Who Is Actually "As Bad As Hitler" Or Worse?

[Dino Velvet]

People enjoy using Hitler's name when describing someone they dislike. The Hitler Brand has been watered down from excessive use. But, who in history is actually worse than Hitler? Body Count isn't the only criteria here as truly evil intent goes a long way too.

How 'bout Genghis Khan? Genghis Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg" class="image"><img alt="YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg/170px-YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/3/35/YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg/170px-YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan)

Wow, this is a weird photo. Here's The Duke John Wayne playing Genghis Khan in The Conqueror.

http://gcaggiano.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/john-wayne-genghis-khan.jpg
"Howdy Pilgrim, who's in charge of this cow pasture?
Tell him Temujin, the Conqueror is here to see him."

Marlon Brando almost got the part. Now he would have made an awesome Khan.

[theone1982]

How about Caligula? He said he wished the romans had one throat so he could cut it. He banged most of his sisters, possibly his uncle, made a horse a senator, declared war on the Pacific Ocean, and was generally all-around bat-shit bonkers.

[Dino Velvet]

Stalin was also worse than Hitler. Lots of messed up stuff over time that is not taught to many children.

[theone1982]

What abou Mao? He's responsible for the most deaths in history.

[rameses2]

John Kyl is as bad as Hitler (Not intended to be a factual statement).:geek:

[flabbybody]

In terms of sheer numbers of human beings killed, I can't imagine anyone surpassing Hitler and Stalin. Those two have to be the worst murderers of all time. They got like 13 million civilian deaths between the two of them.

That's not counting soldiers. In the Battle of Stalingrad, more than one million German soldiers were killed. and the one's taken prisoner were never heard from again

[russtafa]

Julius Caesar wiped out a large part of the population of Gaul but life was very hard and short for most people at that time.Attila the Hun caused untold death and destruction to many races.

[TJ347]

How about Caligula? He said he wished the romans had one throat so he could cut it. He banged most of his sisters, possibly his uncle, made a horse a senator, declared war on the Pacific Ocean, and was generally all-around bat-shit bonkers.

Caligula didn't kill people anywhere close to the scale of Hitler. Also, he made his favorite horse a consul not a senator, and he supposedly slept with his favorite sister, not "most" of them. He was still batshit bonkers, but let's not blacken his reputation unduly.

I'd say Chairman Mao was the worst mass murderer whose atrocities can be reliably gauged. Stalin is a close second, and Hitler, for all his name is bandied about, a distant third.

[trish]

God. He wiped out every single human on Earth except for Noah and his immediate family.

[Dino Velvet]

God. He wiped out every single human on Earth except for Noah and his immediate family.

... And now watches over us as we finish off the non-believers allowing the earth to absorb the gelatin from their corpses as our leaders sit atop a throne of their skulls. God did this. High five, Almighty Father from Heaven!

I wish it were that easy.

[Faldur]

God. He wiped out every single human on Earth except for Noah and his immediate family.

Estimates place that number around 5 billion. Joshua killed about 440,000 when the Jews took control of land around Jericho. So if your going to go by number killed alone God would, well be God like.

[theone1982]

Caligula didn't kill people anywhere close to the scale of Hitler. Also, he made his favorite horse a consul not a senator, and he supposedly slept with his favorite sister, not "most" of them. He was still batshit bonkers, but let's not blacken his reputation unduly.

I'd say Chairman Mao was the worst mass murderer whose atrocities can be reliably gauged. Stalin is a close second, and Hitler, for all his name is bandied about, a distant third.

My mistake, he did make his horse a consul not a senator. However, both Cassius Dio and Suetonius state that Caligula slept with three sisters, Agrippina, Drusilla, and Julia Livilla, not just his favorite. And I'm fully aware that Caligula did not kill as many people as Hitler, however, if you read Dino's original post he also wants to bring into consideration the person's intentions, not just their actions, that's why I mentioned Caligula's quote about wanting to "cut the Roman's collective throat." I think posterity has sufficiently "blackened his reputation" without me having to add anything. I also believe that Mao was the worst mass murderer in history.

[TJ347]

Well, to be honest, a horse would probably make a better senator than 90% of the ones we have in office today, so maybe Caligula should be given a pass on that one! As to Dio and Seutonius, there have long been questions as to the accuracy of some of their personal stories about several emperors, particularly as one (Seutonius, I believe) wrote about them well after their reigns had ended with assassinations. Still, Caligula's intentions seem to be fairly clear, so he definitely deserves to be on the short list. I'm just amazed that even today, he's villified more than Mao.

[Stavros]

The historian Ian Kershaw published a two-volume study of Hitler about 10 years ago, a compelling work of scholarship that begins with a review which actually discusses this very question. Stalin is 'exonerated' because the Red Army played such a vital role in rolling back the Nazi war machine and frying Hitler in his bunker; Mao gets exonerated because for all his wickedness he restored the 'independence' and 'dignity' of China; Napoleon Bonaparte because for some reason he is now viewed through a romantic lens when at the time he was either a revolutionary hero or another anti-Christ come to demolish European monarchy.

Kershaw argued that Hitler had no redeeming features whatsoever, even when you think that the Jewish doctor who treated his mother when she was dying of cancer was given safe passage to the US, and that Hitler was 'kind to animals', he is a litmus test of wickedness because he not only sent millions to their death without one troubling his conscience, but wrapped it up in pseudo-science and established mass murder on an industrial scale.

However, Stalin said: 'the death of an individual is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic', and he also wrapped up his excuses for mass murder in a hotch-potch of Leninism and Nationalism (er...socialism and nationalism, now there's a deadly mixture!). Moreover, Hitler's career was a whirlwind of fantasy that destoyed a country, led to the immolation of some of Europe's finest architecture, but did also completely discredit the concept of 'race as science' and its dismal consquences, we should be thankful that fascism as a hold-all word for the ideology is a dirty word.

When I went to see Mao in his mausoleum in Beijing I was struck by the reverence -rather than like me the idle curiosity- people had in being there, and it is because he is associated with independence and dignity that he is revered, but in fact he relished the slaughter of thousands and thought it was a good idea; he loathed imperial architecture and truly adored the East Berlin apartment block style because it was functional, one reason why Chinese cities are hideous and soul-less.

Between them, Stalin and Mao strangulated optimism, crushed hope, and set back the progress of their countries by decades; Russia is still mired in corruption and red-tape; China is still mired in red-tape and corruption, we are there for the money.

Of the moderns these three take some beating, and I can't elevate one above the other.

[theone1982]

Well, to be honest, a horse would probably make a better senator than 90% of the ones we have in office today, so maybe Caligula should be given a pass on that one! As to Dio and Seutonius, there have long been questions as to the accuracy of some of their personal stories about several emperors, particularly as one (Seutonius, I believe) wrote about them well after their reigns had ended with assassinations. Still, Caligula's intentions seem to be fairly clear, so he definitely deserves to be on the short list. I'm just amazed that even today, he's villified more than Mao.

Agreed! I remember a history professor who compared Suetonius to an ancient version of the Enquirer Magazine, which I always thought was funny but actually pretty spot-on. Cassius Dio actually wrote much later, I'm thinking in the 2nd century C.E. so, I guess it is kind of a toss up as to whether he slept with one, all of them, some of them, or none. And I agree that it's amazing the villification of many of the Roman emperors when they were rank amateurs compared to Mao.

[Yvonne183]

I think Elmo is just as bad as Hitler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGDMm4G8G_I&feature=related

[theone1982]

I think Elmo is just as bad as Hitler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGDMm4G8G_I&feature=related

Lol! Heil Elmo!:)

[onmyknees]

God. He wiped out every single human on Earth except for Noah and his immediate family.


Trish....put down that old testment...you're not foolin' anybody !!!!!!!! LMAO

Dino...Not sure why politicians and TV personalities invariably reach for the Hitler referrence . I suppose it's meant to stop debate such as "RACIST" . In just one generation we went from fighting Hitler to using him to marginalize our political foes. It's mind blowing to me...but alas there is a cure. Weather it's an MSNBC host or a politician, or a lib attempting to describe the Tea Party or Sarah Palin, they should be forced to spend a night in the remaining buildings at Auschwitz sleeping on one of those wooden bunk beds...so they can collect their thoughts and put them in proper perspective !


BTW...Pol Pot may be Hitler's equal....give or take a few million. Cambodia was one of the most beautiful countries on earth...I've seen it before and during the terror of the Khmer Rouge .

[robertlouis]

Comparisons based on statistics on an issue like this tend to be both fatuous and pointless. If Hitler's plans to conquer the Soviet Union had been fulfilled, for example, how many more would be adding to his already obscene total?

What lends the nazi period the additional element to its horror is that terror and bureaucracy went calmly hand in hand. I always think of Hannah Arendt's comment on seeing Eichmann in the dock in Tel Aviv - "The banality of evil". I have both family and friends in Germany and have always found much to admire in their energy, industry and indeed morals in the post-war era. But nothing will ever cleanse the German nation of those 12 years of madness. That is Hitler's legacy, and there is nothing in history that can ever match it, not so much for its scale, perhaps, but more for its deliberate conception and execution.

As a footnote, I was in Berlin with German friends ten years ago. We found a Jewish restaurant and toasted shalom in Israeli wine under the Berlin stars in memory of the six million. It seemed apt and in its own quiet way, a triumph.

[hippifried]

Let's not forget the Duvaliers & the Ton Ton Macoute, the slaughter in El Salvador, the Armenian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, & the systematic wiping out of North American natives.

But we still have to give props to God, After all, we're all mortal. Everybody dies! How fucking depraved is that?

[Dino Velvet]

Trish....put down that old testment...you're not foolin' anybody !!!!!!!! LMAO

Dino...Not sure why politicians and TV personalities invariably reach for the Hitler referrence . I suppose it's meant to stop debate such as "RACIST" . In just one generation we went from fighting Hitler to using him to marginalize our political foes. It's mind blowing to me...but alas there is a cure. Weather it's an MSNBC host or a politician, or a lib attempting to describe the Tea Party or Sarah Palin, they should be forced to spend a night in the remaining buildings at Auschwitz sleeping on one of those wooden bunk beds...so they can collect their thoughts and put them in proper perspective !


BTW...Pol Pot may be Hitler's equal....give or take a few million. Cambodia was one of the most beautiful countries on earth...I've seen it before and during the terror of the Khmer Rouge .

Even Barack Obama is compared to Hitler. Obama couldn't hold Hitler's jock strap and all the trains would run on CPT.

[Ineeda SM]

...Not sure why politicians and TV personalities invariably reach for the Hitler referrence . I suppose it's meant to stop debate such as "RACIST" . In just one generation we went from fighting Hitler to using him to marginalize our political foes. It's mind blowing to me...but alas there is a cure. Weather it's an MSNBC host or a politician, or a lib attempting to describe the Tea Party or Sarah Palin, they should be forced to spend a night in the remaining buildings at Auschwitz sleeping on one of those wooden bunk beds...so they can collect their thoughts and put them in proper perspective !


I expected better than that, even from you. YOU are the one that needs to be put into proper perspective. How dare you even think that any liberal is thinking that the tea party, republicans, or Sarah Palin is trying to follow the horrible things that Hitler did to human beings like torture, throw them into concentration camps, shoot them in the heads, gas them, or throw people into the furnaces. What the fuck is wrong with you, ya sick bastard? Do you honestly think that is what we liberals mean when we compare your party to Hitler? Holy shit you got some serious fucking issues.

When comparisons are made to Hitler, anyone with half a brain knows that it means Hitlers political means, and not his horrible actions to innocent people. The comparison is the propaganda and lies to get the weak minded to follow them. The taking care of the rich, and saying fuck the poor. Telling people to do as I say, and not as I do. The lies and conspiracies to gain total power, greed, racism.....etc.... These are ideals that Hitler and the republican/teabaggers have 100% in common. So the comparison is justified.

But for any one of you republican assholes think that liberals make the comparison based on the unthinkable horrors that Hitler forced on millions of innocent people, is something only a desperate asshole mother fucker like you would dream up.

I thought you were just a pain in the ass troll. You just convinced everyone that you are a just a sick hateful mother fucker.:fu: :fu: :fu: :fu:

[Prospero]

I agree with Stavros in broad terms. However Hitler would have to edge ahead of the rest. None of the other's instituted the notion of the coherent mass murder of an entire people as the defining principle of their mission. Stalin and Mao's policies killed more - but we are not just talking about the numbers but the intent. Pol Pot should be included in this pantheon as well. But I don't think it is just the sheer volume of kill that does it.

[russtafa]

I think there will be far worse to come and appeasement has not gone away

[Prospero]

I think there will be far worse to come and appeasement has not gone away

..which is one of the reasons why the Jews and wider society work so hard to remind us and keep in front of us the enormity of the Holocaust. Genocides occur but this was the first and, thankfully until now, last exercise in orchestrated, industrialised mass murder.

[Dino Velvet]

Not a person but Mexican Drug Cartels. They kill people and fill large holes full of bodies. They killed this one guy and sewed his face on a soccer ball.

[joeninety]

why is there no reference to smiling Tony Blair and his associates oil barren bushes 1st & 2nd.

Remember there famous bs wmd's line, probably not and thats why they are not here nor in the hague they are by far the worst cos what they have done is sublime and hardly anyone realises this

[Stavros]

Onmyknees makes a good point: I think Pol Pot since the demise of Mao must be a candidate, again because it was not just wholesale slaughter but the intention behind it, the concept of 'wiping the slate clean and starting again' from 'Year Zero'.
The chaos and violence caused by Slobodan Milosovic in the former Yugoslavia took Europe back to a level of violence we thought we had left behind; but did reveal how hard it is to replace the belief that there is an 'exclusive' national identity allied to a block of land to which nobody else is entitled with a more inclusive and humane belief that we all have something positive to contribute wherever we live, and regardless of our name being Levy or O'Shaugnessy or Ahmed.

Maybe the follow-up question is Why did mass murderers have so many supporters?

[Prospero]

That last question posed by Stavros is damn nigh impossible to answer. Crowd behaviour? Someone wrote a book a few years ago called "Hitler's Willing Executioners' which took stab at explaining the roots of anti-semitism .But that doesn't explain how the serbs, the cambodians, the turks etc etc can be mobilised to mass murder. Fear of "the other"? We see this happen all the time - and right now the threatening "other" seems to be the Muslims (You've only to read some of the idiotic extremist postings here urging the US to nuke the arab world to see how easy it is to objectify those we feel threatened by.)

[hippifried]

Maybe the follow-up question is Why did mass murderers have so many supporters?

Why is that past tense?

[Dino Velvet]

Why is that past tense?

There were plenty yesterday, many today, and more on the horizon tomorrow. One day there will be a big enough fire to take us all away.

[Stavros]

Because I assumed the debate was on the past...which I suppose does raise the question, when does history begin? Yesterday?

[onmyknees]

I expected better than that, even from you. YOU are the one that needs to be put into proper perspective. How dare you even think that any liberal is thinking that the tea party, republicans, or Sarah Palin is trying to follow the horrible things that Hitler did to human beings like torture, throw them into concentration camps, shoot them in the heads, gas them, or throw people into the furnaces. What the fuck is wrong with you, ya sick bastard? Do you honestly think that is what we liberals mean when we compare your party to Hitler? Holy shit you got some serious fucking issues.

When comparisons are made to Hitler, anyone with half a brain knows that it means Hitlers political means, and not his horrible actions to innocent people. The comparison is the propaganda and lies to get the weak minded to follow them. The taking care of the rich, and saying fuck the poor. Telling people to do as I say, and not as I do. The lies and conspiracies to gain total power, greed, racism.....etc.... These are ideals that Hitler and the republican/teabaggers have 100% in common. So the comparison is justified.

But for any one of you republican assholes think that liberals make the comparison based on the unthinkable horrors that Hitler forced on millions of innocent people, is something only a desperate asshole mother fucker like you would dream up.

I thought you were just a pain in the ass troll. You just convinced everyone that you are a just a sick hateful mother fucker.:fu: :fu: :fu: :fu:


I must say...I went from Pitying you, to despising you despising you to laughing at you....so please by all means keep posting. The comic relief is worthwhile.

At least you weren't foolish enough to deny the almost daily Hitler comparisons by the liberals, so I see you're growing! The fact of the matter is that there is no comparison. Not a political comparison, not a military comparison, not an economic comparison, not a social comparison ...so why do it? You know exactly why they do it...Fear mongering. You're going to sit there with a butt plug in your ass with a straight face and tell me that the same party that uses as a tactic words like "extreme", "Racist" "carper bombing the poor" "war on the elderly" "starve children" really intends to convey , and expect the electorate to draw the parallel with the 1939 social, economic and political strategy of the Nazi Party ??????????????? Have you seen and heard some of these people making these Nazi comparisons? They hardly know American History let alone Arian history !! What a fucking idiot you really are. They make the comparison to enflame, to engender fear.That's why they do it. It's political stradegy. With a mind as weak and easily mislead as yours....you would have been a perfect candidate for the Hitler Youth ! LMAO

You're boring me again. You got no game dude.

[Ineeda SM]

I must say...I went from Pitying you, to despising you despising you to laughing at you....so please by all means keep posting. The comic relief is worthwhile.

At least you weren't foolish enough to deny the almost daily Hitler comparisons by the liberals, so I see you're growing! The fact of the matter is that there is no comparison. Not a political comparison, not a military comparison, not an economic comparison, not a social comparison ...so why do it? You know exactly why they do it...Fear mongering. You're going to sit there with a butt plug in your ass with a straight face and tell me that the same party that uses as a tactic words like "extreme", "Racist" "carper bombing the poor" "war on the elderly" "starve children" really intends to convey , and expect the electorate to draw the parallel with the 1939 social, economic and political strategy of the Nazi Party ??????????????? Have you seen and heard some of these people making these Nazi comparisons? They hardly know American History let alone Arian history !! What a fucking idiot you really are. They make the comparison to enflame, to engender fear.That's why they do it. It's political stradegy. With a mind as weak and easily mislead as yours....you would have been a perfect candidate for the Hitler Youth ! LMAO

You're boring me again. You got no game dude.

Still TROLLING I see. Nothing you just said can be proven in any way as usual. People like you just troll forums to stir the hate pot, and ignoring the facts.

I have never once denied or tried to hide that the GOP shares Hitler pre-war ideals. I have said it openly many times. But you compared Hitler references by liberals to the horrible atrocities that Hitler committed against millions of innocent people, as if liberals actually think conservatives would do such things. That is what makes you a sick bastard.

1. Using propaganda to attract the weak minded to their side.
2. Spreading lies about races to promote their own race as superior.
3. Showing hatred of homosexuals as being a mental illness.
4. Neglecting the elderly to be considered second class to younger and middle-aged people.
5. Making up lies and conspiracies to hurt the opposition.
6. Ignore the poor as they are not important enough to help. They will soon die off and go away.
7. Support the rich and large businesses as they will be the ones who can help our cause and give us more power.
8. Take as much from those less fortunate to make the rich more wealthy.
9. Do as we say, and not as we do. It is only correct if we do it.
10. Take power away from the working class so we can control wages.
11. Tell lies and keep telling the same lies until the weak minded start to believe it.
12. Using phony religious beliefs to win over the god fearing idiots.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Are these the policies of the republican party, or pre-war Hitler 1938? I can't make any distinction. They both share those same ideals. They were the policies of Hitler and the new Nazi party before the war, and they are also exactly how the GOP conducts themselves today. I am sure you will say I am an idiot and just trying to preach crap, but like it or not, it IS the truth. Only an extreme right wing troll would disagree, which is why I know you will.

I am expecting ONMYKNEES to respond with the same troll responses of how I amuse him, and how wrong and stupid I am, or how I do not know any facts,...or some troll bull shit like that. So go ahead and keep proving what a troll you really are. I can't wait. I love watching losers like you keep digging their holes deeper and deeper. You are already too deep to climb out, do you really want to dig deeper?

[russtafa]

If you[ the left]cry wolf enough ,when the time comes nobody will believe you

[Ineeda SM]

If you[ the left]cry wolf enough ,when the time comes nobody will believe you

I still find it quite funny how you just don't understand that your left and our left are the exact opposite. Left and right do not mean the same thing world wide you fucking moron. Every time you praise the American right wing, it is the same as you praising your OZ left wing. You should have figured that out by now. You are that stupid and you don't even realize it.

You can praise our right which is the same as your left, and your signature says "Live with honor" What a fucking joke you are. You praise the shit out of everything that ONMYKNEES says, and she is the same as the Austrailian left wing that you claim is so wrong. You really need to read up on American politics before you argue politics with Americans. You are totally clueless.

[russtafa]

If you ever call me a moron to my face it would be your last time and i make promise's that i keep.

[Ineeda SM]

If you ever call me a moron to my face it would be your last time and i make promise's that i keep.

Did you even read what I posted? I called you a moron because it fits your way of thinking. Only a moron will not see that they are making a big mistake because of the differences between our 2 countries. It has been explained to you before, but you continue to follow your own false ideal.

Let me put it as simple as I can so even you might get the point. As we both know, ONMYKNEES is very much an American right wing conservative. If ONMYKNEES were to move to Australia, he would follow your left wing and speak in complete favor of it. Because the American Right is the exact same beliefs and policies as your Australian left wing.

Or lets put it this way. I am a left wing liberal in America. But if I moved to Australia, I would be a strong advocate of the Australian right wing.

Does this sink in one tiny little bit to you. If you can not understand it, then you are a moron. And every day you keep supporting the American right wing, you are supporting you left wing which you say you are against. Do you get the connection yet? Every day you make an ass of yourself because you just refuse to listen to reason.

[russtafa]

I do not speak down to people and i hope people will do the same to me, but you obviously don't give people the same respect.i usually treat people very badly when they disrespect me.Trish treats people with respect and pays the ball not the player

[Ineeda SM]

I do not speak down to people and i hope people will do the same to me, but you obviously don't give people the same respect.i usually treat people very badly when they disrespect me.Trish treats people with respect and pays the ball not the player

If you acted like a person to me, I would treat you with respect. I have no respect for people who just keep insisting on their own lie, and refuse to acknowledge the truth. You have shown disrespect for me plenty of times.

Has any of my last 2 post sunk into your head yet? You and I are on the same side, but you don't realize it because you refuse to listen to how it works here in America.

If you moved to America, you would be a left winger just like me. I don't know any other way to make you understand this fact. We are on the same side. You are on the opposite side of ONMYKNEES, but you don't seem to realize it. You continue to argue with me even though we are on the same political side, and you support everything ONMYKNEES says, even though you are on the opposite political side from him.

I am trying to make you understand that you are arguing those on your side, and supporting those on the opposite side of you. But you refuse to understand it. How do you expect me to react to that.

Do you want respect, then wake up and figure it out.
Australian right = American left.
Australian left = American right.

I don't know how to make it any more simple.

[russtafa]

I don't think things are that simple or that straight forward

[Ineeda SM]

I don't think things are that simple or that straight forward

OK let me ask you 3 simple questions that will define this issue.

1. Which party in Australia is against abortion? Left or right?

2. Which party in Australia stands for the rich and big businesses. Left or right?

3. Which party in Australia would be against Gay, Lesbian, and Transgendered as a sin or mental illness? Left or right?

No lectures or long explanations. Just a straight forward answer of LEFT or RIGHT.

[russtafa]

1 both party's are split it's a matter of conscience .2 Liberals used to but it seems more like labour now.3 no party it's a matter of conscience but labour maybe a little bit more conservative catholic leaning.

[Ineeda SM]

1 both party's are split it's a matter of conscience .2 Liberals used to but it seems more like labour now.3 no party it's a matter of conscience but labour maybe a little bit more conservative catholic leaning.

See I don't know what any of that means. Which is the left and which is the right?

In America, the correct answer to all 3 questions is the right wing.

My party, the left wing is in favor of letting the woman decide about having an abortion or not. The right is against abortion completely and wants to make it illegal

My party, the left wing supports the poor and elderly. The right wing does not. The right is all for the rich and big business.

My party, the left wing welcomes openly all gay, lesbian and transgendered people of all races. The right wing thinks homosexuality is a sin and a mental illness. That is their open and public policy.

If you agree with any of the things I just said I and my left wingers are for, then our countries are the opposite with left and right.

In America, if you are poor, any race from any country, elderly, sick needing hospitalization, or gay in any way my party, the left wing democrats are the people you want to support.

In America, if you are very rich, head of a very big business like a drug company, oil company, big bank corporation, and just as white as the driven snow, then you should support the right wing republicans.

[russtafa]

our main stream party's are so similar they look for things to try and disagree about.But labour has an alliance with the greens that's why we have this proposed carbon tax which people are so against

[Ineeda SM]

our main stream party's are so similar they look for things to try and disagree about.But labour has an alliance with the greens that's why we have this proposed carbon tax which people are so against

I wish our political parties were like that. But the republican party has changed over the years. I remember when they were respectable. They and the democrats always rivaled each other, but they understood when it was time to compromise and they got shit done for us. Ever since Reagan took office, the GOP changed big for the worse. They faked religion to get the christian vote, and use a lot of lies and propaganda to get the weak minded idiots to follow them like programmed robots. That is our right wing.

You still haven't told me which party is considered the left and which is the right wing.

[traLika]

I'd say Robert Mugabe and Bin Laden are both as bad as Hitler.

On a lighter note, here are some cats that look like 'Der Führer'...

http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com/cgi-bin/seigmiaow.pl

[TJ347]

I don't think things are that simple or that straight forward

Indeed they aren't, but then you're actually using your brain, something that others don't necessarily feel the need to engage obviously, judging by the idiotic things they say and the recitation of the latest talking points. This actually makes it easier to understand why people in some parts of the world don't seem to want democracy, given that our Democratic system here in the US has led to a bumper crop of fools among the current population, the evidence of which is painfully clear.

[Stavros]

Someone wrote a book a few years ago called "Hitler's Willing Executioners' which took stab at explaining the roots of anti-semitism .But that doesn't explain how the serbs, the cambodians, the turks etc etc can be mobilised to mass murder.

'Hitler's Willing Executioners' was written by Daniel Goldhagen and was controversial because it argued emphatically that anti-semitism had so saturated German society and culture that the inevitable happened once Hitler had taken power, hardly a new thesis as its part of a 'determinist' slant in Jewish history which sees the Holocaust as 'merely' one more example of violent anti-semitism, albeit one of the worst. JP Stern wrote a stinging critique at the time, and what Goldhagen never showed an interest in was the resistance to the Nazi's which scholarship is uncovering as a deeper phenomenon than first thought.

Detlev Peukert in his book 'Inside the Third Reich' also wanted to find out how 'ordinary Germans' -ie those not in the Nazi party, the state bureaucracy or the military- lived with National Socialism, and discovered that it was quite hard to decide what proportion were true believers, and what proportion, living in a police state where neighbours -even family members- could inform on you to the Gestapo were even free to express their true feelings. Thus, a proportion of the crowds lining the streets to salute the Fuhrer felt obliged to be there or face a different kind of music. Peukert developed a theory of 'inner space' or interioriation where people retreat from the harsh reality of the present into a private world where they can be themselves. A form of 'silent resistance'.

In a remarkable book, 'The Past in Hiding', Mark Roseman tells the story of a Jew from the Ruhr (he met her in Liverpool where she had lived as a refugee since the end of the war) who was saved from extinction by an undeground network of Protestants who rescued Jews and other minorities and moved them from one safe-house to another throughout the war, at obvious risk to all, another example of the fact that not all Germans hated Jews, indeed the reverse.

In the late 90s I met an Iraqi in Geneva who turned out to be a General who was applying for political asylum. WHen I asked him how Saddam stayed in power, he replied, with one word 'fear'. He said that quite apart from the regular round-ups of political dissidents, once a month he would, at random arrest a shopkeeper, a doctor, a dentist, a bus driver -someone known to their local community- and they would disappear, sometimes never to be seen again. As with the USSR, Nazi Germany and China, so too in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, or North Korea today, Hirschmann's Exit Voice, and Loyalty goes only so far: if you dont like it then leave; if you feel passionate about it, use your voice to complain, or stay loyal because its what you like or think you can change from the inside: But autocratic regimes for people who cannot leave offer only the one choice: loyalty, and I wonder what happens to people who live for years without any kind of choice. Perhaps like the East Germans they emerge stunned into a world they don't recognise, almost incapable of taking in what seems to be a fantasy world of beautiful clothes, good food, and so on.

Sometimes I wonder if we realise how lucky we are to live where we live, even with the critical issues facing us.

[Prospero]

Fear indeed - but does fear fully explain the willingness of ordinary young men to torture and kill huge numbers of ordinary people - men, women and children? The cases of resistance to Hitler and to other dictators do, indeed, demonstrate that there are always those brave enough - or moral enough - to resist the monsters who seize power. There are plenty of other histories that illustrate how pervasive anti-Jewish prejudices have been throughout history as much as Goldhagens. (Anthony Julias's recent book springs to mind)

[trish]

We are all as bad as Hitler...and those who don't see it risk sinking to that "potential."

[Stavros]

Fear is a key instrument that is used to maintain dictatorship, as for the willing executioners, there was an experiment not long ago in which people volunteered to take part in an exercise where they were asked to push a button, having been told it would send an electric shock through its victim -usually a mouse or something. I don't recall the details but after a while the shocks were delivered without much thought or feeling -sort of a 'banality of evil' I suppose. I think that one way that this is achieved in genocidal situations, is when the victim is so de-humanised as to appear to the killers as no better than cattle waiting to be slaughtered -I think the point is its easier to kill a non-entity than it is a human being. On the other hand there is also evidence somewhere that most people find killing another human extremely distressing which is possibly why a firing squad has more than one person and why groups of men often drunk and/or high on drugs do the major killings -there is I think a large literature on this and I don't know if it differs much from one place to another. Gangs high on drugs and booze we are told were responsible for massacres in Darfur, Bosnia, the Congo...but I do feel the target group must first be stripped of everything that gives them their humanity.

[trish]

However, Hitler probably wasn't high or drunk when he ordered men into battle, or when he ordered the mass exterminations. I'm not sure if Hitler ever directly killed a single human being. Perhaps someone here can enlighten us on that point. Either way he deserves his reputation of one of the most heinous animals ever to walk the planet.

[Deimos]

Do they have to be militant? I'd say Charles Manson is a pretty evil bastard.

[theone1982]

However, Hitler probably wasn't high or drunk when he ordered men into battle, or when he ordered the mass exterminations. I'm not sure if Hitler ever directly killed a single human being. Perhaps someone here can enlighten us on that point. Either way he deserves his reputation of one of the most heinous animals ever to walk the planet.

Hitler probably killed some people directly when he was a soldier in the First World War, although even that I'm not sure about, as his primary job was a messenger, but never after that. As for high or drunk, no, Hitler was an infamous teetotaller, he never drank or smoke. Although, there is evidence that he was addicted to some prescription drugs, as he was a bit of a hypochondriac.

[Stavros]

My response to Prospero concerned the 'willing executioners' -not the leaders who more often than not get other people to do the killing.

[TJ347]

We are all as bad as Hitler...and those who don't see it risk sinking to that "potential."

Having the potential to be a certain thing and being it are not the same thing. We are not "all as bad at Hitler", unless that potential is in fact realized.

[russtafa]

Evil is relative and Stalin and Hitler thought they were doing their best for their countries

[Dino Velvet]

You won't see pictures of Kim Jong-Il like this.

[theone1982]

You won't see pictures of Kim Jong-Il like this.

Ha! There's no way that last pic is really Hitler, is it?

[maaarc]

I'd say Elizabeth Báthory was as evil as anyone who ever lived.

short documentary on the blood bitch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHHpr0UEfxc

[theone1982]

I'd say Elizabeth Báthory was as evil as anyone who ever lived.

short documentary on the blood bitch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHHpr0UEfxc

YouTube - Venom - Countess Bathory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh9vlDPywpA)

[Dino Velvet]

YouTube - Venom - Countess Bathory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh9vlDPywpA)

I have that DVD.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51992GNY7GL.jpg

[theone1982]

I have that DVD.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51992GNY7GL.jpg

Nice! Can't go wrong with Venom!

[russtafa]

I hate to say this but i think Jesus and Mohammed created more misery and death in the long term than Adolf and stalin would

[robertlouis]

I hate to say this but i think Jesus and Mohammed created more misery and death in the long term than Adolf and stalin would

They didn't, but over the centuries people who chose to turn their words into political and military action certainly did. Every army went into battle knowing that god was on their side.

In our own time, much the same could be said of marxist theory.

[theone1982]

They didn't, but over the centuries people who chose to turn their words into political and military action certainly did. Every army went into battle knowing that god was on their side.

In our own time, much the same could be said of marxist theory.

:iagree: It's always dangerous when any group thinks they are "divinely right". I think a lot of historical figures have grasped this, such as Lincoln in this quote, but, in the end, it was always too dangerous for a leader to state what they are doing may not be right.


"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God can not be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party - and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say this is probably true - that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. But His mere quiet power on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds." (Meditation on the Divine Will) -Abraham Lincoln

[robertlouis]

:iagree: It's always dangerous when any group thinks they are "divinely right". I think a lot of historical figures have grasped this, such as Lincoln in this quote, but, in the end, it was always too dangerous for a leader to state what they are doing may not be right.


"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God can not be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party - and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say this is probably true - that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. But His mere quiet power on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds." (Meditation on the Divine Will) -Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln - far from perfect, nor the principled liberator that he's been painted, but one of my two American presidential heroes. I fulfilled a lifetime's ambition to sit at his feet in Washington DC a few years back.

The other hero? FDR, of course.

[theone1982]

Lincoln - far from perfect, nor the principled liberator that he's been painted, but one of my two American presidential heroes. I fulfilled a lifetime's ambition to sit at his feet in Washington DC a few years back.

The other hero? FDR, of course.

Yeah, Lincoln's one of my favorites too. I think what's interesting about him is that he was flawed, but he still chose to do the right thing, even though there were so many opportunities for him to get out of it.

[russtafa]

i THOUGHT ALL AMERICANS HATED REPUBLICANS?

[trish]

i THOUGHT ALL AMERICANS HATED REPUBLICANS?Only since the party turned to the dark side.

[Faldur]

http://www.gambling911.com/George-Bush-Funny.gif

[JamesHunt]

Food suppliers who stick salt in their products and governments who quite happily tax the tobbaconists but dont ban them

[Quiet Reflections]

Anyone say Pol Pot yet

[theone1982]

The Penguin was pretty much a dickhead.:)
YouTube - BATMAN: THE PENGUIN BOX. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzI0OAWwLog&feature=related)

[maaarc]

The Penguin was pretty much a dickhead.:)
YouTube - BATMAN: THE PENGUIN BOX. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzI0OAWwLog&feature=related)


:):):) LOL You fucking rule!

[Ineeda SM]

Hmmm Dr. Evil was ready to destroy the world with Preperation H. That's pretty fucking evil.

[EyeCumInPiece]

Stalin and Mao were both worse than Hitler. Unfortunately, in this world its about "who" you kill, not "how many."

[TJ347]

i THOUGHT ALL AMERICANS HATED REPUBLICANS?

Only those with doctored birth certificates.

:hide-1:

[robertlouis]

Only those with doctored birth certificates.

:hide-1:

Oh FFS!

[TJ347]

Oh FFS!

:dancing: :whistle:

[Ceeney6]

George w bush is as almost as bad as hitler he started a war in iraq for no good reason and has terrorisd a whole nation(iraq) and pissed off the rest of the world. He has tourted people for his administration own gain.

[russtafa]

nowhere near as bad as hitler and stalin

[robertlouis]

George w bush is as almost as bad as hitler he started a war in iraq for no good reason and has terrorisd a whole nation(iraq) and pissed off the rest of the world. He has tourted people for his administration own gain.

This post (sorry ceeney) pretty well summarises everything that's wrong with this thread and indeed anything which attempts to compare actions of great evil and their authors, and any of the dumbos who think they can checkmate an argument on the internet by playing the Hitler card.

Bush is a buffoon, but any comparison with Hitler and Stalin is fatuous in the extreme.

Can we let this pathetic thread crawl off somewhere to die quietly please?

[natina]

Jim crow


WILLIE LYNCH