Who are the Worst leaders of all time

[Pangur Bán]

Sorry, Stalin was not anything like a bad leader. There were costs to his policies, but he defeated Germany, conquered Eastern Europe and made the Soviet Union a superpower. He was the most powerful European ruler of all time. You just can't call someone like that a bad leader. He simply wasn't...what you can say is that he valued political success for his state more than the lives of many of it's inhabitants.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by calgacus
Sorry, Stalin was not anything like a bad leader. There were costs to his policies, but he defeated Germany, conquered Eastern Europe and made the Soviet Union a superpower. He was the most powerful European ruler of all time. You just can't call someone like that a bad leader. He simply wasn't...what you can say is that he valued political success for his state more than the lives of many of it's inhabitants.

If a state lost that much population as it did under Stalin (at least 20 million) is it hard to conceive of anything other than the thought that Russia could have been more powerful than it was under Stalin. Stalin did not defeat Germany alone. No, indeed it seems impossible the Soviet Union could have done that. The Soviet Union mainly conquered Eastern Europe because of the vaccum and willingness to insert puppet states in the region rather than its realistic power. The Soviet Union relied a lot on Eastern European industrial power that was sitting on a silver platter which was siezed during the war. Russia's potential was so great yet it seems that it did not reach what it could have been. The Russian economy definitely could have been much better than it was.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Hmm... maybe people should be categorising them into two categories: Worst Morally and Worst in every other way.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
Hmm... maybe people should be categorising them into two categories: Worst Morally and Worst in every other way.

I concur with that! Then it would be much easier to construct a list.

 

[silver 2039]

Nehru, Indra Ghandi, Rajiv Ghandi, Argunzeb, Shah Jhan.

 

[Revolutionary]

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow I don't reckon Nero was one of the worst Roman emperors... I'd say he was middle of the range in terms of good and bad. Kublai Khan (although admitedly it is a matter of opinion), Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Ptolemy VIII (IIRC), and Stalin were shockers.

Originally posted by Gagliaudo
ehm, forgive:
I don't reckon the pope of the so-called First crusade was so bad.
He was Urbanus II (1088-1099, he died before receive the new that Jerusalem had been taken...), even if some other popes before him thought freeing Jerusalem, or facing the mighter and mighter Islam.
The historics have studied Urbanus better, and it's today pacific that his calling to free HolyLand had effects larger and quite differents respect to the original intentions and project.

Historically, Mohamed was the 'inventor' of 'holy' war ('jihad', but this term means more exactly the struggle every muslim has to make inside himself to become better...).

I meant morally bad

oh and Nero was also a bad leader maybe not the worst but certain a bad one

Mohamed didn't invent holy war in the way most peoples have used it, religious wars have been going on long before Islam, conflict between religions is as old as religion itself

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Free Enterprise
If a state lost that much population as it did under Stalin (at least 20 million) is it hard to conceive of anything other than the thought that Russia could have been more powerful than it was under Stalin. Stalin did not defeat Germany alone. No, indeed it seems impossible the Soviet Union could have done that. The Soviet Union mainly conquered Eastern Europe because of the vaccum and willingness to insert puppet states in the region rather than its realistic power. The Soviet Union relied a lot on Eastern European industrial power that was sitting on a silver platter which was siezed during the war. Russia's potential was so great yet it seems that it did not reach what it could have been. The Russian economy definitely could have been much better than it was.

Russia lost 20 million? Well, blame Hitler, not Stalin.

Oh yeah, the Soviet Union would have won the war, as they were already doing before the Western Hyenas came in to grap a piece of the Lion's kill.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Revolutionary

conflict between religions is as old as religion itself

WRONG.

name me ONE religious war before the advent of monotheism, by a polythiestic power.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Xen
WRONG.

name me ONE religious war before the advent of monotheism, by a polythiestic power.

Assyrian conquests, the conquests of Asoka, mesoamerican wars of sacrifice...the list could go on...

 

[Gagliaudo]

@Mongoloid Cow, Free Enterprise:
Glad to see you notice that the distintion I proposed before may help for a more useful order in this thread

@Revolutionary:
I'm not agree: I think it would be more correct to say that religion is a part inside human being, so whe humans make war, they can choose using religion to enforce themselves. The fact that, through the history, christian peoples fought wars, not means that Christianism is a war religion, cause Christ's message is so far from war... Not the same about some (not all) Mohamed adfirmations... And that's a fact, too. Then... >>>

>>>
@Xen:
name me a religion war before the rise of Islam (expansion of jihad at the cry: "Allah Akbar!" is a fact...). Battle of Pons Milvius, too, wasn't between
Christians and Pagans, but before two political leaders, Costantinus vs Massentius, and there were christian troops in Costantinus' army, that's all.

@calgacus:
I don't know well Asoka's conquest, I'm quite sure Assyrian conquests weren't religion wars, I accept - in a certain sense - that Mesoamerican intestine wars to catch prisoners for sacrifices can be considered 'religion wars', this is aninteresting and original observation...

 

[Adler17]

Calgacus, the number of Stalin´s victims is correct. Remember the famines and the deportations. They´re additional to the 20 million in the war, which died because of the war. And nobody knows how many of them are victims by Stalin! And without the US bombings and the German troops in the west he would have suffered much more losses. And I do not think he would have been able to win.

Adler

 

[Pangur Bán]

@calgacus:
I don't know well Asoka's conquest, I'm quite sure Assyrian conquests weren't religion wars, I accept - in a certain sense - that Mesoamerican intestine wars to catch prisoners for sacrifices can be considered 'religion wars', this is aninteresting and original observation...

Assyrian conquests do seem to have been religious. Assyrian inscriptions attribute almost every action to their semi-monotheistic war-god Asshur. I recall Toynbee speaking of this period as seeing as Rise of National Gods, in the middle east...which includes the Jehovah of Israel.

At any rate, virtually every society in history except the post-medieval Roman West, did not distinguish between society and religion , so to say that religion causes wars is slightly missing the point.

 

[Gagliaudo]

At any rate, virtually every society in history except the post-medieval Roman West, did not distinguish between society and religion , so to say that religion causes wars is slightly missing the point.

Yes, agree, quite las I wrote ('I think it would be more correct to say that religion is a part inside human being, so whe humans make war, they can choose using religion to enforce themselves').

 

[silver 2039]

Assyrian conquests, the conquests of Asoka, mesoamerican wars of sacrifice...the list could go on...

Asoka's wars were not over religon in fact he stopped war becuase of religon.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Asoka's wars were not over religon in fact he stopped war becuase of religon.

Well, I'm not going to believe that. Buddhism was a great propaganda tool.

 

[Voynich]

Gengis Khan and Tamerlame were some of the worst leaders. The depraved Gengis Khan was the cause of the fall of the Khwarizm Empire. They also severely set back commerce, wealth, and technology in many regions.

The leaders in the Khmer Rouge also rank very high in the worst list.

Oh yeah, the Soviet Union would have won the war, as they were already doing before the Western Hyenas came in to grap a piece of the Lion's kill.

Is this certain? The Axis was developing powerful new military technology that would have posed serious problems for the Soviet Union.

 

[silver 2039]

Well, I'm not going to believe that. Buddhism was a great propaganda tool.

You do realize that after the battle of Kalinga Asoka was so tramuatized by the amount of people dead that he converted to Buddhisim gave away his wealth to the people and never waged another war again?

 

[Pangur Bán]

You do realize that after the battle of Kalinga Asoka was so tramuatized by the amount of people dead that he converted to Buddhisim gave away his wealth to the people and never waged another war again?

Constantine saw a vision in the sky...Muhammad got visions of the archangel Gabriel

You make up your own mind

 

[silver 2039]

Constantine saw a vision in the sky...Muhammad got visions of the archangel Gabriel

You make up your own mind

What? I fail to see how that relates to what I said.

 

[Constantine]

Nehru, Indra Ghandi, Rajiv Ghandi, Argunzeb, Shah Jhan.

Why? Are they because they wanted peace with Pakistan.