Poll: Most Evil and Murderous Leader of All Time

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Bifrost
I can nevernevernevernevernevernever believe this, and none of my former teachers, and professors I mix with will never agree with you. Lenin was a typical representative of so-called "romantic communist epoque" as for example Zinoviev, Kamenev were, Stalin was a typical representative of "terror communist epoque" as Trotski and Beria

Well - the real fact is that Drejinski created C.E.K.A. in "romantic period" ...

But anyway - for example Peter the Great was himself a cruel leader - why to forget this ???

Regards

 

[The Fishman]

I voted for Genghis Khan. An awful lot of the world's problems go back to him and his sucessors...

EDIT: Doh! I brought a dead thread back to life! Me baaad...

 

[Traitorfish]

Ignore this post. Also, don't execute me as an accessory to necroposting. I didn't know! It's not my fault! Please, I have a family! (Of action figures, but still...)

 

[Georilla]

nvm, it was a dead thread.. my bad..

 

[lutzj]

Ghengis depopulated entire regions on a whim. If you're looking for pure muderousness, he's on top.

 

[dannyshenanigan]

Genghis Khan was brutal, but for his era he was not especially evil.

People like to think Stalin is the worst due to the sheer number of deaths he caused. Stalin was in power for 31 years; whereas Hitler was in power for 11 years. Hitler was far more destructive and murdered far more people per year.
Had Hitler been in power for 20 more years who knows how many more people would have been killed, but it probably would have dwarfed Stalin's tally.

 

[Zhuge_Liang]

All YOU all remember is recent events of the 19th and 20th centuries!

Think about Genghis Khan and his hordes. They killed over 10 million civilian people and military troops. They left the rich lands of central asia in ruins. Prospering cities was sacked and even until now, those places haven't recovered from that devastation.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I think that Hitler was worse than Stalin even though he killed less people. He wanted to put a reign of terror, fascism, and race war over the earth. His grand dream of destruction made his look very Antichrist-esque. Stalin did some things right. He built railroads and industrialized Russia. I'm not condoning him, but I'd say he's SLIGHTLY better than Hitler (not saying much)

 

[Adler17]

Mao. 60- 100 million people.

Adler

 

[Dachs]

All YOU all remember is recent events of the 19th and 20th centuries!

Think about Genghis Khan and his hordes. They killed over 10 million civilian people and military troops. They left the rich lands of central asia in ruins. Prospering cities was sacked and even until now, those places haven't recovered from that devastation.

Yeah, those Mongols were pretty nasty. What about the Seljuqs? Or, let's think about not a person, but a weapon, the gladius hispaniensis, which, for much of recorded history (might still be if you count the spatha-type variants), was the deadliest weapon humans had ever made? Let's get the unnamed Gaul or Celtiberian who invented that thing!

 

[Mirc]

Genghis Khan was brutal, but for his era he was not especially evil.

People like to think Stalin is the worst due to the sheer number of deaths he caused. Stalin was in power for 31 years; whereas Hitler was in power for 11 years. Hitler was far more destructive and murdered far more people per year.
Had Hitler been in power for 20 more years who knows how many more people would have been killed, but it probably would have dwarfed Stalin's tally.

How exactly do you know? It's simply absurd to compare what has been with what could have been and decide someone is worse because he would have overcome the other one if something that didn't happen happened!

I think that Hitler was worse than Stalin even though he killed less people. He wanted to put a reign of terror, fascism, and race war over the earth. His grand dream of destruction made his look very Antichrist-esque. Stalin did some things right. He built railroads and industrialized Russia. I'm not condoning him, but I'd say he's SLIGHTLY better than Hitler (not saying much)

- reign of terror? check.
- fascism? no, the opposite. equally bad. check.
- race? let's see, in Germany you could have been killed if you were a Jew, Gypsy or member of some other minority. In Russia, you could have been killed regardless, and a lot more were killed in total too. Most of them actually being Russian, the majority of his people.
- antichrist? sure, Soviet-commanded regimes deliberately destroying hundreds of churches in the whole eastern bloc is so much better. My city used to have 350 churches before those times. It had 120 after. You decide where the antichrist it.
- he built railroads and industrialized Russia? You must be kidding me!! Compare that with the ABSOLUTELY AMAZING growth of Germany in the time of Hitler.

My opinion - you are the good-faith victim (and I don't mean religion here, I mean good faith) of the propaganda and all the crazy... well... everything that's been made to seem like Stalin was just a mildly bad man while Hitler was the devil himself.

 

[dannyshenanigan]

All I'm saying is people think Stalin is worse because he killed more people; however, he had an extra twenty more years to work with compared to Hitler. This is a result of Hitler being far more internationally aggressive.

 

[Traitorfish]

- fascism? no, the opposite. equally bad. check.

What, anarchism? Stalin wasn't an anarchist, he was a totalitarian, just like Hitler. The fact that each used different rationale to defend their dictatorship doesn't change that.

- race? let's see, in Germany you could have been killed if you were a Jew, Gypsy or member of some other minority. In Russia, you could have been killed regardless, and a lot more were killed in total too. Most of them actually being Russian, the majority of his people.

Erm... What? That isn't really an argument. All you said is that "Stalin didn't instate policies of ethnic cleansing". That's not exactly an argument against him. (Although the fact that he actually did instate policies of ethnic cleansing, on the other hand, is.)

 

[Mirc]

What, anarchism? Stalin wasn't an anarchist, he was a totalitarian, just like Hitler. The fact that each used different rationale to defend their dictatorship doesn't change that.

I was talking about the opposite on a political scale, as in the feeble attempt at a far-left attitude against the fascism of Germany at the time.

Erm... What? That isn't really an argument. All you said is that "Stalin didn't instate policies of ethnic cleansing". That's not exactly an argument against him. (Although the fact that he actually did instate policies of ethnic cleansing, on the other hand, is.)

No, that's not what I wanted to say. I was only trying to prove that things aren't as black and white as he made them seem. He did many things, and it's very easy to call one guy good (none of them), one guy moderately evil (Stalin) and one guy the incarnation of the worst evil forces on Earth (Hitler). This view is simplistic and thus highly wrong.

 

[Traitorfish]

I was talking about the opposite on a political scale, as in the feeble attempt at a far-left attitude against the fascism of Germany at the time.

So was I- the political opposite of totalitarianism, the total absorption of the individual into a group, is anarchism, the total self-determination of the individual. Stalin and Hitler were essentially practicing different methods of achieving the same ends.

No, that's not what I wanted to say. I was only trying to prove that things aren't as black and white as he made them seem. He did many things, and it's very easy to call one guy good (none of them), one guy moderately evil (Stalin) and one guy the incarnation of the worst evil forces on Earth (Hitler). This view is simplistic and thus highly wrong.

That I agree with.

 

[Sentient169]

I voted for Genghis Khan because the Mongols had the habit of slaughtering civilians including women and children without mercy. So I bet they probably killed nearly as many people as the modern leaders.

 

[Pannonius]

How about that 7th century guy that causes millions of deaths even today? This is what I mean by others.

Moderator Action: Infraction for Muslim baiting. Watch it. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Huayna Capac357]

How about that 7th century guy that causes millions of deaths even today? This is what I mean by others.

The Prophet never condoned violence.

 

[Traitorfish]

The Prophet never condoned violence.

Well, to be fair, yes he did. He conquered the Arabian peninsula. Not to support Pannonious' disgustingly bigoted remark, that is kind of inarguable violent. To give him due credit, he was a lot less ruthless and violent than most of his contemporaries- "Christian" kings like Clovis would be butchering an entire town while Mohammad was still offering a peaceful surrender- and preferred to convert rather than conquer, but, even if he regarded what violence he did command as an unfortunate necessity, he still condoned some degree of violence.

 

[superisis]

The great khan was the worst.

You didn't include Timur/Timurlenk/Tamerlane. He was as bad if not worse than Genhis Khan. Did almost exactly the same to the large cities in Asia as Genghis, except Samarkand was spared.

Timur-i-Lenk saved europe from the turks in a more definate way than Vlad ever did. Without Timur-i-Lenk, there is a chance that a lot of central and southern europe would've been muslim and "turkish" (not saying this would've been bad or good).