Evilest Leader Ever

[JCG]

Oh, sorry.

In that case, I still kinda made my point anyways, just put "and Mao" up there...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm suprised that Lenin doesn't get more votes from the finns given how thier country suffered during the Finland Civil War.

Lenin had very little to do with the Finnish Civil War. They recognized Finnish independence, and Finland took it from there. The Finns had the Only Social Democrats in history to actually act according to their politics, so the bourgeoisie called in the Germans to put the Reds to the sword. The actions of the reactionaries are not our responsibility.

[MrFun]

Adolf Hitler

[TheStinger]

Stalin is an example of what happens when a sociapath is put in charge of country, frankly i think its a miracle he didn't nuke europe in the 50's.

[Heresson]

Where's Tamerlane? His brave charge through a field covered with new-born babies deserves being mentioned...
As well as his head-pyramides...
Well, one Byzantine emperor, I think it was John Tzimiskes,
was putting Bulgarian children through trashing-machine.
he was a very good emperor.

[Lars-E]

Stalin, of course!

He killed more people than anyone else.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I have to laugh at the loser who choice Clinton.

Meanwhile the rest of us are laughing at your "choice" of words above. It wouldn't be so funny if you merely chose the wrong form of the verb to choose, but a noun?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Well, Hitler was never a fairly normal person, by all accounts. He was a demented child who grew into a demented adult. So that wouldn't be an accurate representation.

He is certainly a poster boy for what can happen under horrible parenting.

Not to mention 4 years on the Somme.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Carver
Why the hell would Clinton be included but not Reagan. Reagan killed and enslaved millions throughout the world just to put some geopolitical pressure on his chosen enemy, the Soviet Union. Reagan instigated or sustained wars in Nicaraugua, Angola and Afghanistan that have killed millions and turned those countries into wastelands. Reagan helped keep the corrupt, evil, oppressive and poisonous governments of South Africa and Zaire in power.

Ronald Reagan has killed millions and will burn in hell for his crimes.

Can you really support this rationally? I mean how much responsibility does Reagan get for South Africa? Is it due solely to his actions that Nelson Mandela wasn't freed during Reagan's tenure, and the country turned over to the ANC? Somehow I doubt it. How about Mobutu? Perhaps French military support (in conjunction with the U.S.) kept him in power, but how much better off is Congo now that the people are free to kill each other without restraint? Exactly what percentage of Congo's problems are the fault of Ronald Reagan? Would the Afghans simply have aquiesed to a forcible regime change, or is it possible that that fine state might have had a historical tendency to break down into internicine conflict regardless of who was in the White House?

Angola and Nicaragua (or at least their dictatorial governments) made their own choices as to which side, if any to join. They chose badly and paid the price of having the wrong side supporting those in their countries who disagreed with the governing philosophy or the group in power. Perhaps an attempt at neutrality would have served them much better than lining up for the Soviet bloc, it certainly worked for numerous other regimes around the globe.

As long as you are so blithely assigning blame to a single man amongst the hundreds of millions who were responsible to one extent or another for the shape of the world, perhaps you will be as generous as Reagan's fans at assigning some credit to Reagan for helping to free the people of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union from state imposed slavery, and the rest of the world from the bipolar conflict that you complain about. Or are you one of those radicals who believes that the U.S. (etc.) are only all-powerful in their capability to create unbelievably complex conspiracies to serve bizarre racist evil murderous agendas, and completely inept at anything else, like say knocking off the Taliban in a few months?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava
Evil comes in many forms. I guess I would have to base my decision on a combination of intent and action. Hitler was at least open about his evil. Ronald Reagan, for instance, and other American politicians, lie blatantly about their intentions, motives, and who they really represent. At least Hitler wanted to create a Utopia, and wanted some good. Don't misunderstand me, Hitler was evil. But I think that evil disguised as good is more dangerous than someone like Hitler. I think the politicians today that perpetuate this economic repressive siege called capitalism are just as evil as Hitler.

I'll cast my vote for Hitler, though, because of the large body count. If you wish to flame me, please do it in another thread. I won't respond to thread-jacking in this thread.

You are unbalanced. I invite you to trade in your life as a spoiled American brat for the life of a German of similar age and class in 1933.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The actions of the reactionaries are not our responsibility.

I was only placing the Red Terror at your feet. I made no mention of the White.

[Sonic]

I seriously don't think Hitler was mad. I also dont think any mad person could become a leader of faction, not even talking about leader of state.
He just had his political ideas. He was a patriot, maybe to patriotic after all.
Stalin, Lenin also weren't mad obviously. They all were clever, just their ideas were different than ones of current people. As Hitler said himself...
"Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong"
And he was very right. Because allies won war, now he is considered very bad, while Truman, who dropped a nuke on mainly civilians, good president. Even such killer as Stalin is considered better than Hitler (as this poll shows). We all know that if for example Hitler would have won the war (this is hypothatical so we are assuming this would have happened after all WW2 events, even if it is actually impossible because Hitler was then dead), Stalin would be the worst man (and he is truly is) in everyones mind and history. Truman would be second for dropping a nuke. And no one on this thread (if it would be here at all) would even question the motives of Hitler.
So yes, success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong... These are maybe the best words I heard. Allies killed more Germans in the war, and also dropped a nuke on undefended city, but no one question their motives... Just because nazis were "bad" side...

[The Emperor Fabulous]

The three votes for Bill Clinton are childish

Just having him on the list is childish.

Grow up.

[Heresson]

Your dancing cow is childish too but I like it anyway

[Sava]

Originally posted by Sikander


You are unbalanced. I invite you to trade in your life as a spoiled American brat for the life of a German of similar age and class in 1933.

I love it when people make stupid comments about things they don't know sh!t about