Who was the most evil man in history?

[superisis]

Well, as I believe that no-one with operate for purely evil motives (i.e. I'm not a true positivist), the question for me is quite trite in its exact meaning, but if I interpret it as to the persons who actions/beliefs differ the greats from my ideas of what good is, then I can determine who is most evil. THough you are quite right that these sort of poll contain a very low amount of value, not counting the entertainment.

 

[bombshoo]

You people are way out of line. How can you compare the evils of Hitler and Stalin? Hitler is by far the most evil thing history has ever seen. I mean as evil as it gets. Stalin killed his political opponents, which is something many governments would gladly do (most did and some still do; secret service and the like); Hitler killed for mare nationality, for the act of existance itself. Stalin on the other hand provided free housing, food and basic goods for the common folk, and Soviet Union witnessed a rapid economic growth during his reign. What luiz said about killing friends isnt a criterion by which I would judge evil. If Hitler had found political opponenets among close friends (i'm not sure if he hadnt), he would've killed them too. This is not to say I evaluate Stalin positively, but comparing him with Hitler is stupid. A result of the American myths about communism being as bad as Nazism.

Hitler did indeed kill his friends...Rohm, head of the SA and one of his earliest followers was killed by him, partially because the SA was gaining too much power, and because he was a homosexual.

Stalin did kill alot of innocent people though, I would say Hitler is worse, but Stalin is comparable...I do think he is what was truley needed to win the war though...The only thing that could truley beat a monster like Hitler was another monster.

 

[Steve Thompson]

Stalin is so much worse than Hitler! But I'm not feeling the spirit to go off commie-bashing right now...

 

[BananaLee]

Hitler actually cared a lot for the Aryan people. Twisted morality, but a morality nonetheless.
Stalin on the other hand... Well... He just had fun killing peeps.

 

[rilnator]

Stalin. He killed more indiscriminately than Hitler. He was suspiciuos of everyone, and to fix the problem he just killed them. Killing liberated Soviet troops- unbelievable.

 

[Plotinus]

This is not to say I evaluate Stalin positively, but comparing him with Hitler is stupid. A result of the American myths about communism being as bad as Nazism.

Hear hear.

And saying that Karl Marx was evil because of the crimes of Stalin and Pol Pot is like saying Jesus was evil because of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition!

 

[nonconformist]

I can't answer this, because it is a silly question, like "who is the best in history?".
Though, as Luiz said, Stalin is worse thasn Hitler, as Hitler had a morality (albeit very twisted).

 

[Lathesca]

This is largely flimshaw. Evil is a very overrated concept, aspecially inherent evil. And the list is very skewed to the recent historical past. Noone is inherently evil apart from the person I voted for; Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose hatred and ignorance symbolises all that is wrong with the world today.

 

[luiz]

What luiz said about killing friends isnt a criterion by which I would judge evil. If Hitler had found political opponenets among close friends (i'm not sure if he hadnt), he would've killed them too. This is not to say I evaluate Stalin positively, but comparing him with Hitler is stupid. A result of the American myths about communism being as bad as Nazism.

What about forcing friends to sign the death sentence of their wifes just to test loyalty?
What about sentencing life-long friends to death simply because those friends had some political ambition?

What about killing Trotsky's family that remained in Russia just because they were related to Trotsky?

What about killing in the most brutal way a whole class, the kulaks? How is that different from killing an ethnicity? The kulaks were not "capitalist exploiters" they were just peasants who worked hard.

What about confiscating most of the production of ALL peasants, leading to the greatest starvation of the century?

What about sentencing dozens of thousands to death because they voiced some "anti-soviet" opinion?

What about sentencing people to death just because, at some point, they had cordial relations with Trotsky?

In terms of deaths, Communism is worse then Nazism.

Morally, they are equal. Both sacrifice the individual for some "greater good", both are willing to wipe out half of the world to put in practice their STUPID ideals.

 

[luiz]

Hear hear.

And saying that Karl Marx was evil because of the crimes of Stalin and Pol Pot is like saying Jesus was evil because of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition!

Eh...no.

I don't blame Marx for Stalin or Pol Pot, but it's undeniable that the marxist theory made apology of violence, if it suited the proletarian cause. Jesus never advocated any form of violence, not even to defend his life or the lifes of his loved ones.

As for Marx, he insisted in the necessity of an armed revolution, destruction of the capitalist class, dictatorship of the proletariat, etc... He was quite a violence fan.

 

[Lathesca]

What about forcing friends to sign the death sentence of their wifes just to test loyalty?
What about sentencing life-long friends to death simply because those friends had some political ambition?

What about killing Trotsky's family that remained in Russia just because they were related to Trotsky?

What about killing in the most brutal way a whole class, the kulaks? How is that different from killing an ethnicity? The kulaks were not "capitalist exploiters" they were just peasants who worked hard.

What about confiscating most of the production of ALL peasants, leading to the greatest starvation of the century?

What about sentencing dozens of thousands to death because they voiced some "anti-soviet" opinion?

What about sentencing people to death just because, at some point, they had cordial relations with Trotsky?

In terms of deaths, Communism is worse then Nazism.

Morally, they are equal. Both sacrifice the individual for some "greater good", both are willing to wipe out half of the world to put in practice their STUPID ideals.

Hitler killed Rudolf Hess, one of his longest, closest and most loyal friends, on the Night of the Long knives, along with other friends/allies. He did tend to shy more away from this confrontation, but ultimately when it came to the crunch...

 

[Reno]

I vote for Stalin, because well i don't think he was "worse" or "more evil" then Hitler but one of the reasons that Finland is not in the same conditions as Estonia is now (economically and such, beutiful country othervise) is because of Hitler. (Ribbentrop pact, the one signed by President Ryti for military assistance ofr Finland during september 1944)

 

[Reno]

Hitler killed Rudolf Hess, one of his longest, closest and most loyal friends, on the Night of the Long knives, along with other friends/allies. He did tend to shy more away from this confrontation, but ultimately when it came to the crunch...

Rudolf Hess was not killed during the Night of the Long knives he was captured by the British when he came to nevogotiate peace beatween Britain and Germany in 1940 (41?).

 

[nonconformist]

He means Roehm, I suppose.

 

[Reno]

He means Roehm, I suppose.

Either a bad typo, loss of memory or just not knowing wich one was it.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Hitler killed Rudolf Hess, one of his longest, closest and most loyal friends, on the Night of the Long knives, along with other friends/allies. He did tend to shy more away from this confrontation, but ultimately when it came to the crunch...

Actually Hitler did not kill Hess. He was shot down over England trying to start peace negotiations with them.

 

[Lathesca]

Rudolf Hess was not killed during the Night of the Long knives he was captured by the British when he came to nevogotiate peace beatween Britain and Germany in 1940 (41?).

My stupid mistake - mixing up my Nazi leaders. D'oh! I meant Roehm, of course. Thank you Reno and Nonconformist!

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I believe it was Suddam Hussein. I have seen some pictures of some of his chem./bio weapons. Not pretty. I also heard, on the History Channel, one story of how he got some people to submit to his will. He first shot the husband, you know what usually happens to the wife, and if that doesn't beat all, one of his troops grabs the infant by the leg, swung it around a few times and launched it head first at the wall. No further explanation needed.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

My stupid mistake - mixing up my Nazi leaders. D'oh! I meant Roehm, of course. Thank you Reno and Nonconformist!

This is true, and I had just said this in the previous forum. But, thank you for verifying that I wasn't just making it up.

 

[nonconformist]

I believe it was Suddam Hussein. I have seen some pictures of some of his chem./bio weapons. Not pretty. I also heard, on the History Channel, one story of how he got some people to submit to his will. He first shot the husband, you know what usually happens to the wife, and if that doesn't beat all, one of his troops grabs the infant by the leg, swung it around a few times and launched it head first at the wall. No further explanation needed.

Saddam Hussein really can't be compared to the likes of Hitler, stalin or Pol Pot.

And Bin Laden, despite what a lot of people say, doesn't even come close.