Which historical individuals were too evil to be Leaders?

[Zaarin]

I don't know if the idea that a ruler, whether elected or crowned or otherwise, could not morally possess absolute power was a thing until the enlightenment.

I'd argue not even then. The Enlightenment more or less coincides with when absolute monarchy became a thing in Europe. The popular image that Medieval kings wielded absolute power is hilariously erroneous; Medieval kings were, in many ways, subject to the wishes of the aristocracy (and to a lesser extent the Church, though popular imagination has also overinflated the temporal power of the Church far beyond what it actually was; the Church and State were in an almost constant state of conflict throughout the Middle Ages).

 

[HWP2001]

Wow. Yes, since when is a murderous autocrat a dictator?

Oh whoops, my mistake, I misread it as Che Guevara and got confused But still, it begs the question: if Castro was murderous on the scale of (what google tells me) about 11,000 people, then surely nations like the US would also be considered 'murderous'? Given, for example, the 1.35 million people killed as a result of the Vietnam war, or the destruction wreaked upon North Korea during the Korean War, or (in more recent times) the 500,000 civilians dead as a result of the war of terror? It just seems to me that western states are, culturally speaking, allowed to kill millions indiscriminantly, but when others do the same it's seen as an inherent failure of whatever ideology they represent.

 

[Zaarin]

Oh whoops, my mistake, I misread it as Che Guevara and got confused But still, it begs the question: if Castro was murderous on the scale of (what google tells me) about 11,000 people, then surely nations like the US would also be considered 'murderous'? Given, for example, the 1.35 million people killed as a result of the Vietnam war, or the destruction wreaked upon North Korea during the Korean War, or (in more recent times) the 500,000 civilians dead as a result of the war of terror? It just seems to me that western states are, culturally speaking, allowed to kill millions indiscriminantly, but when others do the same it's seen as an inherent failure of whatever ideology they represent.

I think war deaths, however unfortunate, are in a very different category than murdering one's own citizens or genocide. Also, I think Western states, include the US, are rightly criticized for their colonial policies; I don't see them as being given a pass at all.

 

[Imaus]

Also did Khan RAPE personally, or rather he had a lot of noble children everyone wanted to marry into? I don't think Khan is a rapist. Could be wrong, though.

I think war deaths, however unfortunate, are in a very different category than murdering one's own citizens or genocide. Also, I think Western states, include the US, are rightly criticized for their colonial policies; I don't see them as being given a pass at all.

The US still fails in that category, too. No nation is pure or clean. Every nation exists because it has enough goons to whack off or beat or press by force anyone who'll say different or refuses to pay the taxes That's what it all boils down to. You can't have a game about civilization and then demand every leader be a sparkling person who is someone to sit down with. These people all have blood on their hands, from Joan of Arc to Gandhi (though Gandhi is more 'I confronted the British and they shot at people influenced by me who were protesting, so eh unless you also want to chain India's crimes to him which may be a bit of a stretch as some can just say India was *warped* compared to his view of India).

 

[Zaarin]

The US still fails in that category, too.

I didn't say otherwise, but HWP2001's examples specifically were wars.

 

[HWP2001]

I think war deaths, however unfortunate, are in a very different category than murdering one's own citizens or genocide. Also, I think Western states, include the US, are rightly criticized for their colonial policies; I don't see them as being given a pass at all.

Is there a significant difference between the mass murder of civilians in a different country and the mass murder of civilians in your own country? I don't think western states are criticised at all, let alone at a high level - if you tally up the number of deaths caused by the United States alone in the past century, it's comparable to the number of people genocided by say the USSR (unless you're going off something like the Black Book of Communism, which includes dead nazis and natural famines in the USSR's death toll ). For example, for the US:

• 1.5 million civilians killed by the US and SK in the Korean War.
• *2 million civilians killed in the Vietnam War.
• 200,000 in the Gulf War.
• 500,000 in the War on Terror.
• 100,000 killed by Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen, largely funded by arms deals with the US

Compared to the USSR:

• 800,000 executions between 1921 and 1953.
• 1.7 million deaths in gulags.
• 390,000 deaths due to dekulakisation.
• 400,000 deaths due to deportations.

4.3 million vs 3.3 million, however only one of these states is considered to be "worse than Nazi Germany" by the majority of people (including those in this thread). I hate to tally up deaths as if they're meaningless statistics in a pissing contest, but having studied both American and Soviet history I can't really consider one to be so much worse than the other. The only significant difference I can see is where the genocide took place - domestically or abroad.

 

[Zaarin]

Very uninterested in getting into an ideological debate, so I'm going to leave it at I disagree.

 

[Sostratus]

Very uninterested in getting into an ideological debate, so I'm going to leave it at I disagree.

Internet political discussion: an interesting game. The best move is not to play.

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Yes, this thread has become a fast-moving train wreck. This thread always has had the risk of veering off into a discussion of world history and current events more suited to the OT forum. Thread closed. If you want to continue, take it to OT.