Who was the most evil man in history?

[Plotinus]

Jesus never advocated any form of violence, not even to defend his life or the lifes of his loved ones.

How do you know that? Have you read Matthew 10:34 or Luke 22:36-38?

I don't see how simply advocating violence in some circumstances makes one either "evil" or responsible for the acts of those who are later inspired by one's theories. Nelson Mandela advocated violence in the struggle for black rights in South Africa, but most people don't regard him as "evil" because of that. Or are we to blame Nelson Mandela for the actions of Robert Mugabe, perhaps? That's where this sort of logic would lead.

 

[knorman]

Plotinus 1, luiz 0

 

[Xen]

probably the worst thing mussolini did was co-operate with Hitler in the destruction of Italian jewry - which almost all european (puppet) governments did.

I thought Mussolini actually tried to resis that facet of being a Nazi ally?

 

[HannibalBarka]

Well depend how you "measure" evilness? if it's about who caused the biggest number of deaths, then Stalin and Mao would be good candidates, although the Kaiser of Germany in WWI is maybe worse.
Now if it's the relative number of deaths, then the British Crown would be a better candidate, after all they caused the death of about 30% of all Irish population in 19th century famine (can't remember who was the King by then), or Pol Pot who caused the death of 1/5 the population of his country. The colonization of the new world is another atrocity that almost wiped out the population of two continents, so Isabella and consor should be on the list.
As for myself, I think Hitler is the worst, because he mass-killed people (ie the Jews) for no other reason that killing them. I mean it was even against his own interests, he would have benefited a lot from the knowlodge of a lot of Jewish scientists for example. Stalin, Mao, and all the others had always a "reason" for the atrocities they've committed.

 

[EquinoxOmega]

I voted for other, because I don't think you can really call anybody good or evil. You can only say that you dislike someone's deeds.

 

[superisis]

What about Ghengis Khan, he obliterated cities without great reason.

 

[luiz]

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...

OK, so Hitler killed one friend.
Stalin killed nearly all of his friends, including the ones that helped him alot during his exile years, like Kamenev. He also killed people plenty of people who were responsible for his rise to power, like Zinoviev, Bukharin, Rykov and so many others.

 

[luiz]

How do you know that? Have you read Matthew 10:34 or Luke 22:36-38?

I don't see how simply advocating violence in some circumstances makes one either "evil" or responsible for the acts of those who are later inspired by one's theories. Nelson Mandela advocated violence in the struggle for black rights in South Africa, but most people don't regard him as "evil" because of that. Or are we to blame Nelson Mandela for the actions of Robert Mugabe, perhaps? That's where this sort of logic would lead.

As I said I don't blame Marx for Stalin, I just find it very questionable to compare a violence fan like Marx to an ultra-pacifist like Jesus. What is the passage that you refer? The only violent act commited by Jesus that I can think of is his attack on the merchants of the Temple, but it's not like he killed anyone. It's not like he killed an entire class, like Marx advocated.

Edit: And for clarifications sake, I consider the marxist theory extremely immoral, but when thinking of Marx I think more of an arrogant fool then a plain evil man. There is more stupidity in his theories then evilness, even though certain parts of it are quite evil.

 

[nonconformist]

OK, so Hitler killed one friend.
Stalin killed nearly all of his friends, including the ones that helped him alot during his exile years, like Kamenev. He also killed people plenty of people who were responsible for his rise to power, like Zinoviev, Bukharin, Rykov and so many others.

Exactly. He was "eeny-meeny-miney-mo".
If you look at Hitler, many of the people who opposed him indirectly (such as generals who stood up to him), were actually just forced to retire, and live of a pension. Stalin purged because a guy designed a bad tank.

 

[superisis]

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.

 

[Lathesca]

I think Hitler is the worst, because he mass-killed people (ie the Jews) for no other reason that killing them. I mean it was even against his own interests, he would have benefited a lot from the knowlodge of a lot of Jewish scientists for example.

Not really against Hitler's own interests. It depends how 'interest' is defined. He killed people to allow a superior aryan race to prevail. This was utmost, and he was actively working for his own interests in this case. He knew of the economic benefit, but subjugated it to a higher priority, within his worldview.

 

[luiz]

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.

Many times Stalin killed out of pure revenge, with no practical purposes whatsoever. He never forgot anything, after he consolidated his power he killed people who wrote ONE article criticising him 10 years before. People who posed no threat whatsoever, who supported him.

 

[superisis]

I'm not claiming that he acted irrational, but in his view, he was consolidating his power in that he was paranoid.

 

[luiz]

In many cases he thought he was consolidating his power, in others he simply wanted to punish people who dared to say something slightly negatinve about him a decade before.

 

[superisis]

And why would he want to do that? His ruthlessness did lead to him being quite the unquestionable ruler, whom everyone feared. He became in that way invincible, the "man of steel" he wanted to be (granted he didn't see this himself), but his actions did lead to him have quite a lot of power.

 

[HannibalBarka]

In many cases he thought he was consolidating his power, in others he simply wanted to punish people who dared to say something slightly negatinve about him a decade before.

Well that's the difference my friend:
Stalin did kill people he knows, for a reason, a guy he have chosen and considered a danger for him or for revenge because they criticised him some 10 years ago. But still there is a reason.
while Hitler did kill (well not himself directly) millions of people he never met or even knew, who were of no threat to him, who did never harmed him in any manner just because they were what they were. That's killing for no reason but hatred.

 

[nonconformist]

Well that's the difference my friend:
Stalin did kill people he knows, for a reason, a guy he have chosen and considered a danger for him or for revenge because they criticised him some 10 years ago. But still there is a reason.
while Hitler did kill (well not himself directly) millions of people he never met or even knew, who were of no threat to him, who did never harmed him in any manner just because they were what they were. That's killing for no reason but hatred.

Wrong; Stalin set killing quotas. For example, to Commisar Khruschev(I'm not kidding) he would send "Kill 100,000 potential enemies in Ukraine, OR ELSE".
In the Soviet Parliament (the Politburo? I forget the name), he would stand behind them all, and randomly pick out maybe five or six as "enemies of the people" and have thm dragged out to be shot.

 

[Plotinus]

[luiz] You can look those passages up on the Internet without any difficulty. In one, Jesus says that he brings not peace but a sword; in the other he checks that his disciples are armed. The point is, to call Jesus an "ultra-pacifist" goes well beyond the evidence. There is evidence that Jesus did advocate (or at least not condemn) violence under some circumstances (although what those circumstances were may be open to debate). And my point was that the mere advocating of violence under certain circumstances doesn't make someone evil. Were the American revolutionaries evil because they fought the British? Were the French Resistance evil for fighting the Nazis? Of course, no-one would liken Stalin to those examples, but if Marx believed that violence would be the only way to free the workers from the tyranny of capital and end their exploitation then I don't see that that is so obviously wrong. He may have been mistaken in his overall assessment of the situation, but that's a different matter.

 

[luiz]

Well that's the difference my friend:
Stalin did kill people he knows, for a reason, a guy he have chosen and considered a danger for him or for revenge because they criticised him some 10 years ago. But still there is a reason.
while Hitler did kill (well not himself directly) millions of people he never met or even knew, who were of no threat to him, who did never harmed him in any manner just because they were what they were. That's killing for no reason but hatred.

In Hitler's mind there was a reason.
He considered those people to be lesser races, actively involved in the destructions of the "aryan" race. That's a strong reason, for an insane person like Hitler.

Edit: And as noncon remembered quite well, in more then one occasion Stalin ordered basically random killings of tens of thousands, specially in the Ukraine and in the Volga region.

 

[luiz]

[luiz] You can look those passages up on the Internet without any difficulty. In one, Jesus says that he brings not peace but a sword; in the other he checks that his disciples are armed. The point is, to call Jesus an "ultra-pacifist" goes well beyond the evidence. There is evidence that Jesus did advocate (or at least not condemn) violence under some circumstances (although what those circumstances were may be open to debate). And my point was that the mere advocating of violence under certain circumstances doesn't make someone evil. Were the American revolutionaries evil because they fought the British? Were the French Resistance evil for fighting the Nazis? Of course, no-one would liken Stalin to those examples, but if Marx believed that violence would be the only way to free the workers from the tyranny of capital and end their exploitation then I don't see that that is so obviously wrong. He may have been mistaken in his overall assessment of the situation, but that's a different matter.

The sword passage is metaphorical.

As for advocating violence, think of it this way: if the american revolutionaries had said that they should kill all brits to set America free, that would have been evil. If the French Resistence targeted all peaceful german civilians, that would be evil.

In essence, there is no excuse for advocating the elimination of an entire group of people, be them an ethnicity, a nationality or a "social class".