By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Most evil man: Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Laden?

donathos on 02 April 2009

Yes, Hitler and Osama are really "evil."

Those saying that Hitler and Osama had/have "good intentions," that may or may not be true.  But even if we say that it is true, that would just go to show that someone may be evil despite having good intentions--that good intentions are not enough to be good.



Around the Network
pastro243 on 02 April 2009

Bush, or darth vader.



- Our album on spotify https://open.spotify.com/album/56mEbEgyBYGzcDyZ1eMQ1v?si=hYKgir5YRSCrzywgGmV4oQ

- Our videoclip 

- My manga: https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/blanca-the-world/list?title_no=313068

highwaystar101 on 02 April 2009
pastro243 said:
Bush, or darth vader.

 

Bush, darth vader wasn't an emporer, he did what people said... also, he is fictional.



Kasz216 on 02 April 2009
Rath said:
numonex said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Between Hitler and Bin Laden, it's Hitler.

Throw in Stalin and it's Stalin.

Throw in every other evil bastard, and Bin Laden's out of the top 30. Stalin would be in the top 5 and Hitler would be in the top 10. I'd need forever to get more specific.

Care to list your Top 10 most evil men in history.

BTW: I wish this was a Hitler or Stalin thread, it would be epic. Could a mod edit the thread title for me and put Josef Stalin's name in place of Osama Bin Laden.

Oooh this could be quite fun.

1. Hitler - The holocaust is extremely evil not because of the number of dead but because of how they were killed. It was extremely systematic.

2. Stalin - Right up there with Hitler, the amount of people he killed is atrocious.

3. Vlad Tepes (Aka. Vlad the Impaler, aka. Dracula) - Right evil sonovabitch, didn't kill anywhere near as many as the two above but was far more creative in how he did it. Legend has it he left a golden goblet in the centre of his main city and nobody ever stole it because they were far too scared of him.

4. Pol Pot - The killing fields are one of the worst atrocities ever comitted.

5. Eichmann - Hitlers right hand man as far as the holocaust is concerned. "I laugh when I jump into the grave because of the feeling that I have killed 5,000,000 Jews. That gives me great satisfaction and gratification."

6. Idi Amin. Killed thousands of pe eople, ate people and ordered televised executions.

7. Gilles de Rais. Not as much of a mass murderer as the above but just as evil, he raped and killed hundreds of children in extremely cruel ways.

8. Enver Pasha/ Talaat Pasha. These two were largely responsible for the Armenian genocide.

9. Chairman Mao. Architect of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution - two things that killed many many millions of people.

10. Torquemada. A particularly cruel grand-inquisitor during the Spanish Inqusition. Killed between 1000-3000 people in extremely cruel ways.

You'd be surprised.  Vlad the Impaler wasn't actually anymore brutal then anyone else in the area.  His enemies were juset as bad.

His brother for example was killed by being blinded and then buried alive.

I really don't think he fits the list unless you put just about everyone in that region up there.

Also stalin... killed waaaay more people then hitler.  I mean the Ukranian famine itself about matches the hologcaust and that's usually ignored when it comes up to tallying Salins death total.



Rath on 02 April 2009
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
ssj12 said:

Well someone knows his history. And I believe Hitler lost his mind somewhere along the way.

Still his hatred of "Jews" is also contributed to his mother, if i remember right, because she was of Jewish faith. I think she beat him as a child because he refused the religion. So his hate for it spiraled out of control and turned into the Holocaust.

Ya, A-bomb + A-bomb = a level of genocide that topped Hitler.

 

Yes much of the blame for WWII can be placed on the allies, WWII however isn't the atrocity in this.

Also Hiroshima and Nagasaki were massacres of civilians and Nagasaki at least possibly unnessecary to their aims but they were not genocide and they most certainly did not top Hitler. There was no attempt to destroy a certain group of people.

All and all Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best course sadly.   There was no indication the Japanese even wanted to surreneder.  The one who did surrender was the emperor who was usually overruled by the "Big 5" who did not want to surrender.  They wanted the country to go down fighting.

The emperor wasn't able to make his move until Nagasaki was hit.

Had we stopped at Hiroshima.  They wouldn't of given in.  The russians would of invaded from the north.  The US would of invaded from the south... and Japan would  of became like Korea.

No economic miracle... no nothing really.  Japan would of been screwed... millions would of died.

People who think Nagasaki may have been pointless are people who don't actually look at the history and just say "Hey come on.  They're A-bombs they had to give up!"

I still think they should have delayed the bombing of Nagasaki rather than bringing it forward, the Japanese may still have surrendered in the aftermath of Hiroshima and the knowledge that the USSR would also be invading.

 



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 02 April 2009
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
ssj12 said:

Well someone knows his history. And I believe Hitler lost his mind somewhere along the way.

Still his hatred of "Jews" is also contributed to his mother, if i remember right, because she was of Jewish faith. I think she beat him as a child because he refused the religion. So his hate for it spiraled out of control and turned into the Holocaust.

Ya, A-bomb + A-bomb = a level of genocide that topped Hitler.

 

Yes much of the blame for WWII can be placed on the allies, WWII however isn't the atrocity in this.

Also Hiroshima and Nagasaki were massacres of civilians and Nagasaki at least possibly unnessecary to their aims but they were not genocide and they most certainly did not top Hitler. There was no attempt to destroy a certain group of people.

All and all Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best course sadly.   There was no indication the Japanese even wanted to surreneder.  The one who did surrender was the emperor who was usually overruled by the "Big 5" who did not want to surrender.  They wanted the country to go down fighting.

The emperor wasn't able to make his move until Nagasaki was hit.

Had we stopped at Hiroshima.  They wouldn't of given in.  The russians would of invaded from the north.  The US would of invaded from the south... and Japan would  of became like Korea.

No economic miracle... no nothing really.  Japan would of been screwed... millions would of died.

People who think Nagasaki may have been pointless are people who don't actually look at the history and just say "Hey come on.  They're A-bombs they had to give up!"

I still think they should have delayed the bombing of Nagasaki rather than bringing it forward, the Japanese may still have surrendered in the aftermath of Hiroshima and the knowledge that the USSR would also be invading.

 

Internal government japanese documents show they weren't going to surrender.

The emperor had to "betray" the people currently in control to even pull it off.  This was made possible only by the second bombing.

If your looking for allied attrocities that didn't need to happen.

The fire bombing of Dresden fits... Japanese internment... i'm sure there are others.



tarheel91 on 02 April 2009
Epoch said:
rocketpig said:
Neither. Stalin wins this contest all day, every day. The guy ended up dying because he killed his own doctors out of paranoia, for crying out loud. You just can't beat that.

Oh, and he also killed like 50 million other people.

 

I think it was closer to 5 Million, but I agree. Stalin was a paranoid schizophrenic who got into power.  His own brother tried to kill him for the good of the country for fucks sakes. 

There are alot more people deserving of this title than Hitler or Osama.  Some african dictators come to mind as well. 

I vote Stalin.

 

No, he killed more than that in the Gulags alone.  Conservative estimates are at 10 million, while the most liberal are around 50 million.  It depends on you count the people he let starve to death so he could sell grain to get money for the steel industry.  Chairman Mao wins though, in terms of most people killed.



rocketpig on 02 April 2009
SamuelRSmith said:
Evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

What Hitler and Osama did/are doing may be considered evil in our culture, but what of the people who share the same views? I mean, after all, Hitler wasn't born a racist, he gained those views from the people who influenced thing, and the same can be said for Osama.

I'll ask a question: would Hitler have been considered evil in medieval Europe, where the Jews got blamed for every bad thing under the sun?

Hitler and Osama's actions have both been, in their opinion, for the good of the world, and they're not profiteering from it.

If Hitler had been successful would we have considered him evil today? The answer is no, because what is "wrong" and what is "right" would have changed, and Hitler probably would be seen today as an idol.

I think the case of Osama is incredibly interesting. After all, he became unattached to his family, and has very little to do with them. He's the only one who isn't living the life of a billionaire. He's got a goal, which he thinks is better for the world, and he's dedicating his life to it... is that really all that evil? Sure what he wants isn't considered good, and his means are awful, but at the end of the day, he thinks that his intentions are clear.

And yet we have the rest of his family, who know that what they're doing kills people, and their profiteering from it. They know that the oil they pump is killing thousands of people, and other life forms, and yet what they're doing, it isn't for the good of the world, not in anybodies mind, but they're doing it simply for their own selfish needs.

Who, out of the Bin Laden family, really is the most evil of members?

Now, please let me finish by saying that I am in no way trying to justify what these men have done, in fact, it sickens me. But I think, when it comes to judging evality (my new word), what they've done is only half the criteria, the other half is their reasons behind it.

Excellent points, which is why bin Laden doesn't even rate on the list.

As for Hitler, his intent is why I don't think he's as evil as Stalin. They both did terrible things but Hitler had a "good" goal behind his... The advancement of Germany as a nation. The things he did to rise to power and maintain it were despicable but there was a nationalism behind his reasoning.

Stalin? Not so much. Nearly everything he did was to keep himself in power and that was it. He killed indiscriminately and murdered his own people without regard, all in the quest to maintain his dominance over Russia. Just read some of Stalin's famous quotes... They send shivers down your spine. The man was truly a paranoid, power hungry madman.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Words Of Wisdom on 02 April 2009
RolStoppable said:

On a sidenote, I am surprised that my name was only brought up by two people in this thread and more surprisingly, kirby007 wasn't one of them.

Soriku is stalking you.

 



O-D-C on 02 April 2009

Hitler easily