Worst Dictators Ever?

[Kafka2]

Sorry, but I must pull you back there. You will no doubt have noticed just how internally-contradictory the figures are on that site are. You will also notice that the list compiler expresses scepticism over other figures quoted by the supplier of the "15,000" figure.

I can also tell you that the figures given for the Stronato are downright ludicrous. 200-400 guerillas suspected murdered in the mid 60's? That's laughable. I bet Pastor Coronel's solo bodycount alone was higher than that. It also grossly downplays the genocide of the Ache Indians.

A list of numbers on an internet website only provides coroboration when they don't insult my intelligence and research.

 

[amadeus]

Just so you know, the Pinochet figure is exaggerated in many cases.

NPR and Amnesty International both say 3,197.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Kafka2
Sorry, but I must pull you back there. You will no doubt have noticed just how internally-contradictory the figures are on that site are. You will also notice that the list compiler expresses scepticism over other figures quoted by the supplier of the "15,000" figure.

I can also tell you that the figures given for the Stronato are downright ludicrous. 200-400 guerillas suspected murdered in the mid 60's? That's laughable. I bet Pastor Coronel's solo bodycount alone was higher than that. It also grossly downplays the genocide of the Ache Indians.

A list of numbers on an internet website only provides coroboration when they don't insult my intelligence and research.

Regarding Cuba, I quoted a site provided by another poster, Jack Merchant, just to show that the numbers don't exist only in "sites provided by me".

About the contradictions, I tried to use averages on both cases, there are higher fugures then 15,000 on that site.

Furthermore I think it's beyond reasonable doubt that Castro killed more then Pinochet(what matters little, they are both scum).

 

[lz14]

Originally posted by luiz

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_power4.html

The site itself is laughable. Liu and Deng trying to take power from Mao ? lol. That's like Mao talking himself. The figures were entirely copied from Rummel. His stuff is nothing original, just an average of some other figures. But it's incredible the average of Japan is just 6 million. And as I said, 60 million of USSR death plus their war losses is absurd. I suppose every young Russian today only have one grandparent.

 

[Tathlum]

I suppose every young Russian today only have one grandparent.

I know a young Russian girl with no Grandparents today

Still no information about Jiang. So either you have non or you were complying with my request not to reply with manic charges of Propaganda.

I thank you for sparing my feelings and not providing the information that exposes my ignorance and bigotry

I'll look it up instead.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by luiz
and I heard Ceaucesco was pretty bad too.

As a leader of a country probably, but he wasn't at all a "mass-killer". This is mainly remaining of pre-'89 propaganda ...

Regards

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by lz14

The site itself is laughable. Liu and Deng trying to take power from Mao ? lol. That's like Mao talking himself. The figures were entirely copied from Rummel. His stuff is nothing original, just an average of some other figures. But it's incredible the average of Japan is just 6 million. And as I said, 60 million of USSR death plus their war losses is absurd. I suppose every young Russian today only have one grandparent.

Can you provide a trustworthy link that "proves" that those numbers are wrong?
They are correct, and there is vast bibliography about those numbers.

I also recommend the reading of "The Black Book of Communism", that was written by former french communists btw. They did extensive research, and I defy anyone to prove they're wrong.

 

[luiz]

About russians only having one grandparent, while that's obviously an exaggeration, I once saw a documentary on BBC that stated that the great majority of russian familys had at least one victim of the stalinist terror.

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by Kafka2

A list of numbers on an internet website only provides coroboration when they don't insult my intelligence and research.

Which is why I explicitly referred to the introduction . Getting a proper estimate of any of the instances mentioned is always going to be problematic; the approach of just gathering together what different people claim to have been the true number and present these keeping in mind their respective biases is as good a way as any to go about it. However, it obviously fails when there aren't a lot of estimates readily available - in that case, I'd be more inclined to trust someone who has done some specific research on the subject too.

I linked to the site only because it seemed rather pointless to have people engage in a slanging match on which dictator was worse without any kind of data to back up their claims (not overlooking your rather excellent article on Paraguay of course ) so I felt presenting at least a collation of estimates might contribute to the discussion.

Little did I know that that would constituted opening up a few rather nasty cans of worms .

 

[lz14]

Originally posted by luiz


Can you provide a trustworthy link that "proves" that those numbers are wrong?
They are correct, and there is vast bibliography about those numbers.

I also recommend the reading of "The Black Book of Communism", that was written by former french communists btw. They did extensive research, and I defy anyone to prove they're wrong.

He didn't show the original sources. He does have a long reference as any paper these days would, apparently nobody can look up into every one of those. Even every family lost one mumber, assuming 7 people in a family, four grandparents, two parents and a child, I would doubt the 60 million figure as it would come from a 400 million population.(which was China's population at the time). Anyway the figure can only be treated as a reference, rather than "they are correct".

I read the "black book", the Chiese part. It's a more solid book than your other source. But again it already has the conclusion before it tries to prove it. The facts maybe correct (especially those confessing letters, exactly what they were) but some maybe misinterpreted. Like 'one police men who worked for the previous government was shown from city to city' etc. They carefully used the word 'previous government' to avoid attention, and can I doubt that most of Jiang's policemen have hands full of blood ? I know the same guy will be pull out again un-justly in the cultrual revolution but in 1950 that might be justified.

Anyway I don't want to(not able to) do a critical analysis on the book or anything, but you have to take it with a grain of salt. From what it depicts Chinese population were all in a depressed mood, can't live another day further and Mao doesn't care 'primitive and clumsy' peasants etc. It wasn't quite so. Mao's support all came from the peasants that's where his power lies. China was in a fanatic mood. When Mao said China is developing satillites, students and workers alike all went into the libraries and try to find books about satillites. It's ridiculous in how much Mao controlls people's mind and he didn't do anything with all the supports, but the general picture the book describes was a bit off.

 

[lz14]

Originally posted by Tathlum

Sorry about that. (you are being too nice to me) With your attitude and interest I'm sure you'll find the information. If you still want my opinions I can post it later.

And apologise for saying "westerners never get a chance to know" There are actually plenty of information.

 

[Zardnaar]

1. Stalin
2. Hitler
3. Mao

Just due to sheer numbers and plain ol evil involved. Pol Pot however has struck me as worse than the top 3. The number don't come close but for sheer brutality and stupidity its hard to top. Stalin and Mao at least transformed their country's. Hitler just about did and pre war did rebuild Germany.

Pol Pot's regime destroyed his country's infrastructure, starved thousands and randomly shot people for no reason or for wearing glass's. At least in Stalins/Hitlers/Maos regime you had some opportunity to better yourself (Join the Hitler/Communist youth etc)

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by lz14


He didn't show the original sources. He does have a long reference as any paper these days would, apparently nobody can look up into every one of those. Even every family lost one mumber, assuming 7 people in a family, four grandparents, two parents and a child, I would doubt the 60 million figure as it would come from a 400 million population.(which was China's population at the time). Anyway the figure can only be treated as a reference, rather than "they are correct".

I read the "black book", the Chiese part. It's a more solid book than your other source. But again it already has the conclusion before it tries to prove it. The facts maybe correct (especially those confessing letters, exactly what they were) but some maybe misinterpreted. Like 'one police men who worked for the previous government was shown from city to city' etc. They carefully used the word 'previous government' to avoid attention, and can I doubt that most of Jiang's policemen have hands full of blood ? I know the same guy will be pull out again un-justly in the cultrual revolution but in 1950 that might be justified.

Anyway I don't want to(not able to) do a critical analysis on the book or anything, but you have to take it with a grain of salt. From what it depicts Chinese population were all in a depressed mood, can't live another day further and Mao doesn't care 'primitive and clumsy' peasants etc. It wasn't quite so. Mao's support all came from the peasants that's where his power lies. China was in a fanatic mood. When Mao said China is developing satillites, students and workers alike all went into the libraries and try to find books about satillites. It's ridiculous in how much Mao controlls people's mind and he didn't do anything with all the supports, but the general picture the book describes was a bit off.

I don't know why to take the "Balck Book" with a grain of salt. Like I said earlier, the authors were all known communists, that lost faith on marxism after having access to some sinister facts, that became avaiable mainly after the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of the Moscow Files.

They have no private reason for bashing communism, they wrote the book because it's all true.
And they were not the firsts to reach this conclusion, it's just that they made an extremely well-documented book.

 

[lz14]

Originally posted by luiz


I don't know why to take the "Balck Book" with a grain of salt. Like I said earlier, the authors were all known communists, that lost faith on marxism after having access to some sinister facts, that became avaiable mainly after the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of the Moscow Files.

They have no private reason for bashing communism, they wrote the book because it's all true.
And they were not the firsts to reach this conclusion, it's just that they made an extremely well-documented book.

First, the "black book" is what it is, a black book. It's dedicated to 100% negative about communism and 0% positive. If you conclude there's 0% good communists had done, it's incorrect. The book didn't say that but it is not showing any either. So it is not an objective book. It's not a book about what communism is like, it's a book about what "black" communim did.
I can write a "black book of captalism(or anything for that matter)" without much difficulties. But that is not the entire picture of capitalism either.
So you can't form you entire opinion on this book.

I'll give another example. If you look closely enough you can find many. In the 1943 movement, Mao and the party mistakenly put many of their own officials in the prison. The book did mention Mao bowed three times to party memebers admiting he was wrong, (they included this fact to show Mao was wrong rather than he wan't so "evil" at the time) but the book conveniently left out the fact that Mao later released all of the officials and sent them to the front line. (not as cannon foldes, but like all other officials, they went to work on the front rather than in Yan'an. Obviously if they all hate Mao or betrayed Mao, the damage done on the frontline would be worse than in the rear) Mao's motivation of doing this can still be debated, but it's obviously a postive action. I don't know the authors knew this fact or they deliberately left it out.

As I said, this book is a 'black book'. It doesn't care what white Mao or others had done. Therefore in understanding Mao in totality, the book is not adequate.

Edit: It's similar to Amnesty International and others. Their aim is not showing WHO those people are or WHAT they had done, but only what bad they had done.

And I don't know why just because those people are ex-communists or they have no personal motivation their argument can't be wrong.

 

[MattII]

Don't forget the small dictators as well. Idi Amin and Mugabe among others.

 

[NilesR]

I'm guessing that to vote for a worst dictator ever the person must have ruled a country. Hmmm, I'm imagining I'll go for the safe bet and say Adolf Hitler.

But having to pick one person out of the thousands of very depraved individuals that have committed atrocities against fellow humans is pretty limiting.

Also as a note, I just finished reading the entire thread and have one comment. I noticed that quite a few of you guys posting aren't from the United States and a couple of you voted for George Bush as the worst dictator ever. Most of the people, in fact I think all of them that are listed have commited atrocities against their own citizens as well as citizens of another country.
That's something that George Bush has never done. Some people have varied opinions of our president, personally I'm gonna vote for him again, but to compare him to a Hitler or a Pol Pot or any of those names on that list is kind of insulting.

Also, Lz14 I think you made the comment that patriotism/nationalism is bad.
Firstly they aren't really the same thing.
I'm sorry friend but perhaps you hate your country and are not pround of anything about it. But I happen to love my country, there are of course things that I am not proud of about it, but overall I think the United States is a great place to live and be a part of.

 

[Zardnaar]

Originally posted by NilesR
I'm guessing that to vote for a worst dictator ever the person must have ruled a country. Hmmm, I'm imagining I'll go for the safe bet and say Adolf Hitler.

But having to pick one person out of the thousands of very depraved individuals that have committed atrocities against fellow humans is pretty limiting.

Also as a note, I just finished reading the entire thread and have one comment. I noticed that quite a few of you guys posting aren't from the United States and a couple of you voted for George Bush as the worst dictator ever. Most of the people, in fact I think all of them that are listed have commited atrocities against their own citizens as well as citizens of another country.
That's something that George Bush has never done. Some people have varied opinions of our president, personally I'm gonna vote for him again, but to compare him to a Hitler or a Pol Pot or any of those names on that list is kind of insulting.

You can say alot of things about GWB but he isn't in the same league as Mao, Hitler, Stalin etc. Not even close. Personally I would rate him as an idiot but not evil.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by lz14


First, the "black book" is what it is, a black book. It's dedicated to 100% negative about communism and 0% positive. If you conclude there's 0% good communists had done, it's incorrect. The book didn't say that but it is not showing any either. So it is not an objective book. It's not a book about what communism is like, it's a book about what "black" communim did.
I can write a "black book of captalism(or anything for that matter)" without much difficulties. But that is not the entire picture of capitalism either.
So you can't form you entire opinion on this book.

I'll give another example. If you look closely enough you can find many. In the 1943 movement, Mao and the party mistakenly put many of their own officials in the prison. The book did mention Mao bowed three times to party memebers admiting he was wrong, (they included this fact to show Mao was wrong rather than he wan't so "evil" at the time) but the book conveniently left out the fact that Mao later released all of the officials and sent them to the front line. (not as cannon foldes, but like all other officials, they went to work on the front rather than in Yan'an. Obviously if they all hate Mao or betrayed Mao, the damage done on the frontline would be worse than in the rear) Mao's motivation of doing this can still be debated, but it's obviously a postive action. I don't know the authors knew this fact or they deliberately left it out.

As I said, this book is a 'black book'. It doesn't care what white Mao or others had done. Therefore in understanding Mao in totality, the book is not adequate.

Edit: It's similar to Amnesty International and others. Their aim is not showing WHO those people are or WHAT they had done, but only what bad they had done.

And I don't know why just because those people are ex-communists or they have no personal motivation their argument can't be wrong.

You right, the purpose of the book is only to show the bad part of communist regimes. It's also obvious that most communist regimes around the world did good actions too.

However, when a regime kills 35 million people, the good part doesn't matter. And that's where the Black Book is good. It provides documents to show us the extent of the genocide. Even if the communist regime managed to industrialise China(and Russia, for that matter) this does not justificate in any way the unprecedented number of victims.

 

[Amenhotep7]

My opinion begins to change. Now my list is:
1.Hitler
2. Stalin
3.Mao & Kim Jong-Il (they're tied)

 

[akots]

I'm inclined to believe that Vladimir Lenin somehow surprizingly escaped the attention. He was absolutely insane, was not elected, killed about 7 million people with more or less direct orders, and started the whole 20th century dictator mess. He was pure evil indeed. And he still rules the spirits of some people which is far worse. And the Mummy is lying there on the Red Square in Moscow still. It has to be buried or the world would turn upside down again.

Almost all condemn Stalin and Hitler. But both were direct consequence of Lenin's plot of worlds development. As well as minor others. The whole WWII was Lenin's dream. He did everything to set up the world in its weird shape by early 1920s. After this, he just went crazy and was confined to sort of powerless excile even by his revolutionary buddies. They wrote in letters to each others that the guy is insane and has to be kept in close quarters before he kills everyone. Another bad thing is that Lenin trashed all phylosophy and ethics and some common knowledge pretending to be intelligent and smart. Indeed he was a jerk capable of manipulating people's minds. Why? He had another big enemy of mankind on his side shaking his horned head in approval. And Lenin was probably the first to start massive religious cleansing in the world. No other ruler before him dared to destroy EVERY CHURCH AND TEMPLE and to kill every priest and monk. Stalin just followed that and did not invent much new. IMHO, the ideas and intentions of Lenin did more harm than anything else in world history.