Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote: I think there's more than enough grounds for debate in 'Hitler wasn't evil'.

Then there are the debates of whether evil truly exists.

Whether national leaders can be fairly labeled as evil when the very nature of their jobs forces them to condone what most would consider evil in the name of national interest.

And my favorite, The subjectiveness of morality and the concept of the difference between good and evil being who won and who lost.

Yes, We have plenty of debates in this thread.

This entire debate is based on a word that doesn't even have a meaning.

·vil   [ee-vuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.
harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.
due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.
marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Lets examine this. Morally wrong or bad; immoral, wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.

Morally wrong: subjective, as is bad
Immoral: Means morally wrong
Wicked: Means evil vicious or immoral
evil deeds: A confusing entry
an evil life: ditto

Meaningless outside of codefied moralistic systems, and if you want to count the number of individual laws broken by u.s. or christian law it looks like MAO wins (30 million cases of manslaughter, abandonment and close to a billion counts of theft!.) but then thats a totally disingenuous argument.

Harmful; injurious; Evil laws.

Well, harmful is once again subjective though not so much so. Injurious even less so. Evil laws are laws that are evil, why is the dictionary referencing the word with the word itself? In this definition we could once again classify mao as a leader. The great leap foreward engineered by Mao and others was quite injurious to quite a few people. Quite harmful as well. Once again, by virtue of body count he is the leader. Interestingly though if one is classifying a leader simply by bodycount stalin surpasses mao in percentages of his governed population killed and hitlers percentages look even better. Do bodycounts make one evil? Is it total, or percentage of possible? Does the number in Maos case make it worse than the intention and cruelty of hitlers case or the uncarring intention of stallins?

Moving on.

characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.

Well we aren't going to be using this metric are we?

due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.

I believe that while again relative, this is just as important as a sheer bodycount. People die, often times during great social upheavels a lot of them die. They die when really big tornadoes hit buildings too. People die. Just as AIDS isn't evil when it kills without intention can any leader be? Well, thats not important since they all knew it was happening and in all three cases acted to enable this to continue. All are possessing of character flaws, perhaps the most flawed being hitler here, but madness nationalism and racism are traits shared by many.

marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Hitler did throw some good tantrums. It's a youtube meme now in fact. He really hates battletech and pokemon. As the most personally written about we have a greater understanding of the furer, while stalin and mao were both quite secretive as is the nature of their rulership. This is a stupid definition for evil though, so lets throw this one out too.

In the end when there is no framework for the definition by which we are seeking to define individuals then there can be no consensus or understanding. The Orkeo-manchu diatribe about mao somehow not being evil despite the highest personal impersonal bodycount in history, the destruction of countless historical heritages, the absolute repression of faith and belief, and the iron fisted destruction of all forms of dissension. He is evil. There is no tennable way to argue that he is not, just as Manchus arguments were often pedantic and circular; focusing more on orkeosaurus' lack of understanding than any real substantive defense. That said, mao wasn't evil. He was a believer. He believed in collectivism and communism and everything that goes with it. He was a brilliant leader and a terrible social engineer. His great evil was incompetence and the iron fist to stay in power despite it. Conversely Stalins great evil was the wolf like brutality that characterized his rule and Hitlers great evil was his utter disdain and disregard for the lives of humans he considered lesser. All are "evil" by many definitions. However they were not the most evil. Hitler never choked a child to death with his bare hands. Mao never ate the bodies of his citizens. Stalin never cut the children from the wombs of his enemies so that they may not take up arms against him. They just had big numbers enabled by great conflicts or even bigger populations. In history there have been many that while less able to cause death and destruction were far worse in character and act. Vlad the impaler for instance!

Personally I vote for Kim Ill sung or Kim Jong Ill. Kim jong ill is a pedophile, a cannibal, an institutional mass murderer, a personal murderer, and a false deity. Of any living being he has the numbers, personality, and personal acts to qualify. He is a monster in the vein of a psychopath with the national power and command of a god.

Regardless however this conversation is idiotic.

ShumaGorath wrote:This entire debate is based on a word that doesn't even have a meaning.

When people saw the thread title people knew what the word meant, they meant it for people to list the person they think did the most messed up stuff. That's all the meaning the word means. I mean, I don't believe in any kind of objective measure of good and evil, but I don't have to to say that in my opinion Pol Pot is worse than all the others.

ShumaGorath wrote:In history there have been many that while less able to cause death and destruction were far worse in character and act. Vlad the impaler for instance.

Honestly Shuma and all the others quoting Vlad, what do you REALLY know about the guy? Give me one reason why he was such an evil fella

aka_tizz wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:In history there have been many that while less able to cause death and destruction were far worse in character and act. Vlad the impaler for instance.

Honestly Shuma and all the others quoting Vlad, what do you REALLY know about the guy? Give me one reason why he was such an evil fella

When he came to power Vlad ruled with the intention of exacting revenge on the boyars for killing his father and eldest brother. Though Vlad took nearly a decade to do so, he fulfilled this vow, completing the task on an Easter Sunday around 1457. The older boyars and their families were immediately impaled. The younger and healthier nobles and their families were marched north from Târgovişte to the ruins of Poienari Castle in the mountains above the Argeş River, 40 miles north of Târgovişte. Vlad was determined to rebuild this ancient fortress as his own stronghold and refuge so he might monitor the movements of the Hungarians coming through Transylvania and the Turks of the Ottoman Empire. The enslaved boyars, their families and some master masons were forced to labor until their deaths, rebuilding the old castle with materials from another nearby ruin. According to tradition, they labored until the clothes fell off their bodies and then were forced to continue working naked. None survived the construction of castle Poienari, as those who did not die from exhaustion were impaled.

[/In the West, Vlad III Ţepeş has been characterized as a tyrant who took sadistic pleasure in torturing and killing his enemies. The number of his victims ranges from 40,000 to 100,000.[25] According to the German stories the number of victims he had killed was at least 80,000. In addition to the 80,000 victims mentioned he also had whole villages and fortresses destroyed and burned to the ground.[26] These numbers are most likely exaggerated.[27]
The atrocities committed by Vlad in the German stories include impaling, torturing, burning, skinning, roasting, and boiling people, feeding people the flesh of their friends or relatives, cutting off limbs, and drowning. All of these punishments mainly came from things people did that displeased Vlad the most; stealing, lying, and adulterous relations. Other methods of punishment included skinning the feet of thieves, then putting salt on them and letting goats lick off the salt. This was a way that Vlad kept his people in order and taught them that stealing would not be tolerated in his lands. No exceptions were made: he punished anyone who broke his laws, whether men or women, no matter the age, religion or social class.
Impalement was Vlad's preferred method of torture and execution. His method of torture was a horse attached to each of the victim's legs as a sharpened stake was gradually forced into the body. Death by impalement was slow and agonizing. Victims sometimes endured for hours or even days. Vlad often had the stakes arranged in various geometric patterns. The most common pattern was a ring of concentric circles in the outskirts of a city that constituted his target. The height of the spear indicated the rank of the victim. The corpses were often left decaying for months.
One of the most famous woodcuts of the period shows Vlad feasting in a forest of stakes and their grisly burdens outside Braşov, while a nearby executioner cuts apart other victims. This place was famously known as the Forest of the Impaled. In this forest is a story of Vlad's "sense of humor": a servant was holding his nose and Vlad said to him while feasting "why do you do that?" The servant replied, "I cannot stand the stench" Vlad immediately ordered him impaled on the highest stake and said, "then you shall live up there where the stench cannot reach you." [28]
Vlad the Impaler is alleged to have committed even more impalements and other tortures against invading Ottoman forces. It was reported that an invading Ottoman army turned back in fright when it encountered thousands of rotting corpses impaled on the banks of the Danube.[12] It has also been said that in 1462 Mehmed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, a man noted for his own psychological warfare tactics, returned to Constantinople after being sickened by the sight of 20,000 impaled corpses outside Vlad's capital of Târgovişte. Many of the victims were Turkish prisoners of war Vlad had previously captured during the Turkish invasion. The total Turkish casualty toll in this battle reached over 40,000. The warrior sultan turned command of the campaign against Vlad over to subordinates and returned to Constantinople, even though his army had initially outnumbered Vlad's three to one

He sounded like a real nice guy.

ShumaGorath wrote:This entire debate is based on a word that doesn't even have a meaning.

..

That said, mao wasn't evil. He was a believer. He believed in collectivism and communism and everything that goes with it. He was a brilliant leader and a terrible social engineer. His great evil was incompetence and the iron fist to stay in power despite it. Conversely Stalins great evil was the wolf like brutality that characterized his rule and Hitlers great evil was his utter disdain and disregard for the lives of humans he considered lesser.

I like this argument more. Shuma's more eloquent.

Subjective word.

If we had an argument about who was the "most good" human being, we'd be here for even longer.

sA

Yes, Shuma, Wikipedia, i know that. Believe me, it's not exactly objective.

Yes, he was cruel and sadistic, but his torturing and killing only extended to "boyars" - rich guys, landowners, who forced peasants to work their lands till dropping dead of exhaustion while their families starved to death. Most of all, they were usually protected by Turks - which no Romanian of that time really liked, for reasons which i presume you may know. If you don't, i'll tell you. In the time, Turkish invasions were quite common in the region, with all the stuff usually attached to invasions - looting, raping, burning and the like.

In Vlad's time, partly due to his draconic methods, criminality rate fell to near-zero (he was some 15th century Night-Haunter). As Wikipedia clearly states, "In the West,...blah blah blah". In the West. Around here (i live in the guy's damned country, some 450 years later), Vlad is renowned as some of the best rulers Romania ever had (Along with Stefan the Great, Mircea the Elder, and Mihai), and a stalwart fighter against the Turks. He is barely the man Bram Stoker wrote about, and definitely not the man the West knows.

Believe me, sometimes i wish i lived then, just to see every traitor and landowner tremble to death and change his attitude to a more peasant-friendly one at the mere thought of Vlad paying him a visit.

If you ever have the time and the money, you should pay Bran castle a visit. I'm sure it will change your opinion of who Vlad really was.

And last of all, if you think i'm wrong and i don't know what i'm talking about, i'll tell you this : every Romanian kid from 5th to 12th grade has every year,at History classes, one class specifically dedicated to Vlad and who he was - every year with increasing detail and information. I can't remember exactly everything, but if you wish i could dig through my notebooks and give you more.
Peace!

In Vlad's time, partly due to his draconic methods, criminality rate fell to near-zero (he was some 15th century Night-Haunter). As Wikipedia clearly states, "In the West,...blah blah blah". In the West. Around here (i live in the guy's damned country, some 450 years later), Vlad is renowned as some of the best rulers Romania ever had (Along with Stefan the Great, Mircea the Elder, and Mihai), and a stalwart fighter against the Turks. He is barely the man Bram Stoker wrote about, and definitely not the man the West knows.

It's quite clear that his myth is heavily exagerated, though his status as a national hero arrived some 300 years after his death at minimum. His subjects certainly would not have thought so, nor would his enemies. It's very easy to glorify atrocities in hindsight. Mao is known as the father of modern china and Stalin is quite well thought of in Russia. That doesn't somehow vindicate their actions. He was directly responsible for the deaths of thousands, likely tens of thousands and the vast majority of those were tortured terribly. People don't deserve to have their innards splayed in front of them for stealing food.

That doesn't make a ruler a good one.

And last of all, if you think i'm wrong and i don't know what i'm talking about, i'll tell you this : every Romanian kid from 5th to 12th grade has every year,at History classes, one class specifically dedicated to Vlad and who he was - every year with increasing detail and information. I can't remember exactly everything, but if you wish i could dig through my notebooks and give you more.
Peace!

Every kid in china is taught about Mao. Every Russian is taught about Stalin. National and nationalistic heroes aren't always what they get talked up in grade school and It's telling that vlad was not regarded as a hero until hundreds of years after his death.

Really? As i can see you're so familiar with Wikipedia, you should read better the article there. Every side which tells his stories is acknowledged by Wikipedia to be either exaggerated, diformed or outright false.

Moreover, a simple matter of thinking. Let's presume you are a 15th century peasant. You are forced each day to work you master's land, while being paid with virtually nothing. You have a wife and kids who starve to death, while your master and his family gorge themselves on the foods and drinks. Then Vlad comes, sees what your master does, and gives him a horrifying death by impalement, followed by giving you part of his lands. Would you find him evil then, or would you consider it justice?

ShumaGorath wrote:Every kid in china is taught about Mao. Every Russian is taught about Stalin. National and nationalistic heroes aren't always what they get talked up in grade school and It's telling that vlad was not regarded as a hero until hundreds of years after his death.

Not necessarily. I consider we are objective enough to be taught which person in our history was bad and who wasn't, for instance Dej and Ceasusescu (communist leaders), or Marshal Antonescu (WW2 Nazi collaborationist)
And yes, every Russian may be taught about Stalin, but are they told he was a hero? I very very very much doubt it. About this we should ask Soladrin, he should know what they're taught in school about Stalin

Really? As i can see you're so familiar with Wikipedia, you should read better the article there. Every side which tells his stories is acknowledged by Wikipedia to be either exaggerated, diformed or outright false.

See

It's quite clear that his myth is heavily exagerated, though his status as a national hero arrived some 300 years after his death at minimum.

I posted that in the post you're quoting!

Moreover, a simple matter of thinking. Let's presume you are a 15th century peasant. You are forced each day to work you master's land, while being paid with virtually nothing. You have a wife and kids who starve to death, while your master and his family gorge themselves on the foods and drinks. Then Vlad comes, sees what your master does, and gives him a horrifying death by impalement, followed by giving you part of his lands. Would you find him evil then, or would you consider it justice?

That depends. Did he later tie my legs to horses and drive a stake through my torso for being accused of adultery?

Would you give him any reasons to accuse you of adultery?

aka_tizz wrote:Would you give him any reasons to accuse you of adultery?

I doubt he goes around accusing people of adultery. My donkey-cave neighbor that wants my land might though! These things happen when you have no court system and arbitrarily harsh punishments for crimes that are often times impossible to prove! Laws and punishments like these are sort of the hallmark of really bad or incredibly violent leaders.

Well, even with the present court system people are punished for crimes they didn't commit, so i hardly see the point there.

aka_tizz wrote:Well, even with the present court system people are punished for crimes they didn't commit, so i hardly see the point there.

True, when chad totally narcs on you saying you had a dime bag when you totally didn't the pigs still came and tore through your locker and found that dank roach you had been saving! You know what we don't do to people falsely accused of theft? Place one thousand of them outside of a 7/11 impaled on 20 foot stakes to ward off other would be shoplifters. This conversation is ridiculous. You're attempting to justify the torture and killing of thousands of people for minor crimes because those punishments were handed out evenly. That doesn't make it any better.

ShumaGorath wrote:You're attempting to justify the torture and killing of thousands of people for minor crimes because those punishments were handed out evenly. That doesn't make it any better.

No, i'm merely saying that your perception of who he was and what he did is/may be distorted. That is what i've been trying to prove from the beginning. Were the fact that he truly did those things widely proven and accepted, i wouldn't be having this conversation. I still consider knowing it better simply by seeing his legacy firsthand and not through Wikipedia and shady books and chronicles

aka_tizz wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You're attempting to justify the torture and killing of thousands of people for minor crimes because those punishments were handed out evenly. That doesn't make it any better.

No, i'm merely saying that your perception of who he was and what he did is/may be distorted. That is what i've been trying to prove from the beginning. Were the fact that he truly did those things widely proven and accepted, i wouldn't be having this conversation. I still consider knowing it better simply by seeing his legacy firsthand and not through Wikipedia and shady books and chronicles

Firsthand experience several centuries later is not good or functional empirical evidence for the quality of life or quality of rulership. You aren't doctor manhatten, you don't experience time from a quantumly separate position.

ShumaGorath wrote:

aka_tizz wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You're attempting to justify the torture and killing of thousands of people for minor crimes because those punishments were handed out evenly. That doesn't make it any better.

No, i'm merely saying that your perception of who he was and what he did is/may be distorted. That is what i've been trying to prove from the beginning. Were the fact that he truly did those things widely proven and accepted, i wouldn't be having this conversation. I still consider knowing it better simply by seeing his legacy firsthand and not through Wikipedia and shady books and chronicles

Firsthand experience several centuries later is not good or functional empirical evidence for the quality of life or quality of rulership. You aren't doctor manhatten, you don't experience time from a quantumly separate position.

Firsthand experience several centuries later 400 km away from where he lived is still better than Firsthand experience several centuries later 10000 km away from where he lived

At least agree with me on this. No matter what you or i have to say, none of us will probably change their opinions. So let's put an end to this

aka_tizz wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

aka_tizz wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You're attempting to justify the torture and killing of thousands of people for minor crimes because those punishments were handed out evenly. That doesn't make it any better.

No, i'm merely saying that your perception of who he was and what he did is/may be distorted. That is what i've been trying to prove from the beginning. Were the fact that he truly did those things widely proven and accepted, i wouldn't be having this conversation. I still consider knowing it better simply by seeing his legacy firsthand and not through Wikipedia and shady books and chronicles

Firsthand experience several centuries later is not good or functional empirical evidence for the quality of life or quality of rulership. You aren't doctor manhatten, you don't experience time from a quantumly separate position.

Firsthand experience several centuries later 400 km away from where he lived is still better than Firsthand experience several centuries later 10000 km away from where he lived

At least agree with me on this. No matter what you or i have to say, none of us will probably change their opinions. So let's put an end to this

I'm arguing that firsthand experience is worthless in this situation, not that the gradation governed by distance is particularly important. However you're right, we're unlikely to come to consensus here so lets just leave it behind.

I know this is about individuals but I'd like to nominate a few groups of people that seem to breed "Evil"

Lawyers

Politicians

IRS Auditors

Insurance Adjusters

Record producers

The Wiggles

Day Time Talk shows

And The Guys who invented:

Power Rangers

Reality TV


My next nominations for individuals would be Oprah, Hillary Clinton, Rush Limbaugh, Arlen Spectre and Steve Jobs

Captain Crunch.

breadlord wrote:Captain Crunch.

No...I'm sorry,but when it comes to "evil" cereal mascots...no one tops Tucan son of sam.

FITZZ wrote:

breadlord wrote:Captain Crunch.

No...I'm sorry,but when it comes to "evil" cereal mascots...no one tops Tucan son of sam.

Captain Crunch.

aka_tizz wrote:And yes, every Russian may be taught about Stalin, but are they told he was a hero? I very very very much doubt it. About this we should ask Soladrin, he should know what they're taught in school about Stalin

There is presently a powerful drive to rehabilitate the image of Stalin in Russia. There have been government raids on archives documenting the atrocities of Stalinist Russia. Children are taught about Stalin and his forced labour camps and purges are brushed over in place of industrialisation.

Hm, i have to admit i had no idea about that. IMO, they should be told
"Kids, say with me : Stalin was bad, Stalin was bad, Stalin was..."
"Kids choir repeating with teacher 100000x times over"

I do not believe such talk. Stalin was a good man, with happy feelings, all of the time.

Yes, and he built the best holiday locations where people could go - for FREE!. And he had the best ads for them:

"Almost FREE 5-year trip to Kolima!!! Transport and accommodation paid for by the great USSR Government! Prices as low as one bad thought of the communist regime! Business class seats will require that bad thought to be verbally expressed! What are you waiting for? There are places for everyone!!! APPLY NOW!!!"

Oh, he was also leader of the Happy Marines - Always Happy!!! All the time!!!

Judas was:

A. The most evil person EVAR!1!!!!1!!
B. The most selfless person EVAR!1!!!!!1!!
C. Irrelevant

aka_tizz wrote:Hm, i have to admit i had no idea about that. IMO, they should be told
"Kids, say with me : Stalin was bad, Stalin was bad, Stalin was..."
"Kids choir repeating with teacher 100000x times over"

Would probably be better, but not by much. I think we should just teach historical figures as they were, what they did and didn't do, and the circumstances that allowed/facilitated that. Leave judgement for internet forums.

Hello, my name-a Stalin, I like a-making sexy time and genociding Ukraine. My sister is number 1 prostitute in all of Mudda Russia!

sebster wrote:

There is presently a powerful drive to rehabilitate the image of Stalin in Russia. .

Kick ass 'tache at least.