Most Evil Human In History Aside From the Big Two

[RebsA]

God,Jesus,(person who wrote bible) however you want to put it.

Religion had resulted in more deaths than anything else, person who created the belief should be erased from history

I really don't understand you people. Blaming religion on all the wars that have been fought for "religion" is like saying that the Nuclear weapons that the arabians have (don't have) is the reason for the war in the middle east.

If somebody wants a war, well hell: all you need is a reason. I really don't believe that any war has resulted fully, due to christianity. Even the first crusades were actually started by arabs who didn't allow christians to go to their holy places in palestine, such as Jerusalem.

Also I see you're bashing christianity, a religion that is the main reason that the western world looks like it does today. Our laws are based on christianity and most of our culture too. Our arts and literature were developed by monks in the dark middle ages.

You can read the bible anyway you wan't but the new testament really isn't telling christians to go and burn people on stakes (I should know, for I have actually read it), it's telling people to do unto others as you would like to be done to thyself.

Long story short: Religion isn't usually the real reason for the conflicts that are caused by "religion" (and christianity hasn't been in such conflicts for a looooooong time), if someone want's a war, or a mass murder and needs a reason, he just picks the one that is most easily available, no matter if it's religion or chickens.

(And yes I am a christhian, a Lutheran one)

 

[Tiger Sora]

Vlad Ţepeş, better known as Vlad the Impaler. Really 2 sides of a coin. On one side he tortured and murdered tens of thousands and most in the most painful way possible, by impaling them on a post dug into the ground as to have the death slow. He is also known as the vampire Dracula, though he wasn't one. The name was given to him long after his death.

On the other side though, Vlad fought against the Ottomans expansionism into Europe. Having also the Pope's favor he basically lead the churches crusade against the Ottomans. And held the line for years. If it wasn't for Vlad we might be Ottomans now.

So really was truly good and evil all at the same time. But most recount him for his cruel killings, and him being Dracula.

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

READ THE WHOLE POST

As a species we have produced some rather poor specimens. We have had dictators, serial killers, pedophiles and other degenerates in our society. But which is the worst? Which person is the epitome of human scum?

The answer to that question varies from person to person, we have seen many wastes of skin in our brief time on earth. From Stalin to Charles Manson there are plenty of human garbage to pick from.

So who get's your vote for most evil human in history? It can be anyone, but to avoid repeat answers I'll have to ask you to refrain from answering Hitler or Stalin. So aside from them, who is one person that you wish was never born? And please explain why.

Personally, Idi Amin comes to mind. He was born in a Ugandan tribe and joined the army, he was an immense human being with incredible physical strengths. When the British left Uganda he was promoted to Colonel, and began to commit murders and steal money. Before he was delt with he disposed of the current leader at the time in a military coup and began to build he army to get himself more money and power. His army was made up of thugs who raped and tortured many people under Amin's orders, they ran a jail that had only 7 survivors who only survived because they ate human flesh and drink their own urine to live. Amin was thought to be a canibal. He even kept the heads of certain victems in his fridge and had photos of people being tortured in his jails for his own pleasure. He even chopped up his first wife when she displeased him.

He also purged anyone who wasen't a born Ugandan from Uganda, leading to an economic crisis in the country when no one knew how to run the stores they were given. Amin made his thugs step up their cruelty. He eventually was taken out of power when he invaded another African country and his thugs only knowing how to bully civilians got their asses kicked. There he fled to Saudi Arabia and got asylum there, he never paid for his crimes.

I picked this monster because unlike many leaders at the time he had no real politcal agenda, he was just a greedy bastard with a drive for power.

With nine posts in this bloody thing I think someone else always pointed it out but . . .

Pedophiles, really? Who cares if someone faps to young boys? There's a fair difference between a child molester and a pedophile. Besides, there's a far worse group of people - I call them Catholics. And no, I'm not kidding and no, I'm not trolling.

It pisses me off to no end that they spread lies about condoms, go to developing nations with a terrible aids problem and spread more lies about condoms, and constantly spread BS on how gay people are pedophiles while they, the supposedly righteous are off touching young boys. Along with this they also promote anti - intellectualism, racism, hatred, and backwards minded traditions just for the sake of tradition.

And if you ask me that's pretty fucking evil. Compare a catholic priest that raped a boy to a pedophile that never did such a thing. And yes, I know I'm being a bit of the prejudiced twat my self but hey, I had to put up with a seemingly pretty shitty life thanks to them alone so they can go fuck right off.

But I digress. In my eyes they're a pretty evil group of people but I wouldn't give them third place. My third place would probably go to Chairmen Mao or Himmler. Heck, I might even replace Hitler with Himmler if I'm allowed. Himmler was the man in charge of the SS waffen so I assume that around 70% of the horrible things he did were of his own command, not Hitlers.

 

[Therumancer]

Hitler and Stalin weren't evil to be honest.

Yes, they were.

People seem to think "killed a lot of people" amounts to being evil.

That's because it does.

Both were well intentioned and did a lot of good.

In the case of Stalin you are correct to an extent. In the case of Hitler you are completely and utterly wrong.

People forget that both had a LOT of propaganda leveled against them. This does not mean they were right in everything they did, simply that you can't come close to putting them on an "evil" list.

Why? Because people say bad things about them? People say bad things about them because they they were the leaders of two of the most monsterous regimes in human history.

Hitler for example was an international man of the year,

Which says nothing of his morality, just that people at thje time found him notable.

one of the reasons why he is so quotable is that he was right about 99.9% of everything he said and believed.

Are you insane? The man promoted debunked racial theory, unworkable economics, monsterous and ultimately bad politics and worked on an unrestraioned philosophy of shallow egoism. His whole goverment was based on censorship and a spin-doctoring that makes modern western goverments look like saints in comparison.
.

As I refuse to be put into the position of having to defend Hitler, I have to rely on you being interested enough to do your own research into the subject and the actual truth of the matter. The point is that while I myself said he was evil, I was explaining that he is not evil for reasons usually abscribed, and why he does not deserve to be considered one of the most evil, not even close.

The problem is that World War II involved the biggest campaign of propaganda ever conceived, The Smithsonian has an entire section dedicated to it. A lot of the details are as a result totally borked. Your pretty much agreeing with the version put forward as a result of that campaign. Something which I might add has the negative effect of meaning that we fail to learn from history here, because we're basically beating on a comic book villain of our own creation.

To put things into perspective, and something that can be viewed with a cooler head than Hitler and his buddies look at the example of "Bomber" Harris, known as "Butcher" Harris to the Germans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_Harris


With World War II one of the many things we call Hitler a monster for is how he launched The Blitz, and dropped stupid numbers of bombs on cites like London. We totally overlook how we, the allies, were just as bad, and were actually bigger bastards than he was when it came to wartime policy. We committed as many, if not more atrocities. We won, by being the bigger bastards, and by using propaganda to conceal that fact, and then writing our own greatness into history.

Bomber Harris is one of the guys who was paticularly infamous for blowing the crap out of defenseless civilians, and even killing our own POWs being forced to work in factories and such... the guys on the German side who did this were war criminals, the guys on our side who did this were heroes. Bomber Harris was knighted for this.

The point is that it all comes down to perspective. The peception of wars like "World War II" as clean and some kind of absolute battle between good and evil, has tainted our perception of war in general, and has actually hampered our abillity to fight and act in our own interests. We like to overlook what is nessicary to win a war, and the way history is created, and look back at these comic book villains of our own creation as a standard for what it should take to pursue a war, when really there never was any such thing.

Was Hitler wrong? Did he need to be stopped? The answer is yes. Was what we did acceptable to stop him? Yes again. Did we record history, the motives our our enemies, and other things accuratly? No we didn't. We call out the enemies propaganda campaign when forgetting about our own.

We like to decry the holocaust for example, and it was bad, but at the same time we create issues like the various "Holocaust Deniers" we have to deal with, because of how badly we exagerrated the situation. Do a search for things like "Nazi Human Flesh Lampshades" and "Nazi Portable Bone Grinders" and similar things, and you'll find that we told lies about the extent of the holocaust to drive our troops into a fury so they would themselves be more than willing to perform the nessicary atrocities to win. Later we look at the information from our own war department, and find that we were lying. Tests on those same human flesh lampshades proved they were goat skin. This of course opens the door for people to question that if we were lying about things like that, what else were we lying about? That means the truth winds up being at risk and we lose the abillity to learn from history, and we have to deal with people who claim things like the Holocaust never happened at all, rather than merely having been exagerrated, and wind up with problems. Both sides of an arguement like to say that the other side relies on "junk science" and "false history" and how whatever they don't like has been debunked, becuase the people they want to listen to say it has, but that's hardly the truth.

My position on matters like World War II and Hitler is one where I look at both sides of the equasion, and come to the conclusion that like most things the truth is in the middle. He was evil, but not "Ming The Merciless" evil. The US and it's allies lied about the details, but didn't invent things like The Holocaust out of whole cloth either. As a result I wind up being disliked by both liberals and those who want to believe the Hollywood version, and the extremist neo-nazi "Hitler was actually the hero" guys on the other side.

Mostly I've learned what I know due to an interest in military practice and looking at what it takes to win a war, compared to the morality we espouse right now. I point out American/allied lies in most cases to support getting serious in our current conflicts and to give up the "antiseptic war" nonsense and how we can win without targeting civilians oftentime reinforced by people thinking we did that in World War II (totally forgetting about things like what we did to groups like the Volkssturm).

Among other things it comes down to the simple acceptance that Hollywood is full of crap when it comes to Hitler. He's a villain, but one with understandable motives. He didn't get all of these people to follow him by being the kind of goober we want to present him as, and honestly viewing him as some kind of easily debunked psychopath is exactly why we run the risk of having to deal with a situation like that again, because that's exactly what he wasn't... and that, that right there is what makes him scary, and what attitudes like yours are going to cause us problems with.

At any rate we're going to have to agree to disagree, I've given my opinion, you've given yours, and chances are we are not going to agree on the extent of his evil. I think he was evil, you think he was considerably more so, there isn't enough her to argue about to make it worthwhile.

 

[Snowpact]

Mao Zedong.

Any specific reasons?

He killed more than Stalin and Hitler put together.

Yeah when it comes to death counts Mao > Stalin > Hitler > Everyone else.

Isn't that supposed to be Ghengis Khan > Everyone?

 

[Sven_Untgaarde]

Evil, of course, is a perspective thing. When you refer to Mao Tse Tong (Mao Zedong), you're taking that from a Western perspective, one that involves having a democratic government and free speech and such like that.

However, ask a Chinese person if they liked him, and some of them will say yes. Why? Because he lead his country well. He progressed China into the monolith of a country that it is now, because he had a strong grip on his people.

If you look at what Stalin did, he did the exact same. Russia used to be just large rural farmland until he came around and turned it into something impressive.
Don't forget that Hitler did the same thing. He turned Germany, a broken slum of a country back into the great iron nation that Otto Von Bismarck made it to be back then.

Of course they are "evil" in our nice and clean democracy where when one of our nations troops (I'm Canadian, fyi) is killed, there is a whole news report about it, and a moment of silence or whatever takes place. But if we were taking it from a different perspective, you might see that they did do good.

 

[Rex Fallout]

Mao Zedong- greatest mass murderer in human history.

Well, yes and no.

I might disagree with his policies, but Mao was pretty much motivated by making China a better place. Just because I disagree with him, doesn't mean his motives were evil.

Terrible Logic. I can argue that all of the murderers throughout history have done it *for a reason* that doesn't excuse them for what they did. They ordered innocent people slaughtered simply to meet their ends. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, all were motivated to make the 13 colonies a better place. And in the event they didn't kill some 78 million individuals simply because they were doing that. They didn't kill *any* innocent individuals as afar as I know. Feel free to prove me wrong. Motive means nothing. I kill my neighbor because I think his yard is a blight on the beauty of the neighborhood. My original thought wasn't inherrently evil, in fact it very well could be very true, maybe it was just dirt with those pink flamingo yard ornaments sitting in it. But when I am arrested for his murder no one will think, "Well his yard did look like shit. Let the guy go." NO! I'll be tried for murder. Murder is murder, no matter the motive.

See, warfare and even mass murder are not nice things, but in the end they are just tools and the expression of will. Many people who have done such things were evil, but others, well not really. It's not about how many lives you end. I hate the guy and his politics, but I'd consider him less evil than Stalin or Hitler, and I don't think either of them would make my personal top five if I was pushed to come up with one, and maybe even not the top ten.

For the sake of pure evil, my #1 is Pol Pot, not because of how many he killed, but because of him not really having a valid reason for the people he killed, as well as going out of the way to make them suffer.

I'd rate guys like say the BTK (Bind, Torture, Kill) killer as higher than say Hitler or Stalin because he had no real purpose to his murders other than personal gratification, he enjoyed human suffering. He knew flat out what he was doing was wrong, but did it anyway, and had no purpose other than his own enjoyment.

Pol Pot is like a Green River Killer, BTK, Jefferey Dahmer, or other maniac who managed to get into power where he could unleash his evil on a massive scale. The whole purpose being death and misery, and looking for any justification to spread it. I don't think Mao, Hitler, or Stalin started out thinking "gee, I want to horribly kill a bunch of people, how do I justify this and get people to follow me", rather they started out thinking about how they could make life better for people, and wound up where they were. At the worst you can look at them and invoke the old statement about the road to hell being paved with good intentions, and depending on your personal politics might not even think that applies when it comes to someone like Mao (ie if your a believer in Communism, your generally going to believe he acted for the greater good and simply did what had to be done). I don't think Mao anticipated China becoming what it is now, any more than Lenin saw what was going to happen to Russia.

The thing is that actual evil is usually recognized, and thus it's a very rare thing when you see someone who is outright evil convincing enough people to back them to operate on a national, or global level. That's why we don't have many people like Pol Pot, though in political arguements people will make the accusation because of the power the image carries, without it being true.

You just repeat yourself. "War and Mass Murder are just tools?" BULL F***ING SHIT. War is an uneeded tool if everyone would just grow a pair and learn to tolerate everyone elses ideas and beliefs. It is not needed. And Mass Murder is a tool of building fear, and silencing the masses. These are not 'just' tools, as you so elequantly put it.

And a charismatic person can persuade people to do whatever the hell they want. Hint hint- thats how Stalin, Lenin, Castro, (the other castro too), Hitler, Mussolini, and yes, even Mao, came into power. And it is how dictators keep their power today in many circomstances. The men you pointed out are evil. But I can defend them using the same logic you defended Mao.

There is a difference between tolerating a belief that isn't dangerous the the people around it, and between tolerating a belief which isn't a danger to society.

 

[Rex Fallout]

Evil, of course, is a perspective thing. When you refer to Mao Tse Tong (Mao Zedong), you're taking that from a Western perspective, one that involves having a democratic government and free speech and such like that.

However, ask a Chinese person if they liked him, and some of them will say yes. Why? Because he lead his country well. He progressed China into the monolith of a country that it is now, because he had a strong grip on his people.

If you look at what Stalin did, he did the exact same. Russia used to be just large rural farmland until he came around and turned it into something impressive.
Don't forget that Hitler did the same thing. He turned Germany, a broken slum of a country back into the great iron nation that Otto Von Bismarck made it to be back then.

Of course they are "evil" in our nice and clean democracy where when one of our nations troops (I'm Canadian, fyi) is killed, there is a whole news report about it, and a moment of silence or whatever takes place. But if we were taking it from a different perspective, you might see that they did do good.

Because of government propaganda they will say that they loved him. They will also claim to love Deng Xiaopeng and Hu Jintao. And if they disagree they will be killed or arrested. When you are the one being oppressed, you won't think of things through a 'western perspective' you'll think of things through a, 'this really effing sucks' perspective. Freedom of speech is a basic human right. Period. When you were made you were given a mind - the mind of an individual, and a body- YOUR BODY. No one can tell you what to do with it unless you let them. It is your life to live, not theirs.

Oh and FYI, I don't think it matters about, 'perspective' when your country teaches that the mass murder and imprisonment that happened in 1989 at Tianenmen Square *didn't* happen. But for some reason there are still these old student protesters in prison. Where did they come from...

 

[EllEzDee]

Nixon and Bush, since they're both responsible for wars at the hands of American imperialism.

 

[DMac the Knife]

Well..imo, Stalin is actually the 3rd or 4th most evil human if that. In history and now, there are so many more evil people that haven't even contributed anything to the world. At the very least Stalin gave Russia a decent standard of living. But enough about that. In my opinion, the Empress Dowager CiXi, is the most evil human in history (aside from Hitler). She indirectly killed hundreds of people in the Boxer Rebellions, (which ended in failure for everyone involved), she put China back several decades technologically because of her desire for power and overall put China in the worst state it had been in since the first opium war.

Okay, fair enough, but the leaders of the Boxer Rebellion actually believed that their fighting style would protect them from bullets! Yes, magic shadow boxing that made them impervious to bullets!

I would lay the blame for the Boxer Rebellion and the Opium Wars as a whole squarely at the feet of the British government. One might as well blame Queen Victoria (and/ or King George V) for all of the massacres in colonial Asia.

 

[allways2edlast]

Vlad III of Romania (also known as Vlad the Impaler) was Prince of Wallachia three times between 1448 and 1476. Vlad is best known for the legends of the exceedingly cruel punishments he imposed during his reign and for serving as the primary inspiration for the vampire main character in Bram Stoker?s popular Dracula novel. In Romania he is viewed by many as a prince with a deep sense of justice. His method of torture was a horse attached to each of the victim?s legs as a sharpened stake was gradually forced into the body. The end of the stake was usually oiled, and care was taken that the stake not be too sharp; else the victim might die too rapidly from shock.The list of tortures he is alleged to have employed is extensive: nails in heads, cutting off of limbs, blinding, strangulation, burning, cutting off of noses and ears, mutilation of sexual organs (especially in the case of women), scalping, skinning, exposure to the elements or to animals, and boiling alive. There are claims that on some occasions ten thousand people were impaled in 1460 alone.

 

[ACman]

Mao Zedong.

Why has this user been suspended for this post?

He does have a point. Mao did kill more people than Stalin or Hitler the more through ineptitude and incompetence than by direct malice.

I'm going to go for Maximillian Robspierre because of his personal touch, Hernan Cortes because he actually managed to wipe out the Aztecs or Pol Pot if going by body count alone.

 

[Eijarel]

(going on sheer technicality)
Since there is a law, that technically defines a corporation as a "person"

i would have to say "Monsanto"
one thing is to sell a product, say a car, an oven for a profit, that perfectly fine, however the seed company genetically modified their seeds to die after just one season, ensuring that said farmer comes back and buys more, at this level, although a bit underhanded is perfectly fine (as far as business morals go) is only outraging when they either Sue or bully farmers, that save said seeds for the next seasons or use organic seeds instead.

 

[allways2edlast]

Joseph Stalin

If what I was told was right the man eas just as evil as Hilter

One of the most powerful and murderous dictators in history, Stalin was the supreme ruler of the Soviet Union for a quarter of a century. His regime of terror caused the death and suffering of tens of millions, but he also oversaw the war machine that played a key role in the defeat of Nazism.

Jouring the second would war. a number of prisoners of war were taken to slave labour camps and forced to work in freezing conditions. even after the Germens betrayed them and after the war.

 

[corsair47]

i'm going with john wayne gacy jr
also known as the clown killer
also known as the reason clowns are terrifying
also known as the person who soiled the great name john wayne
also known as the person who raped and murdered 33 boys and buried them under his floorboards a la tell-tale heart (only 33 as opposed to one)
DO NOT OPEN THE SPOILER LINK IF CLOWNS SCARE YOU

Spoiler

 

[Blatherscythe]

Pol Pot is definitely one of the worst; I believe he holds some kind of record for being able to exterminate around a quarter of his country's population in little more than four years (correct me if I'm wrong).
He killed;
Middle and upper class citizens, regardless of political alignment - they were bourgeoisie, therefore enemies of the proletariat and therefore had to be exterminated; that means all doctors, teachers, professors etc; even communist sympathisers were killed because they weren't Khmer Rouge
People who wore glasses - they must have been given them by the previous government therefore were in cahoots with the previous rulers, so they had to go; that's messed up logic
Non-Cambodians - Laotians, Vietnamese and Thai minorities in the country were either forced out or murdered
Journalists (including foreigners), intellectuals outside the Khmer Rouge party and educated people all had to go as well under his regime because they could hold views contrary to his party.
In Pol Pot's Cambodia, you didn't have to oppose him physically or vocally to be put on the government extermination list; you just had to be and that was bad enough.

Before I forget; a couple of Nazis
Joseph Mengele; he experiment on, tortured and murder children in experiments that had no scientific value or real goal. That is just sick. Worst part is he escaped and lived comfortably for the rest of his life in South America.
Adolf Eichmann; he was responsible of the transportation of people to the concentration camps; he kept their belongings and sold them for profit.

Not all of what you said of Mengle is true. Everything he did, he documented. He had no ethics to hold him back and experimented on humans, not lab rats and got more precise results. He was a cruel monster and most of his experiments were just how much of X type of pain or damage can the human body take on Y parts. It was toture without anistetic most of the time, don't forget his thing for twins... fucked up shit. Since Hitler wanted most of Europe cleansed he would need Germans to repopulate it Mengle had to figure out how to get the most out of a single birth, thus his thing for twins. He also drowned in South America, he suffered a stroke while swimming and was helpless to do anything while he drowned. At least his research documents were useful for something, the price was way too high for it though.

 

[Honkmahfah]

Mao Zedong...although he should've been included with Hitler and Stalin in the OP.

 

[bliebblob]

I have a few

Kim Jong Il
This guy is just Stalin with a smaller country (thank god). Textbook example of a dictator: keep your people dumb, hungry and afraid.
If he truly believed his own propaganda that may have been some sort of redeeming factor but he doesn't. He is not ignorant of the outside world like his people. He knows damn well how horrible things are in his country. He preaches about common possession and other communist ideas yet he owns dozens of luxury cars while his people starve.
I would recommend an assassination but unfortunantly history has shown that would just make life in North Korea even worse, somehow.

Heinrich Himmler
Close friend of Hitler during his entire reign, head of Hitler's secret service and chief orchestrator of the holocaust. This man hunted jews with a passion. He didn't do it because he was forced to, he loved it.
He was also notorious for arresting and torturing people who knew him and Hitler personally. Usually on "grounds" of espionage or betrayal. Again: he didn't do it because his hands were tied, he loved it.
Now if Hitler had any redeeming qualities it's that he believed in his own cause, however monsterous it was. He stood his ground to the end to defend it.
Himmler? Not so much... He wasn't dumb, he knew the nazi's were screwed. And The second he realized they were he betrayed Hitler and the SS. He than tried to make all sorts of dirty deals with the allies to save his own ass from Stalin. To their credit they refused and imprisoned him. Himmler killed himself soon after.

Josef 'angel of death' Mengele
Another nazi. Also the most twisted excuse for a biologist to ever walk the earth. He worked in Auschwitz for several years.
Now if you've ever seen a movie about Auschwitz there was no doubt a scene where an officer made all the newly arriving jews go left or right. Left meant directly into the gas chambers, right into the camp. ( or the other way around idunno lol ). That was HIM, that's what he did for years and where he got his nickname.
When he wasn't playing roadsign of doom he was experimenting on prisoners. Now for the sake of not causing a stir I won't say anything about what exactly those experiments were. If you really want to know you can google for yourself but I'm warning you it makes the human centipede look like dora the explorer.
Creepy fact: some of his research results, like how much gas a human of a given age and sex should be able to take, are used to this day. Simply because, ethics aside, he did good research and no one is enough of a psycho to even think of doublechecking his results.

 

[Axolotl]

Hitler and Stalin weren't evil to be honest.

Yes, they were.

People seem to think "killed a lot of people" amounts to being evil.

That's because it does.

Both were well intentioned and did a lot of good.

In the case of Stalin you are correct to an extent. In the case of Hitler you are completely and utterly wrong.

People forget that both had a LOT of propaganda leveled against them. This does not mean they were right in everything they did, simply that you can't come close to putting them on an "evil" list.

Why? Because people say bad things about them? People say bad things about them because they they were the leaders of two of the most monsterous regimes in human history.

Hitler for example was an international man of the year,

Which says nothing of his morality, just that people at thje time found him notable.

one of the reasons why he is so quotable is that he was right about 99.9% of everything he said and believed.

Are you insane? The man promoted debunked racial theory, unworkable economics, monsterous and ultimately bad politics and worked on an unrestraioned philosophy of shallow egoism. His whole goverment was based on censorship and a spin-doctoring that makes modern western goverments look like saints in comparison.
.

As I refuse to be put into the position of having to defend Hitler, I have to rely on you being interested enough to do your own research into the subject and the actual truth of the matter. The point is that while I myself said he was evil, I was explaining that he is not evil for reasons usually abscribed, and why he does not deserve to be considered one of the most evil, not even close.

Hitler and Stalin weren't evil to be honest.

Nice U-turn. Oh and I know alot about Hitler's goverment and philosophy, mainly through reading about other people who lived during that time who interest me. Now while I agree that Hollywood has twisted Hitler into a sort of cackling demon figure, but the truth is that the actual man was far worse than most potrayals show.

To put things into perspective, and something that can be viewed with a cooler head than Hitler and his buddies look at the example of "Bomber" Harris, known as "Butcher" Harris to the Germans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_Harris

I know who bomber Harris is, I've written fucking essays ion bomber Harris, don't assume others are ignorant just because you are.

With World War II one of the many things we call Hitler a monster for is how he launched The Blitz, and dropped stupid numbers of bombs on cites like London. We totally overlook how we, the allies, were just as bad, and were actually bigger bastards than he was when it came to wartime policy. We committed as many, if not more atrocities. We won, by being the bigger bastards, and by using propaganda to conceal that fact, and then writing our own greatness into history.

No. Here's the key difference, Britain didn't start the war, Germany did. Britain didn't start the bombing of civilians, Germany did. Britain won the war in the air because Hitler was an incompotent leader. Now yes Dresden and Harris' campaigns were brutal but they were done with an end goal of liberating Europe, Hitler didn't kill people for a higher goal. Genocide was Hitler's goal.

Bomber Harris is one of the guys who was paticularly infamous for blowing the crap out of defenseless civilians, and even killing our own POWs being forced to work in factories and such... the guys on the German side who did this were war criminals, the guys on our side who did this were heroes. Bomber Harris was knighted for this.

Harris killed people who were directly supporting war, murder genocide and mass oppression.

The point is that it all comes down to perspective. The peception of wars like "World War II" as clean and some kind of absolute battle between good and evil, has tainted our perception of war in general, and has actually hampered our abillity to fight and act in our own interests. We like to overlook what is nessicary to win a war, and the way history is created, and look back at these comic book villains of our own creation as a standard for what it should take to pursue a war, when really there never was any such thing.

Look, I never said the allies were perfect, many of their actions were immoral. However this does not change the fact that Hitler's reigme was the most brutal, oppressive and horrific govermnet to ever exist. Not even North Korea, the USSR, Robespierre or any of the other dictators come close.

Was Hitler wrong? Did he need to be stopped? The answer is yes. Was what we did acceptable to stop him? Yes again. Did we record history, the motives our our enemies, and other things accuratly? No we didn't. We call out the enemies propaganda campaign when forgetting about our own.

None of this has anything to do with Hitler's morality. Don't try doding it by changing the subject.

We like to decry the holocaust for example, and it was bad, but at the same time we create issues like the various "Holocaust Deniers" we have to deal with, because of how badly we exagerrated the situation. Do a search for things like "Nazi Human Flesh Lampshades" and "Nazi Portable Bone Grinders" and similar things, and you'll find that we told lies about the extent of the holocaust to drive our troops into a fury so they would themselves be more than willing to perform the nessicary atrocities to win. Later we look at the information from our own war department, and find that we were lying. Tests on those same human flesh lampshades proved they were goat skin. This of course opens the door for people to question that if we were lying about things like that, what else were we lying about? That means the truth winds up being at risk and we lose the abillity to learn from history, and we have to deal with people who claim things like the Holocaust never happened at all, rather than merely having been exagerrated, and wind up with problems. Both sides of an arguement like to say that the other side relies on "junk science" and "false history" and how whatever they don't like has been debunked, becuase the people they want to listen to say it has, but that's hardly the truth.

But you don't need any of the western propaganda. The Nazi's actions and words speak for themselves. The release of Schlick's murderer, the Wittgensteins bribery, death's head, the night of long knives, Kristallnacht. These action speak for themselves.

My position on matters like World War II and Hitler is one where I look at both sides of the equasion, and come to the conclusion that like most things the truth is in the middle.

The Hegelian method will not help you.

He was evil, but not "Ming The Merciless" evil.

Of course not. Ming killed people to assert his rule. Hitler asserted his rule to kill people. Hitler is far the worse of the two.

Mostly I've learned what I know due to an interest in military practice and looking at what it takes to win a war, compared to the morality we espouse right now. I point out American/allied lies in most cases to support getting serious in our current conflicts and to give up the "antiseptic war" nonsense and how we can win without targeting civilians oftentime reinforced by people thinking we did that in World War II (totally forgetting about things like what we did to groups like the Volkssturm).

If you know what it takes to win a war you'll know what it doesn't take. It doesn't take omnipresent scret police, it doesn't take mandatory youth personality cults, it doesn't take slavery and it doesn't take genocide.

Among other things it comes down to the simple acceptance that Hollywood is full of crap when it comes to Hitler. He's a villain, but one with understandable motives. He didn't get all of these people to follow him by being the kind of goober we want to present him as, and honestly viewing him as some kind of easily debunked psychopath is exactly why we run the risk of having to deal with a situation like that again, because that's exactly what he wasn't... and that, that right there is what makes him scary, and what attitudes like yours are going to cause us problems with.

Hitler was an easily debunked psychopath, many people of the tie did easily debunk him, Bertrand Russell did it. Hitler didn't rise to power by pretending to be a nice guy. He did it by playing on German xenophobia and arrogance. He played the stock market crash to make people distrust democracy and backed it up by violently silenceing anyone who stood against him. He did not have good intentions. You are wrong.

30 years before Hitler, Germans in Africa were pickling human heads while warning of the cultural decline brought on by negro blood. Before that Nietzsche wrote that the strong were excused all crimes because they were the ones who defined morality. And decades before them, countless philosophers spoke of the weakness of democracy and how countries should all follow great men. Hitler is the ultimate outcome of theseb beliefs. He had no good points or redeeming features and the longer youn pretend he does the longer these flawed, dangerous philosophies will continue to spread.