Who's the Worst Dictator?
- Thread starter Robert Sullivan
- Start date
Ooooh, dear me, here we go again... 
Hmm, you seem to be lacking some of my personal favorites, Rob; Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Borkassa, Kim What's-it & Son and Saddam...
Well, a bit of a toss up between Uncle Joe and Adolf, so I'll stick with Stalin!
Best regards!
- Mr.Bluenote.
Hmm, you seem to be lacking some of my personal favorites, Rob; Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Borkassa, Kim What's-it & Son and Saddam...
Well, a bit of a toss up between Uncle Joe and Adolf, so I'll stick with Stalin!
Best regards!
- Mr.Bluenote.
Valamyr
Banned
Mr.Bluenote said:Ooooh, dear me, here we go again...
Hmm, you seem to be lacking some of my personal favorites, Rob; Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Borkassa, Kim What's-it & Son and Saddam...
Best regards!
- Mr.Bluenote.
LOL Saddam. Please, lets stay realistic. Even though he's the latest one that fell from his throne, he's certainly small potatoes compared to anyone on that list. Well almost anyone. No comment on putting Chirac there.
Hell, I'd say he was doing rather well until this whole gulf war buisness began. I gotta admire a guy with the guts to take over a square of sand squeezed between half a dozen radical theocraties and make it into a technology-oriented agnostic state. Thats of course no excuse for gazing the Kurds, but if Saddam's on worse dictator list just for that, then Bush needs a spot too.
Anyhow, my personal worse in modern history is Stalin.
Let's see... hmmm... I guess you should just go for an overall average.Torqumada said:
Yes whats with the last 3? There are plenty of real dictators you could have chose like Mao and Pol Pot.
Anyway Hitler is definatly the worst, Stalin actually killed more people however he had more time to do so and didn't have everyone on his back in the same way as Hitler. If Hitler had free reign he would have killed a lot more then Stalin.
Anyway Hitler is definatly the worst, Stalin actually killed more people however he had more time to do so and didn't have everyone on his back in the same way as Hitler. If Hitler had free reign he would have killed a lot more then Stalin.
Ah, but I am! My definition af of a bad dictator is one who generates an environment of more or less constant fear because of their, eh, unbalanced personalities and ambitions, so Saddam most assuredly fall under such a definition.Valamyr said:
General oppression is one thing, bad as it is, but oppression through fear, violence and murder is what makes a truly horrible dictator!
Hm, one could argue that Lukashenko(?), our charming chum from Belarus, should be on this list too, but Chirac and Clinton?!
Best regards!
- B.
Leo Caesius
Banned
This is obviously a right-wing poll. Hitler is clearly there as a concession to conventional wisdom. The rest are typical bogeymen of the American Right, which ignores actual tyrants (such as the ones mentioned by Mr. Bluenote) in favor of Bill Clinton and Jacques Chirac. Even when Saddam gets mentioned, people tend to ignore other petty tyrants like Gaydar Aliyev, Saparmurat "Turkmenbashi" Niyazov, or Islom Karimov. If you ask me, these last two are in the same league as Saddam, or even worse (Karimov has been known to boil political prisoners alive), but they're allies of the US right now so they're off limits.
George Carty
Banned
You'd expect American rightwingers to hate Islam Karimov, him being a commie and all, but I guess hatred of Islam (the religion) now trumps hatred of Communism. Oh well...
Leo Caesius
Banned
If he wasn't so damn close (geographically speaking) to Iran and Afghanistan, and so accomodating of Americans, you would probably hear some criticism of him from the more principled members of the American Right. As it is, the silence is deafening (and he really is a strong ally of the Bush administration - he was invited to the White House even before Jean Chretien, IIRC).
King George III wasn't even a real dicator--he was just an incompetent, slightly-insane (towards the end) constitutional monarch.
Grey, I hadn't really thought of that, but you're absolutely right. Clinton and Chirac are by far the worst dictators on the list since they can't even manage some of the basic prerequisites. Nor could George III.
But seriously, the answer is Hitler, hands down, for the reasons many of us have expounded on ad nauseum on prior threads.
But seriously, the answer is Hitler, hands down, for the reasons many of us have expounded on ad nauseum on prior threads.
jgack
Banned
How about my favorite dictators:Lincoln, Wilson and FDR. Seriously though, Stalin was the worst, by far, although his metor Lenin was pretty horrible too, I'd even put him ahead of Hitler. I hardly consider Sadaam worth mentioning, comparing him to Stalin is like comparing the new Star Wars to the original trilogy. They aren't even in the same league.
Regards,
Joe
Seriously though, Stalin was the worst, by far, although his metor Lenin was pretty horrible too, I'd even put him ahead of Hitler. I hardly consider Sadaam worth mentioning, comparing him to Stalin is like comparing the new Star Wars to the original trilogy. They aren't even in the same league. Regards,
Joe
If you want absolute body count than Mao is your man.
If you want relative body count Pol Pot.
Stalin and Hitler.... Hmmmmm. Hitler decided to get rid of a group just because they were such a group. Stalin went after you no matter what group you were in. Though Hitler was more sistematic about it.
If you want relative body count Pol Pot.
Stalin and Hitler.... Hmmmmm. Hitler decided to get rid of a group just because they were such a group. Stalin went after you no matter what group you were in. Though Hitler was more sistematic about it.
jgack said:How about my favorite dictators:Lincoln, Wilson and FDR.
LOL A man after my own heart.
But I think we are all missing probably the worst...at least in terms of body count...of all time, namely Genghis Khan. His armies slaughtered untold millions of people, largely because they were city dwellers and farmers who were considered "worthless" by the horse nomad Mongols...who preferred to use the land for pasturing their horses instead of supporting a large peasant population. His successors came to realize the value of large populations in producing wealth, but by then tens of millions had been killed.
Actually, robert, the Mongols didn't wipe out entire cities because they felt the people were useless (or, rather, not entirely, or even mainly, because of that); rather, they did it as a psychological tactic (and an extremely brutal one, I might add): when one city refused to demand to immediately surrender, it would be completely annihilated. The worst the insult to the Mongols was, the more complete and brutal the annihilation; for example, when the Mongols attacked the Persians and defeated them, the capital city and every single city that gave aid or refuge to the fleeing Khwarazm Shah was destroyed to the last living being. It was the same in most enemy capitals and strongholds; the idea was to remove the slightest thought of resistance by showing that even TRYING to resist (even when you are an independent nation) meant complete annihilation. Thus, when a lord of a city tried to resist the Mongols toward the end of the Great Khan's campaign, the citizens would often times revolt, string up the lord and open their gates to the Mongols.
Still evil, yes, but they weren't as ignorant as you make them out to be.
Still evil, yes, but they weren't as ignorant as you make them out to be.