• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Worst Genocidal Mass-Murderer In History

The Worst Genocidal Murderer in History

  • Total voters
    52
Lincoln isn't listed, but he killed over 600,000 people out of a population of 31 million. That gives him a per capita rate of 52.4 per 1000 people. He set the stage for future dictators like Stalin and Hitler.
 
The_Patriot said:
Lincoln isn't listed, but he killed over 600,000 people out of a population of 31 million. That gives him a per capita rate of 52.4 per 1000 people. He set the stage for future dictators like Stalin and Hitler.
Click to expand...

I didn't have room for Lincoln, but he, Idi Amin, and Torquemada were also candidates to make the list. Believe me, I agree with you -- while I'm all about big government, I'm not fond of the revision of history following the American Civil War. I absolutely and fundamentally disagree with most of the things the Confederacy stood for -- but I'm a firm believer in the human construct of law, and, with a few exceptions, the law ought to apply to everyone, from the poorest miser to the largest government.

Again, with a few exceptions -- there are a few revolutions here and there (French, Russian, Reformation) that were "illegal" in terms of world standards, but necessary for the evolution of the human race.
 
As I always like to do I use Historical facts.

Most people are wrong thinking that Stalin was number one when in fact he was second and not very close at that.

Mao is believed to have murdered between 60 & 70 million people depending on the source, making Stalin a piker in comparison killing in the neighborhood of a mere 40 million.
 
Councilman said:
As I always like to do I use Historical facts.

Most people are wrong thinking that Stalin was number one when in fact he was second and not very close at that.

Mao is believed to have murdered between 60 & 70 million people depending on the source, making Stalin a piker in comparison killing in the neighborhood of a mere 40 million.
Click to expand...

Historical facts are awesome. :) What's the top five look at for raw number of people killed and done by per capita?
 
Councilman said:
As I always like to do I use Historical facts.

Most people are wrong thinking that Stalin was number one when in fact he was second and not very close at that.

Mao is believed to have murdered between 60 & 70 million people depending on the source, making Stalin a piker in comparison killing in the neighborhood of a mere 40 million.
Click to expand...

It has always annoyed me a bit that every few years, Stalin's murder count mysteriously goes up a few million. It's always struck me as a kind of revisionist history shyness -- as though the guys who want to badmouth Stalin are peeking their heads out and saying, "Uh, the KGB is really gone, then, is it?"

Stalin was a mass murdering bastard, who defaced the name of the Soviet Union and all it stood for. Stalin's true heinous crimes are enough to send him to the lowest circle of hell -- to go crashing through the floor of it, in fact. Why do you need to falsify the facts? Why dishonour the millions that did die due to him by claiming every year or every textbook edition a larger number?

The number of people that Stalin killed, as a direct result of his policies, initiatives, or planned inactions, is somewhere from 9-13 million people. An unfathomable amount. A disgusting amount. Don't ramp it up to 15 million, or to 20, or 30, or 40, as there's no point in doing so -- nobody's sitting around saying "Oh! Well, if it was only TEN million sentient beings, and not 20, then I guess he wasn't such a bad guy after all."

Or, perhaps I've jumped down your throat too soon, and the mistake was accidental -- I see a lot of people confusing the number of Soviet dead in World War II with the number of Soviet dead from Stalin's purges. Two entirely different things, though, sadly, two similarly astronomical numbers.
 
Le Marteau said:
It has always annoyed me a bit that every few years, Stalin's murder count mysteriously goes up a few million. It's always struck me as a kind of revisionist history shyness -- as though the guys who want to badmouth Stalin are peeking their heads out and saying, "Uh, the KGB is really gone, then, is it?"

Stalin was a mass murdering bastard, who defaced the name of the Soviet Union and all it stood for. Stalin's true heinous crimes are enough to send him to the lowest circle of hell -- to go crashing through the floor of it, in fact. Why do you need to falsify the facts? Why dishonour the millions that did die due to him by claiming every year or every textbook edition a larger number?

The number of people that Stalin killed, as a direct result of his policies, initiatives, or planned inactions, is somewhere from 9-13 million people. An unfathomable amount. A disgusting amount. Don't ramp it up to 15 million, or to 20, or 30, or 40, as there's no point in doing so -- nobody's sitting around saying "Oh! Well, if it was only TEN million sentient beings, and not 20, then I guess he wasn't such a bad guy after all."

Or, perhaps I've jumped down your throat too soon, and the mistake was accidental -- I see a lot of people confusing the number of Soviet dead in World War II with the number of Soviet dead from Stalin's purges. Two entirely different things, though, sadly, two similarly astronomical numbers.
Click to expand...

You know what? I thought what you said when I was checking to make sure my memory was not faulty. I knew Mao was by far the leader in mass murder but eve his numbers are no more than a rough guess because China was as mysterious as it is now.

Stalin's numbers on the other hand confused me because I would have sworn that he killed about 12.5 max, and that was also a guess.

Every source I saw should his total between no less than 25 million but no more than 40 million,and since the goal was to find the highest number I went with the highest I found for Stalin and he was still way back in number 2 spot.

I have no clue why the numbers keep going up. It sure isn't from records because other than the Germans in WW-II most of these mass-murderers don't keep detailed accounts on what they did.
 
Councilman said:
You know what? I thought what you said when I was checking to make sure my memory was not faulty. I knew Mao was by far the leader in mass murder but eve his numbers are no more than a rough guess because China was as mysterious as it is now.

Stalin's numbers on the other hand confused me because I would have sworn that he killed about 12.5 max, and that was also a guess.

Every source I saw should his total between no less than 25 million but no more than 40 million,and since the goal was to find the highest number I went with the highest I found for Stalin and he was still way back in number 2 spot.

I have no clue why the numbers keep going up. It sure isn't from records because other than the Germans in WW-II most of these mass-murderers don't keep detailed accounts on what they did.
Click to expand...


Then I commend you, sir, for your analytic approach to history. It's always easy to keep sneaking up the bad deeds of your historic enemies -- especially when they're no longer around to set the record straight.

Make no mistake, I'm not attempting to say Stalin's got a bad rap and he never harmed a soul in his life -- that'd be daft. But, as I said, it's also disrespectful to falsify the number of those murdered at his hands.

So, anyway, well done to you.
 
From an efficiency POV, Truman would be hard to beat. ;)

.
 
TOJ said:
From an efficiency POV, Truman would be hard to beat. ;)

.
Click to expand...

why, because he nuked a nation that sneak attacked the USA, and while American POWs in German hands suffered a 1% mortality rate, a third of those held by Japan died?

Truman saved lives by using the Atomic bomb
 
TurtleDude said:
why, because he nuked a nation
Click to expand...
Yep.

that sneak attacked the USA, and while American POWs in German hands suffered a 1% mortality rate, a third of those held by Japan died?
Click to expand...
Rationalization is a wonderful thing. :roll:

Truman saved lives by using the Atomic bomb
Click to expand...
Saved some unknowable number of USA soldiers while killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. Whether that was a good thing depends on your point of view.

.
 
TOJ said:
Yep.

Rationalization is a wonderful thing. :roll:

Saved some unknowable number of USA soldiers while killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. Whether that was a good thing depends on your point of view.

.
Click to expand...


I must agree with this -- the only way to justify the American detonations of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is if you believe that Americans inherently deserve to live more than Japanese.

Which I severely hop you do not, for your sake.
 
Le Marteau said:
I must agree with this -- the only way to justify the American detonations of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is if you believe that Americans inherently deserve to live more than Japanese.

Which I severely hop you do not, for your sake.
Click to expand...
Personally, I would hope that any president, during a time of war, would think his military personnel and citizens were more deserving of life than their enemies.

Sure, a generalized wish that no humans ever need die is good, but if they're trying to kill you, it would be best if you have no major qualms about killing them, to survive.

That said, I was under the impression that the use of nuclear bombs was to avoid invading Japan - which, I understand, was projected to probably cost more total lives in the end.

But that is perhaps a rationalization.

Perhaps I am missing something...
 
It's obviously either Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. No one else comes close to those three. Among the three of them, it's much harder to determine who was the worst. It really boils down to how you count the number of people killed.

If we're looking at the total number of deaths that the leaders were responsible for, then I think Mao was probably the worst. But a lot of those deaths weren't intentional; they were just due to Mao implementing horrible policies that destroyed his country. If we're only counting intentional deaths, then it's Hitler. But most of those were due to World War II rather than the Holocaust, so it's hard to personally hold him accountable for all of them despite starting the war. If we're talking about flat-out intentional murders of civilians during peace time, Stalin was the worst.
 
Last edited:
TOJ said:
Yep.

Rationalization is a wonderful thing. :roll:

Saved some unknowable number of USA soldiers while killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. Whether that was a good thing depends on your point of view.

.
Click to expand...

actually, most people who actually understand the issue note that we would have killed over a million japanese civilians with an invasion

if you think nuking a hostile country that committed massive acts of atrocities as well as using diplomacy as a veil to murder more than a thousand US servicemen during peacetime is the same as the mass murders Hitler and Stalin committed agains their own people, I will just write you off as another self loathing American.
 
Le Marteau said:
I must agree with this -- the only way to justify the American detonations of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is if you believe that Americans inherently deserve to live more than Japanese.

Which I severely hop you do not, for your sake.
Click to expand...

our peoples' lives were far more valuable than that of the enemy who not only started the war but who engaged in massive war crimes-

That hirohito was not strung up is a travesty
 
TurtleDude said:
our peoples' lives were far more valuable than that of the enemy who not only started the war but who engaged in massive war crimes-

That Hirohito was not strung up is a travesty
Click to expand...
:confused:

Maybe I screwed up in my history somewhere, but I thought "Hirohito" was the emperor of Japan at the time, right?

Wasn't he more or less a puppet, for a time?

I thought the various military leaders were in defacto controll during at least a portion of the war.
 
The Mark said:
:confused:

Maybe I screwed up in my history somewhere, but I thought "Hirohito" was the emperor of Japan at the time, right?

Wasn't he more or less a puppet, for a time?

I thought the various military leaders were in defacto controll during at least a portion of the war.
Click to expand...


co-conspirator-he used his throne and "divinity" to help the junta

he should have been executed.
 
TurtleDude said:
co-conspirator-he used his throne and "divinity" to help the junta

he should have been executed.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I got the impression that the "junta" used him, his throne, and "divinity", to help themselves...but perhaps I was partially misinformed.
 
The Mark said:
Hmm, I got the impression that the "junta" used him, his throne, and "divinity", to help themselves...but perhaps I was partially misinformed.
Click to expand...

maybe they did. just as Hitler and a few used lots of people under them

I was just following orders didn't save them

Hirohito was a pawn but there is no evidence he wasn't willing and given the way the populace idolized him, he had a powerful weapon to oppose Tojo et all if he wanted to-rather he was their lapdog. he should have done the rope dance
 
Le Marteau said:
It has always annoyed me a bit that every few years, Stalin's murder count mysteriously goes up a few million. It's always struck me as a kind of revisionist history shyness -- as though the guys who want to badmouth Stalin are peeking their heads out and saying, "Uh, the KGB is really gone, then, is it?"

Stalin was a mass murdering bastard, who defaced the name of the Soviet Union and all it stood for. Stalin's true heinous crimes are enough to send him to the lowest circle of hell -- to go crashing through the floor of it, in fact. Why do you need to falsify the facts? Why dishonour the millions that did die due to him by claiming every year or every textbook edition a larger number?

The number of people that Stalin killed, as a direct result of his policies, initiatives, or planned inactions, is somewhere from 9-13 million people. An unfathomable amount. A disgusting amount. Don't ramp it up to 15 million, or to 20, or 30, or 40, as there's no point in doing so -- nobody's sitting around saying "Oh! Well, if it was only TEN million sentient beings, and not 20, then I guess he wasn't such a bad guy after all."

Or, perhaps I've jumped down your throat too soon, and the mistake was accidental -- I see a lot of people confusing the number of Soviet dead in World War II with the number of Soviet dead from Stalin's purges. Two entirely different things, though, sadly, two similarly astronomical numbers.
Click to expand...

As a Trotskyist I find this liberal interpretation of history pretty off-putting. Stalin wasn't "responsible" for any killings, on his own. Stalin was a cog in a massive state bureaucracy that implemented policies that led to the deaths of millions. Putting it all solely at the feet of Stalin is distorting what actually happened and giving Stalin some kind of supervillian status. It's just silly. It also is revisionist in the sense that it opens up the doors for the "communism causes Stalin" argument put forward in the Black Book and by many conservative lemmings on this site. That's just not true. The development of the Soviet bureacuracy is incredibly complex and to dumb it down to "Stalin killed xyz" is ridiculous.

The deaths were due to the bureaucracy itself, not simply Stalin. The implementation of the demands of the populace by the bureaucracy was impossible because of the isolation of the bureaucracy from the population as a whole; this led to famine. The enactment of political laws and a justice system was destroyed by corruption and internal quarreling; this led to political persecution, unfair punishment, unjust executions and further famine in the camps.

The political movements of the bureaucracy were completely blind and contradictory, going from the support of an NEP-type policy to collectivism and then setting ridiculous production quotas for propaganda purposes. The requisition of grain was carried out in a manner that contributed to famine was due to police/NKVD corruption, a disconnect in the line of communication between the bureaucracy and the producers, the propaganda efforts of the bureaucrats to meet quota, and other consequences.

I could go on endlessly about this. Don't simply lay it at Stalin's feet because that's distorting history and letting the bureaucracy that is responsible for the deaths get off scot free.
 
TurtleDude said:
actually, most people who actually understand the issue note that we would have killed over a million japanese civilians with an invasion
Click to expand...
The operative phrase there is 'with an invasion'. Why was an invasion necesssry? After destroying the Japanese fleet, it would have been easy to blockaide Japan. Put a fence around it and call it a prison.

if you think nuking a hostile country that committed massive acts of atrocities as well as using diplomacy as a veil to murder more than a thousand US servicemen during peacetime is the same as the mass murders Hitler and Stalin committed agains their own people,
Click to expand...
So you think intentional mass killing of civilians is proper conduct in war. If using nukes was such a rightous act, why hasn't the USA used them since? Wouldn't nuking NK, NV, etc have saved many USA soldiers also?


I will just write you off as another self loathing American.
Click to expand...
Does one have to be a USA citizen to be a 'self loathing American'? :doh
 
Why isn't George W Bush listed?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
As a Trotskyist I find this liberal interpretation of history pretty off-putting. Stalin wasn't "responsible" for any killings, on his own. Stalin was a cog in a massive state bureaucracy that implemented policies that led to the deaths of millions.
Click to expand...
Who created/approved the policies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom