History's most Brutal Dictators?

[AL_DA_GREAT]

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.

He was far from the worst when it came to murdering large amount of people. Besides he was great for the economy and infrastructure.

 

[Adler17]

No. He indeed ruined Germany and eventual had to invade other countries to rob their money! And the infrastructure plans were already made long before his "reign".

Adler

 

[Traitorfish]

ABC News article about a Bin Laden contact meeting with Iraq

A few questionable documents do not change the fact that there has never been an operational relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, nor that, despite a mutual loathing of the US, they held fundamentally incompatible ideologies.
George Tenet, former Director of Central Intelligence, is quoted as saying that the Bush administration "could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period." Bin Laden himself offered to send Afghan Jihadists to fight Saddam during the Gulf War, adding "the land of the Arab world, the land is like a mother, and Saddam Hussein is . .. .. .. .ing his mother."
When both US Intelligence and the head of Al Qaeda deny such an alliance, you've really got to question how realistic an idea it is.

 

[FoxURA]

You underestimate how much common hatred can overshadow even the most pronounced ideological differences.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

And you overestimate. Hussein wasn't 'by the book' when it came to military strategy, but there is little-to-no undisputed evidence that suggests he would have collaborated with terrorist organizations to the level you describe. IF he sought Middle Eastern domination, I think he would adopt a Stalinist approach: at his own tempo, by his own hands. Partitioning a military campaign with terrorists would have reduced the stability of the operation; and if there's one thing Saddam liked, it was stability.

 

[FoxURA]

Saddam didn't have that many people at his disposal so Saddam chose the WMD terrorist route. You may not realize it or not but Salmon Pak did train foreign terrorist and Iraqi Intelligence was connected with paying for terrorist to go to flight training school inside both Iraq and the US.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Like I said, there is little-to-no undisputed evidence that suggests he was directly connected. Sure he owned some murals, but how many Americans have pictures of the flag-raising at Iwo Jima?

Just because there are terrorist cells operating in your country doesn't make you a collaborator. A terror cell planning to blow up the Ramstein Air Base was uncovered in Germany; does that mean Germans sponsor terrorism?

 

[FoxURA]

Did you overlook the part about Iraqi Intelligence paying for terrorists to receive flight training? That is a pretty direct connection right there.

 

[Traitorfish]

You underestimate how much common hatred can overshadow even the most pronounced ideological differences.

No, George Tenet, former Director of Central Intelligence underestimates (blah blah blah) differences. I'd have guessed that he'd be in a position to know that sort of thing, but, apparently, you know better. Go figure.

 

[Molybdeus]

Madam Bathory wasn't necessarily guilty. Her captors may have been motivated by the opportunity to remove a politically important family from competition and acquire her lands for themselves.

While the conquistadors were bad, it's important to remember that the black legend is partially exaggerated. Plague killed about 95% of the population, but the conquistadors did not intentionally spread disease. They still deserve some blame for Potosi, though.

It's sad that murderous rulers seem to have actually gotten worse as time passes. As bad as Nero, Akhenaten or even Qin Shi Huang were, they didn't come close to exterminating a quarter of their population through intentional famine and torture.

 

[Tee Kay]

It's sad that murderous rulers seem to have actually gotten worse as time passes. As bad as Nero, Akhenaten or even Qin Shi Huang were, they didn't come close to exterminating a quarter of their population through intentional famine and torture.

However, it's more due to technology and relatively absence of control beyond the centres of power. Compare Nero's Roman Empire (mostly rural population, provincial governors are powerful and quasi-autonomous of central control) and Stalin's Soviet Union (railroads ease travel, technology allows instant communication, centralised control, large population, many living in large cities, machine guns and the like allow for killing on a previously unattainable speed and scale).

Look at it this way. Science and technology progresses, but the basic human way of thinking remains the same.

 

[WICKLC1]

If you only count deaths that resulted from direct orders it is Stalin, if you include the indirect deaths resulting from programs like the great leap forward it is definately Mao.

 

[WICKLC1]

I picked other since I didn't see the Bush family listed.

I don't care what your politics are, but calling the Bush family tyrants is just ridiculous.

 

[apenpaap]

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?

I'm from Holland, and "we" were conquered by Napoleon, after which he put his brother on the throne, who is regarded as one of our best kings... So Napoleon wasn't that bad indeed.

 

[josephstalin]

Pol Pot, just because of the percentage.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I don't understand the Pol Pot. Could someone please explain?

 

[Cutlass]

I don't understand the Pol Pot. Could someone please explain?

Others could give you more details. But for someone to just go on a bloody rampage and kill everyone in sight, pol Pot was extraordinary. Other conquerers have destroyed populations they the defeated in war. But Pol Pot did to his own people much worse than most of the worst conquerers did to defeated enemies.

The combined effect of slave labour, malnutrition, poor medical care and executions had an estimated death toll of 750,000 to 1.7 million (approximately 26% of the population at that time).

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

 

[Huayna Capac357]

What percentage of Europe died because of Hitler (including WWII casulties).

What about the percentage of Russia because of Stalin?

 

[Jan H]

What percentage of Europe died because of Hitler (including WWII casulties).

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

You'll have to use a calculator to get the total for Europe

btw, interesting figures, I was not aware that 10% of the German population died in WWII...

 

[Cutlass]

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

You'll have to use a calculator to get the total for Europe

btw, interesting figures, I was not aware that 10% of the German population died in WWII...

And Hitler didn't do all of that himself, and Allied armies and air forces accounted for a lot of it.