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.

Sherlock Holmes he was proper evil.. Oh no hang on... No i got that wrong.

sebster wrote:
Well, and econometrics hurt my head.

That word is like the brown note to me.

"Oh, econometrics isn't difficult." they said "You'll love it!" they said.

Vendetta, I said.

Studying (in part) Pol Pot's regime in the aftermath of Vietnam. Pretty much agree with the label of evilest 'government' ever.
When it comes to people, it's a little bit harder. I'm leaning towards agreeing with Albatross.

How could I have forgotten!



Any last words before I cut you slags up?

Mao
Stalin
Pol Pot

Hitler was a light weight. Sure he had a system and was very precise about it but in terms of pure numbers or percentages he was a lightweight compared to these guys. They took mass murder to stunning new levels. Now there are certainly people who are more evil on a personal level, who have done horrific things to their fellow man, but those guys institutionalized suffering and death.

For a diety Jesus was pretty laid back. "Believe in me and accept me as your only god. Don't be a dick. Tell other's about me."

Tyyr wrote:Mao
Stalin
Pol Pot

Hitler was a light weight. Sure he had a system and was very precise about it but in terms of pure numbers or percentages he was a lightweight compared to these guys. They took mass murder to stunning new levels. Now there are certainly people who are more evil on a personal level, who have done horrific things to their fellow man, but those guys institutionalized suffering and death.

That's a pretty odd interpretation of events, what sources are you using?

While Mao's total is at minimum 40 million, most of the deaths came under the (stupid, ideological and totally unecessary) Great Leap Forward. If Mao becomes a monster for those deaths, then the British Empire becomes the second most murderous goverment of all time with the 20 million they killed in India with their (stupid, ideological and totally unecessary) free market plans. As I said earlier, if you just consider body counts, then histories greatest monsters becomes a list of people responsible for bad agricultural policy.

I'm no fan of Mao, but to consider his rule to have a greater level of institutionalised suffering and death is only possible when you have little to no idea about at least one of the two regimes.

Manchu wrote:What's this "Cheesecat" business?

Hi nice to meet you Manchu.

@Cheesecat: We already have a teenager called Cheese Elemental. I was wondering if you were an alternate account of his or something.

Anyway, I don't think Mao is guilty of mass murder.

squilverine wrote:How could I have forgotten!



Any last words before I cut you slags up?

Dammit! Now I can't get that song out of my head! I'm going to have to watch that when I get home to be rid of it.

BORIN' THROUGH YER MIND, THROUGH YER TUMMY, THROUGH YER ANUS

Manchu wrote:@Cheesecat: We already have a teenager called Cheese Elemental. I was wondering if you were an alternate account of his or something.

Anyway, I don't think Mao is guilty of mass murder.

Don't worry I am the one and only Cheesecat.

Tyyr wrote:Mao
Stalin
Pol Pot

Hitler was a light weight. Sure he had a system and was very precise about it but in terms of pure numbers or percentages he was a lightweight compared to these guys. They took mass murder to stunning new levels. Now there are certainly people who are more evil on a personal level, who have done horrific things to their fellow man, but those guys institutionalized suffering and death.

For a diety Jesus was pretty laid back. "Believe in me and accept me as your only god. Don't be a dick. Tell other's about me."

I second this, I really don't consider hitler when I think mass murder, there were others who were so much worse.... and the big 3 have already been named above

on a less serious note
-Justin Bieber-an abomination to mankind......

KingCracker wrote:

Mattlov wrote:Jesus.

His words and actions created numerous cults, rampant idiocy, belief in him and his teachings have been the cause of dozens, if not hundreds of conflicts costing thousands to millions of lives.

One dude started a huge wave of brainwashing and warfare for thousands of years with no sign of letting up, only becoming more extreme and more violent.

Well by that logic, Mohammad is WAY more evil then Jesus. Im pretty sure it wasnt his intentions to cause all that, the guy was normally a pretty peaceful guy.

Evil in religion is not absolutely the fault of it's leaders or figureheads - suggesting that the individual who caused such atrocities in the name of their god is less to blame than a prophet who was by all reports mostly peaceful in life is kind of misguided. Brainwashed, stupid, or self-inspired genius, evil is evil.

By the bye, 'by that logic', they're about the same in historical terms. The key phrase is 'in history'.

Huffy wrote:I second this, I really don't consider hitler when I think mass murder, there were others who were so much worse.... and the big 3 have already been named above

"While Mao's total is at minimum 40 million, most of the deaths came under the (stupid, ideological and totally unecessary) Great Leap Forward. If Mao becomes a monster for those deaths, then the British Empire becomes the second most murderous goverment of all time with the 20 million they killed in India with their (stupid, ideological and totally unecessary) free market plans. As I said earlier, if you just consider body counts, then histories greatest monsters becomes a list of people responsible for bad agricultural policy.

I'm no fan of Mao, but to consider his rule to have a greater level of institutionalised suffering and death is only possible when you have little to no idea about at least one of the two regimes."

I think when you think about who is the most evil, you have to take the sadistic intentions behind their actions, rather than the deathcount. With this in mind, my top 5 would be:

5) Charles Manson
4) Ruhollah Khomeini
3) Adolf Hitler
2) Ivan the Terrible
1) Vlad the Impaler

That Elizabeth chick was pretty bad, I think she was way more sadistic that hitler or even Ivan the Terrible, they were both doing what they thought was best for their nations. Incidentally, happy birthday Hitler, hope the Pineapple is a special big size today!

/Little Nicky Reference.

C.S Gotto or perhaps the man who decided that GW was gonna knock of Sqauts?

Actually, I wouldn't even put Hitler up there Darth Bob. After all, despite his obvious enough anti-semitism, he wasn't the one to come up with the idea of the "Final Solution". (I believe there was at one point a plan to ship the Jews to Madagascar. An alternative to the Death Camps at least. )

Also, I would disagree with Mao, and maybe even the branding of Stalin. Both leaders did push thier somewhat backwards and somewhat gakky countries into the modern era. You don't get that kind of progress for your people without seriously cutting some ethical corners.

Emperor's Faithful wrote:I believe there was at one point a plan to ship the Jews to Madagascar.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Actually, I wouldn't even put Hitler up there Darth Bob. After all, despite his obvious enough anti-semitism, he wasn't the one to come up with the idea of the "Final Solution". (I believe there was at one point a plan to ship the Jews to Madagascar. An alternative to the Death Camps at least. )

Also, I would disagree with Mao, and maybe even the branding of Stalin. Both leaders did push thier somewhat backwards and somewhat gakky countries into the modern era. You don't get that kind of progress for your people without seriously cutting some ethical corners.

Your ability to excuse crimes against humanity is most impressive.

Emperors Faithful wrote:You don't get that kind of progress for your people without seriously cutting some ethical corners.

Wow.

no way guys, it's me.

Albatross wrote:

Emperor's Faithful wrote:I believe there was at one point a plan to ship the Jews to Madagascar.

lol. that is all.

Mattlov is a perfect example of why the ignore button is filled with so much awesomeness. I recomend the rest of you put him on ignore that way I don't have to read that mess when you quote him.

We really can't answer the question of the single most evil person in history becuase we only have records of a few that we know of. And people also define evil differently.

So we are left with lists of potential candidates.

Hitler
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Saddam Hussein
Ivan the terrible
Caligula
Herod
Rodrigo Borgia (Pope Alexander the VI)
Robespierre
Alistar Crowley
Certain Conquistadors

Also the american Indians may consider Andrew Jackson as "the most evil person in history"

GG

I'd think they'd consider Cortez and Pizzarro much higher on the list than Jackson.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Actually, I wouldn't even put Hitler up there Darth Bob. After all, despite his obvious enough anti-semitism, he wasn't the one to come up with the idea of the "Final Solution". (I believe there was at one point a plan to ship the Jews to Madagascar. An alternative to the Death Camps at least. )

I'm not sure how well 'we wanted to ship them to Madagascar but then we ended up at war with Britain so they didn't work and all we could think of execution camps' would have worked at the Nuremberg trials, personally.

Also, I would disagree with Mao, and maybe even the branding of Stalin. Both leaders did push thier somewhat backwards and somewhat gakky countries into the modern era. You don't get that kind of progress for your people without seriously cutting some ethical corners.

While both men can be given credit for modernisation, I think it's a mistake to assume the harm they did was a necessary part of that. I'd argue their excesses (and by excesses I mean forced labour camps and execution of political prisoners) harmed progress.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Robespierre

Hey! I like Robespierre. Sure, he was monster that oversaw the execution of thousands, but you'd be hardpressed to think of a more classic case of irony than the downfall of Robespierre. What's the loss of some Frenchmen when there's irony to be had?

I would take Saddam off the list of evil, he was trained and inserted into his poisiton of national power by the U.S. gov't and when he refused to play ball with big american coorporations he became the target of propaganda in the United States and abroad.

When Iraq tried to steal oil from kuwait, the United States ran in trumpets blazing and smacked him around, but didn't deal a deathblow and essentially warned him that if he doesnt play nice they would come and get him. shortly after the turn of the millenium when Iraq changed from the US dollar to the Euro (which resulted in huge net gains for Iraq, and losses for the US) the US began to seed misinformation about the development of "WMDs" and "harboring terrorists" both of which were lies to justify removing saddam from power. Even the current war is just to keep the country destabilized to ensure that coorporations can capitalize on the oil fields.

Saddam was trying to make a more independant Iraq that was free from U.S. control, and U.S. propaganda painted him as the absolute evil in this world, while simultaneously voting in the United Nations to give awards to the communist regime in china (who were mass murdering specific religious groups behind closed doors) for being so progressive with their expansion and economic freedom (they let american companies get away with just about anything they want)


TLDR: Saddam was not necesarily evil

Demogerg wrote:I would take Saddam off the list of evil, he was trained and inserted into his poisiton of national power by the U.S. gov't and when he refused to play ball with big american coorporations he became the target of propaganda in the United States and abroad.

When Iraq tried to steal oil from kuwait, the United States ran in trumpets blazing and smacked him around, but didn't deal a deathblow and essentially warned him that if he doesnt play nice they would come and get him. shortly after the turn of the millenium when Iraq changed from the US dollar to the Euro (which resulted in huge net gains for Iraq, and losses for the US) the US began to seed misinformation about the development of "WMDs" and "harboring terrorists" both of which were lies to justify removing saddam from power. Even the current war is just to keep the country destabilized to ensure that coorporations can capitalize on the oil fields.

Saddam was trying to make a more independant Iraq that was free from U.S. control, and U.S. propaganda painted him as the absolute evil in this world, while simultaneously voting in the United Nations to give awards to the communist regime in china (who were mass murdering specific religious groups behind closed doors) for being so progressive with their expansion and economic freedom (they let american companies get away with just about anything they want)


TLDR: Saddam was not necesarily evil

The apologism in this thread is EPIC. EPIC FAIL that is. The rantiness of this particular post just screams Black Helicopter.

Do woodchippers ring a bell? Gassing Kurds? He may not be top 10, but Evil, yep and in a big way.

Moot.

Seriously. 4chan is pretty much man's most terrible creation to-date.

You have an excellent point.

Frazzled wrote:Do woodchippers ring a bell? Gassing Kurds? He may not be top 10, but Evil, yep and in a big way.

The woodchipper thing is almost certainly a myth, along with a lot of other stories his evil has been exaggerated for US political purposes, but it would be a mistake to that therefore there was no evil at all.

But that doesn't mean there was no evil at all - the man killed a lot of people to maintain his powerbase. However, that basically puts him on level footing with dozens of other twentieth century dictators, and given we're talking about the most evil men of all time then unless the list of most evil is set to grow into the hundreds I can't see Saddam making it.



Oh, and Demogerg, while the Iraq wars were both fought for reasons other than those given, it's a lot more complicated than what you've posted, and none of it was about a change in currencies.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Do woodchippers ring a bell? Gassing Kurds? He may not be top 10, but Evil, yep and in a big way.

The woodchipper thing is almost certainly a myth, along with a lot of other stories his evil has been exaggerated for US political purposes, but it would be a mistake to that therefore there was no evil at all.

But that doesn't mean there was no evil at all - the man killed a lot of people to maintain his powerbase. However, that basically puts him on level footing with dozens of other twentieth century dictators, and unless the list of most evil is set to grow into the hundreds I can't see Saddam making the list.



Oh, and Demogerg, while the Iraq wars were both fought for reasons other than those given, it's a lot more complicated than what you've posted, and none of it was about a change in currencies.

As noted, I said EVIL, not top evil. An agreed that puts him in footing of dozens of other dictators in the 20th century. The 20th Century reeked in that regard (but was probably better than the 19th or 18th and so forth).