Most Evil and Murderous Leader of All Time

[stalin006]

mao, he killed more than stalin adn hitler convined (indirectly by starvation etc)

 

[Perfection]

That is true however before the revolution he saved a bunch by giving them food

 

[stalin006]

he did? can anyone chack on that? of course soemone had to eat. but many died bacause of the incredible bad efficiency of the projects (altough tehre was some inintial success)

 

[Bifrost]

The human cosiety exists since about 40 thsnd years ago . The modern structure of society appeared about 6 thsnd years ago (I mean the times when first states were founded). there's the whole eternity for mankind to exist . Do you think the cruel leaders we had before can be compared with the cruel leaders of future?
Anyway I think some(because I can mention only those who I can remember now) cruel leaders are :
Napoleon - cruel towards his nation, because before waterloo he recruited the army of kids (14 - 15 years each one)
Hitler(no comments)
Hebbels(no comments)
Stalin(no comments)
Franco(no comments)
Suvorov - unlike the Friedrich's military doctrine ("The aim of war activity is to capture the towers and towns"), Suvorov's military doctrine was ("Destroy all the enemy armies and forces, even if they dont defend any tower or town")
Chenghiz Chan and the majority of mongols, tartars and their Chans(no comments)
Torkwemada - that goes without saying - he was the most cruel person in middleages
Ernando Cortes (no comments)

 

[Azale]

There have some pretty terrible dictators in human history but I think these are the worse...

1.Pol Pot
2.Stalin
3.Hitler
4.and probably one of the worst,Genghis Khan

 

[MrPresident]

Hitler followed by Vlad The Impaler

 

[Kafka2]

Originally posted by Bifrost

Napoleon - cruel towards his nation, because before waterloo he recruited the army of kids (14 - 15 years each one)

Recruiting kids of that age was widespread- it went on in WW2 as well. Had Britain faced invasion then I've no doubt that Churchill would have drafted 14 year old boys.

 

[Logain]

Of the modern era I would have to say Stalin. He killed more of his own people than Hitler did. I don't know much about despots pre 18thC so I couldn't comment on them.

 

[amadeus]

Pol Pot, followed by Kim Il Sung.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

For some reason, I always get the feeling I have to reply to rmshape's signature.

Well, anyway, and back on topic, although I still keep my Hitler claim, there's something that crossed my mind. As an atheist, I might say this too harshly, but if any kind of god would be our "Lord", then he's also our leader, and honestly... think about it.

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
As an atheist, I might say this too harshly, but if any kind of god would be our "Lord", then he's also our leader, and honestly... think about it.

No, don't think about it. Don't even start down that road. Such a question is outside the scope of this topic, and therefore is off-topic. Anyone who picks up on this idea will be reported to the mods. No threadjacking allowed.

 

[Motonuke]

What about Queen Mary? You got to be a murderer to have a drink called " BLOODY Mary" named after.

Ok Anywayz, I would go with Hitler. Only a sicko would put people in camps and let them slowly rot away.

 

[insurgent]

Stalin probably, with Hitler as a close follow-up...

 

[AVN]

My choice.
Nero. The way he slaughtered the Christians was very cruel

 

[G-Man]

Hitler
Stalin
Pol pot
Mao

My list is this way not only because of the body count, but also because of the ways and reasons.
Hilter not only killed millions, he also amde it so industrialized he could've killed millions more. In addition his expansion mania caused the deaths of many millions more around the world and the destruction of many places in europe.
Stalin killed many millions and in addition he sent quite a lot of people for "vacations" in siberia. Also, he killed his generals, causing the soviet losses in WW2 to be much higher than necessary.
Pol pot was, to my opinion, too mad to understand what he's really doing.
Mao, although responsible for the deaths of millions, caused most of them as a result of misjudgment and not becaue he wanted to kill them.
I didn't put any ancinet leaders because I think the atrocities they commited back then weren't as horrible as if they were commited tosay, as then massacaring your enemy was in a lot of ways the standard. Also, most of the atrocities of the ancinet world were as a result of wars.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

No, don't think about it. Don't even start down that road. Such a question is outside the scope of this topic, and
therefore is off-topic. Anyone who picks up on this idea will be reported to the mods. No threadjacking allowed.

It was worth a try. Sorry.

 

[Zarn]

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Nero

 

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by omichyron
Stalin. Simply the body count and his complete corruption of all of the ideals for which his government claimed to stand gives my vote to this madman.

When asked who was more severe Moltov responded quickly that Lenin was far harsher and often *Admonished*Stalin for being too soft.

My vote's with Hitler.

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by SKILORD


When asked who was more severe Moltov responded quickly that Lenin was far harsher and often (damn i can't think of the right word, a soft verbal punishment) Stalin for being too soft.

My votes with Hitler.

I think the word you are looking for is "admonished." That certainly gives me an insight into the mind of Lenin that I never had before. He thought Stalin was too soft.

 

[SKILORD]

Thanx for the word.