Who was the most evil man in history?

[Richard Cribb]

Yes Hitler lost the war. Yes, Hitler would have done more bad things if he could. But so also Stalin. IIRC a huge new terror wave was planned when he died. Many lives were saved. Also you can´t know what happened if Hitler won the war as there were many soldiers in the Wehrmacht who thought to win the war first and then deal with the Brown Scum in Berlin. However it is as well likely he would have made a terror regime in his occupied areas.
But luceafarul, you do make a mistake: Just as Hitler Stalin was a totalitarian who was not a man which had an ideology, at least in the way of Marx. Stalin wanted the power côute que côute. He wanted to keep the power, if neccessary he would have proclaimed himself as the new Czar of Russia. He is there similar to his brother in spirits, Hitler. Stalin was more evil. But since Einstein we know everything is relative: Both are playing in the same league and both are burning in the worst level of hell and both would have been hung for his crimes in a fair trial after the war.
So all in all you have to see what they really DID. Only the real deeds are the basic of a judgement. Hitler was a danger of Jews, gays and others. Most other Germans were relative free. Stalin was a danger for Chechens, Germans and others. ALL others had to fear his erratic mood. So it is clear for me that Uncle Joe is the leader. But we can of course debate on the distance to Hitler.

Adler

First of all, I think I made it perfectly clear that I hate Stalin and all he stands for. I also agree that there was no marxism in Stalin, just power-hunger. If there is a hell, which I strongly doubt, I hope he is in the lowest part of it.
But - there is a but:
As some people have mentioned already in this thread, the special thing with the Nazi regime was that your nature could be a huge crime. If you were born the wrong ethnicity, then nothing could redeem you, while in an appaling tyranny as Stalin you could have a chance anyway. I for one see a crucial difference here.
Also consider that this was a regime that:
- Ran extinction camps for other ethnical groups and people with other sexual orientation.
- Used parts of humans in industrial production.
- Used human beings as guinea pigs in sinister medical experiments.
- Planned to get rid of its mentally ******** and handicapped people.
- Rejected the heritage from Enlightenment and classical liberalism, that worships violence, that has contempt for weakness.
I think we can also include people future intention in such a discussion, otherwise I think we lose a dimension.
So about a possible Nazi victory in WW2. Contrafactic history is always doubtful, but I think Hitler would have been safe in power. If people in Wehrmacht wanted him removed, then there would have been opportunies for that before. Remember that we are now dealing with a scenario where Germany is continuing to do well...
And talking about a terror-regime in those occupied areas in the East is just an euphemism. Hitler's idea was to totally eliminate their educated classes and turn the rest of the population into slave labourers.
But the simplest is just to ask ourselves this question: Would it have been better or worse if Hitler had succeeded with Operation Barbarossa?

 

[Gelion]

luceafarus, good post! agreed 100%! Thank you for typing it out for me

 

[Adler17]

I knew you hate Stalin as all sensible humans. But I have to disagree:
1. The Gulag was a Soviet KZ. The murder of the inmates was not poisoning them but let them work to death.
2. Probably the Soviets didn´t do this but I am not sure.
3. IIRC I heart about that Soviet medics did some horrible things to some Gulag inmates, but indeed not to that extent.
4. The handicapped people were safe in Russia indeed.
5. Also the Soviets rejected the enlightment indeed. The only thing which comes in my mind is saving Kant´s grave in Königsberg.
Therefore Stalin did some other horrific deeds:
1. He let starve whole populations in the Ukraine to death.
2. He deported whole populations which were not so well seen:
a) the Russian Germans
b) the Chechens and other Caucasian populations. Here it came to genocidical actions indeed
3. Stalin killed most of his politbüro as well as big parts of the Red Army command. Although Hitler was murdering many opponents he never reaches that extent.
4. Also Stalin planned something "great" in this relationship. If he lived longer he would have dome more bad things.
5. Death toll: Hitler 6 million; Stalin 25- 30 million.

So all in all Stalin was worse.
Concerning Barbarossa, well the best would have been for the world if the US didn´t stop in Torgau...

Adler

 

[Richard Cribb]

I knew you hate Stalin as all sensible humans. But I have to disagree:

It's your right, my friend. I guess the best thing is to agree to disagree then.

1. The Gulag was a Soviet KZ. The murder of the inmates was not poisoning them but let them work to death.

I agree to a certain extent, but I think there is a differerence.

2. Probably the Soviets didn´t do this but I am not sure.

I think they did not.

3. IIRC I heart about that Soviet medics did some horrible things to some Gulag inmates, but indeed not to that extent.

Probably they did, but again with a different if also detestable motivation and as you point out yourself to a much smaller extent.

4. The handicapped people were safe in Russia indeed.

Exactly.And personally I have difficulties with imagining something more cowardly and cruel than to kill handicapped people.

5. Also the Soviets rejected the enlightment indeed. The only thing which comes in my mind is saving Kant´s grave in Königsberg.

Not really. My point is that it is usual to assert that fascism/nazism is a rejection of those ideas, while stalinism is an exaggeration of those idea.While the last is terrible indeed, the first is completely outrageously horrible. I could also put it this way, the first is inhuman, the last beastly.

Therefore Stalin did some other horrific deeds:
1. He let starve whole populations in the Ukraine to death.
2. He deported whole populations which were not so well seen:
a) the Russian Germans
b) the Chechens and other Caucasian populations. Here it came to genocidical actions indeed
3. Stalin killed most of his politbüro as well as big parts of the Red Army command. Although Hitler was murdering many opponents he never reaches that extent.
4. Also Stalin planned something "great" in this relationship. If he lived longer he would have dome more bad things.

I agree on all this.However it is interesting that you mentioned Kant. It should remind us that ethics is not only about consequences, but also intents. Indeed most apologets for Stalin has pointed out that the USSR carried the main burden in the defeat of Hitler.However I must confess I am completely dumbfounded by:

5. Death toll: Hitler 6 million; Stalin 25- 30 million.

Hitler 6 million people???According to this conservative estimate: http://www.logicjungle.com/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country only in the Soviet Union 16 900 000 civilians were killed, in Poland alone almost 6 millions.
Can you please give me the source for that number?

So all in all Stalin was worse.

I still think not.

Concerning Barbarossa, well the best would have been for the world if the US didn´t stop in Torgau...

Sorry but that wasn't an answer to the question I posed at all.
@Gelion: You're welcome!
Edit: Corrected obvious numerical error kindly pointed out by DexterJ.

 

[DexterJ]

http://www.logicjungle.com/wiki/Lis...ties_by_country only in the Soviet Union 16 900 civilians were killed, in Poland alone almost 6 millions.

you missed off '000' from the figure 16 900. 16,900,000 is the figure on the website.

I would imagine the people who criticise Stalin in comparison to Hitler include the Russians killed by Hitler under Stalins body count.

 

[Richard Cribb]

you missed off '000' from the figure 16 900. 16,900,000 is the figure on the website.

I would imagine the people who criticise Stalin in comparison to Hitler include the Russians killed by Hitler under Stalins body count.

Thanks a lot for pointing that out!
I will edit it so it makes sense.
Good methodological point as well!

 

[superisis]

I think we can also include people future intention in such a discussion, otherwise I think we lose a dimension.
So about a possible Nazi victoy in WW2. Contrafactic history is always doubtful, but I think Hitler would have been safe in power. If people in Wehrmacht wanted him removed, then there would have been opportunies for that before. Remember that we are now dealing with a scenario where Germany is continuing to do well...

While it is not adviceble to get hung up on what could've happened. Immagine a world where BRitain and France did not declare war of Germany in 1939. What would have happened next? Most probably a war between Hitler and Stalin. Would Britain and France gone in to save communist/Stalinist Russia? If Hitler had won that war (mmost probable), what would a superpower with the german laborforce and ingenuity combined with Russia's immense natural resources combined with a Nazi ideology and a crazed Furer. Had that happened, had Stalin died in 45 and Hitler in 53, I doubt we would seen figures of 20-50 million dead from Hitlers side... Those figures would be dwarfed, and the future would look nigh dystopic for all. But then again it is not adviceble to get hung up on what could've happened.

 

[Communisto]

Well Oliver Cromwell wasn't very nice to the Irish in the 17th Century

with every fiber of my being i agree, Cromwell was an evil bastard. This guy was the destroyer of gaelic ireland. Killed a culture and a people, smashed the Chair of Ui' Neiyll the old seat of the O'Neill clan. He slaughtered thousands and thousands of Irish in the name of Britain. maybe not the evilest man in the world, but definately in the top ten.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Would Britain and France gone in to save communist/Stalinist Russia?

No they wouldn't.

If Hitler had won that war (mmost probable), what would a superpower with the german laborforce and ingenuity combined with Russia's immense natural resources combined with a Nazi ideology and a crazed Furer. Had that happened, had Stalin died in 45 and Hitler in 53, I doubt we would seen figures of 20-50 million dead from Hitlers side...

I am not too sure about that, see below.

But then again it is not adviceble to get hung up on what could've happened.

In general, no. Which is why I wrote:

Contrafactic history is always doubtful

However when we know the plans of somebody whom we can trust in such matters,

And talking about a terror-regime in those occupied areas in the East is just an euphemism. Hitler's idea was to totally eliminate their educated classes and turn the rest of the population into slave labourers.

it is a bit different.This is not very speculative. And then you can pick up your calculator and start to count the dead.

 

[Plotinus]

I think the problem is that you need to agree on a definition of "evil" before you can decide who is worse! Is it simply "numbers killed" or is it more like how or why they were killed?

Incidentally, the notion that intent is more important than consequence in determining the morality of an act has nothing to do with Kant - he thought morality was about duty. It's more associated with Augustine. The opposite view, that consequence is more significant, is associated with Bentham - unfairly, in my view.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I think the problem is that you need to agree on a definition of "evil" before you can decide who is worse! Is it simply "numbers killed" or is it more like how or why they were killed?

Yes , in fact that was one of the points I tried to bring up, probably a bit to clumsily to make myself clearly understood.
How they are killed is one of the things I surely take into consideration as well as the ideology behind , and then I think there is no contest between Hitler and Stalin.

Incidentally, the notion that intent is more important than consequence in determining the morality of an act has nothing to do with Kant - he thought morality was about duty. It's more associated with Augustine. The opposite view, that consequence is more significant, is associated with Bentham - unfairly, in my view.

Yes it has something to do with Kant, at least that is what some of Norway's foremost experts on him told him when I studied philosophy some 20 years ago. I agree that Kant's term is duty , but it is connected with intent and good will and is a rejection of consequence. However this is off-topic as far as I can see...

 

[Dragonlord]

I voted Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

All 3 committed mass murder of groups they condemned.

IMHO, the whole discussion of whether Hitler or Stalin was worse is really beside the point. Neither the absolute number of victims, nor the relative merits of their motivations matter IMO - murdering 6 million Jews etc. is as evil as murdering 17 mio (or whatever) Kulaks, Tschechens and whatnot - and vice versa. The same goes for the ideological motivations: whether one disagrees more strongly with Nazism or Communism should make no difference on how their respective mass murders are judged!

So, regarding their crimes, I see Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot as being on the same (lowest) level - once one has reached that point in infamy, there's no sinking lower.

As to their personalities - I don't know much about Pol Pot, but I agree with other posters that Stalin was a much more nasty piece of work than Hitler. He obviously was a megalomaniac and sociopath for whom lives (other than his own) were totally worthless. He killed at a whim, like killing flies, anyone who even slightly annoyed him.

 

[Hamlet]

I don't think there's anything to decide between the totalitarians, perhaps with the exception of Mussolini, who didn't commit any of the hugely excessive evils that Hitler et al.

Like Dragonlord said, it's fairly ludicrous to suggest that because one man killed a million more people, he's somehow more evil than another. Genocide is genocide.

 

[Sarevok]

Mao Zedong... with Hitler and Stalin as close 2nd's

 

[superisis]

@luceafarul

I meant that had hitler-germany been the victorious superpower that rose out of a second world war (together with the US) we would've seen more deaths than with Stalin. But that's just my hypothesis.

I think the problem is that you need to agree on a definition of "evil"

that's the problem... we wont agree on that, personally I don't belive that their is an evil in the traditional sence, an "objective evil" evil if you will.

As to the Stalin vs Hitler debate... I've already added my two cents:

Well the major differences between Hitler and Stalin is that Stalin did evil deeds in order to consolidate his power (or in order to think he did). He was an imoral macchiavellian ruler. Hitler on the other hand, rose to power in order to kill people, his purpose was to exterminate those of lesser/inferior race. So it all boils down to what you think is worse, to have no convictions or to have evil ones.

 

[blindside]

I voted Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

All 3 committed mass murder of groups they condemned.

IMHO, the whole discussion of whether Hitler or Stalin was worse is really beside the point. Neither the absolute number of victims, nor the relative merits of their motivations matter IMO - murdering 6 million Jews etc. is as evil as murdering 17 mio (or whatever) Kulaks, Tschechens and whatnot - and vice versa. The same goes for the ideological motivations: whether one disagrees more strongly with Nazism or Communism should make no difference on how their respective mass murders are judged!

Although I agree with you I think Superis has a valid point. I somehow feel Hitler was worse because of his methods and idealogy. Sure Stalin killed alot but mass starvation was not something new. Hitler on the other hand took it to another level. He made the process systematic and mechanical. I find something more horrifying about that. See Superisis's quote above my post. Based on his conclusion I feel that Hitler was the worse of the two.

 

[Kozmos]

How can judge that a man is evil?

Maybe by Dark side points gained

 

[NewWaver]

The one who hasn't come yet...the one who will be named the antichrist.

 

[Plotinus]

In the Bible, "antichrist" is not a future figure but anyone who denies that Jesus was truly human (2 John 7). So on that view "antichrist" was alive and well in the first and second centuries AD.

 

[WickedSmurf]

The one who hasn't come yet...the one who will be named the antichrist.

Well, if fictional characters are allowed then I'm definitely going for Palpatine!