joking.

 

[obliterate]

Shaka. When his mother died he killed the first born of every family under his rule. The entire Maize crop (Staple food) that year was destryed and laughter was banned for a year. All this because he didn't want anyone else to be happy during his greiving time.

Conscripted thousands of people and if they turned up to training with their speaqr or something minor they were killed on the spot. Soldiers were forced to run for 50km through the desert barefoot. If they couldn't make it they were executed. This happened daily.

 

[luiz]

Shaka. When his mother died he killed the first born of every family under his rule. The entire Maize crop (Staple food) that year was destryed and laughter was banned for a year. All this because he didn't want anyone else to be happy during his greiving time.

Conscripted thousands of people and if they turned up to training with their speaqr or something minor they were killed on the spot. Soldiers were forced to run for 20-30km through the desert barefoot. If they couldn't make it they were executed. This happened daily.

I had never heard of that! Quite shocking stuff.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Shaka. When his mother died he killed the first born of every family under his rule. The entire Maize crop (Staple food) that year was destryed and laughter was banned for a year. All this because he didn't want anyone else to be happy during his greiving time.

Conscripted thousands of people and if they turned up to training with their speaqr or something minor they were killed on the spot. Soldiers were forced to run for 50km through the desert barefoot. If they couldn't make it they were executed. This happened daily.

Training mate. Thats why the Impi's were so bloody good!

 

[obliterate]

Can you run 50km through the desert barefoot?

 

[Quintillus]

Wow, can't believe I never heard of Pol Pot. I'd heard of the Khmer Rouge and that it committed some pretty bad atrocities, but never him in specific.

Good arguments for Mao, as well. I'll have to look more into it. Right now I'm thinking Pol Pot, but I don't have enough of a knowledge of him to be really sure. Stalin did kill a lot of his own countrymen, but somewhat alleviating that is that he believed it was absolutely necessary to avoid conquest by Germany (I remember learning that he said something like "we're ten years behind Germany and have only five years to make it up" around 1935). Hitler certainly is an evil dictator, but didn't try to kill everyone who lived in his domain, only specific groups. Not that that makes killing them any better, just that the brutality is a less general brutality.

Don't see how Napoleon deserves any mention with that company...sure he conquered a lot of land and the British and Russians hated him, but I've never heard of him committing atrocities, much less ones similar to what many of the other candidates committed.

 

[Verbose]

Don't see how Napoleon deserves any mention with that company...sure he conquered a lot of land and the British and Russians hated him, but I've never heard of him committing atrocities, much less ones similar to what many of the other candidates committed.

He was French wasn't he? For the Britishers and Americans that's an atrocity in its own right.

 

[Traitorfish]

He was French wasn't he? For the Britishers and Americans that's an atrocity in its own right.

Well, the English have always hated the French, but the Scots have always been fairly indifferent to them. When you have the English to hate, who needs the French? Of course, that's not to say that the Scots particularly like the French, but the Scots don't particularly like anyone, including the Scots. ("Damn Scots! They ruined Scotland!")

 

[Verbose]

Oh sure, except that in the 18th c. this newfangled "United Kingdom" did in fact cast about for something that could form a common identity. As it turned out one of the few things English, Scots, Welsh and Irish could apparently come together about was to define themselves as "at least not French".

 

[luiz]

Don't see how Napoleon deserves any mention with that company...sure he conquered a lot of land and the British and Russians hated him, but I've never heard of him committing atrocities, much less ones similar to what many of the other candidates committed.

Pretty much all conquerors commited attrocities, including Napoleon.

But indeed he has no place on that list, as doesn't Mussolini. They were quite average in terms of attrocities as far as dictators go. In fact I think Napoleon was fairly more benign than many 20th century latin american dictators...

 

[Antilogic]

On, Napoleon, that is quite correct, if I can trust Frederick Kagan as an author. When he conquered a nation, he typically reorganized the government, putting a "loyal" family member or crony on the throne, and then left the area to run itself. Often, the people were not any worse off under Napoleon than they were under their own monarchs. Sure, he had some conscripted troops from the conquered lands, but who doesn't do that?

 

[jonatas]

Oh sure, except that in the 18th c. this newfangled "United Kingdom" did in fact cast about for something that could form a common identity. As it turned out one of the few things English, Scots, Welsh and Irish could apparently come together about was to define themselves as "at least not French".

Re: French/Scottish relations, the Auld Alliance counted for something further back in time, no?

 

[Joseph Stalin]

It's impossible to make a judgement on this subject. simply because we don't know what did or did not happen. Sure we read about everything bad these people did but that is because they aren't the winning party and almost every peice of history about these men is writed by people that didn't like these men.

for instance.

Napoleon is seen as the oppressor of Holland. But to me he is a liberator because in the province where i live the people where much better of under French rule then under Holland rule.

the same count for mao some say he's responsible for 20 million deaths the other says 100 million.

we just don't know

but i voted for Hitler. Why his ideology is based on oppression and racism and the ideology of all the other men is far better than that

 

[Soaring Tiger]

I vote for Hitler. He killed-starved, labor camps, gas, freezing and so on-about 30 million Jews. I have a friend who is a Jew, and Jews are some of the nicest kind of people. Hitler, evidently not content with such a massive number, proceeded to kill about seventy-five million Russian P.O.Ws.


Edit: I was tired when I posted this, so got all the numbers wrong.

 

[Verbose]

Re: French/Scottish relations, the Auld Alliance counted for something further back in time, no?

Of course.

History being what it is, it's perfectly conceivable that the Scots will redefine their history in some other way and make "the Auld Alliance" count for something again as well.

The bit in between though had people in the UK casting about for a common identity, which was pretty complicated, as most of the non-English had up until then defined themselves to great extent i opposition to the English.