Worst World Leaders

[Samirat]

Good leaders:

Lenin

Really? He authoritarianized the state, wrecked Russia's economy, and devised a political theory so ludicrous that even he couldn't follow it, and you call him good? Leninist Marxism is even more nonsensical that original Marxist thought.

Russia was frankly a shithole during the Tzar, Lenin made it the most progressive nation of the world, and saved it from autocratic tyranny.

So yes, I call him good. Let's try to make this thread not descend into a capitalist/communist debate.

Most progressive nation in the world, eh?

So Communist Russia had a political system built in at the start for representative government. The lowest political units, which I believe were called soviets (where the name for the Soviet Union comes from), would elect the members of the higher political unit, and they would elect the members of the next unit, all the way up to the top. In this way, the Communist government was supposed to be responsible to its people.

Lenin helped create this system. Then he proceeded to walk all over it. He reversed the process, changing it from the intended bottom up, representative government, to a top down autocracy. He declared the unconditional right of separation for national minorities and oppressed nations, and then proceeded to use military force to subjugate Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.

He had some good ideals, which either didn't hold up under practical implementation or he just didn't have the discipline and will to stick to. He was an idealistic, charismatic leader, who helped Russia in some ways, but have no illusions. It was not Stalin alone who made the Soviet Union what it became. Lenin paved the way.

Bah! An example of the propaganda modern schools teach the wee impressionable young ones. Lenin failed in some aspects, as do all leaders, but it was the first time this political system had ever been used. Capitalism has existed for over thousands of years, while communism has never even truly existed. Surely you can't expect it to work immediately?

What political system, exactly, are you referring to? I believe what they intended was a representative democracy, or republic. The political system they were attempting to use was not Communism, because Communism is not one. The political system of the ideal communist state would be closest to anarchy, as neither the state or the government exist. But the original government in Communist Russia could most likely be considered a social democracy. At the end of Lenin's time in power, it was an autocracy and an oligarchy. So no, this was not the first time this political system, generally a democracy, had ever been used. It's probable that economic problems caused by the rapid collectivization of Russia's industry (which he later actually reprivatized partially) influenced Lenin's decisions to seize absolute power. But this puts him broadly on par with the scores of other rulers who have started their terms as democratic leaders and ended them as despots. The failures of the Communist economic system are most likely not Lenin's fault. But the political problems were.

 

[Klagermeister]

George W. Bush for sure

Dang, all this railing on George Bush for things he didn't even DO.
Heck, sending troops to Iraq was hardly his decision. It was the UN's decision.
And, in fact, Iraq has so far been a successful mission.
Of the 11 objectives they had in Iraq, 10 were accomplished.
The only objective that wasn't met was finding nuclear weapons.
However, we DO have satellite images of missile-transporting trucks fleeing Iraq...
Showing they may have escaped with their experimental nuclear weapons technology.

Frankly, I think he deserves more than people give him credit for.

And I'm almost positive someone will COMPLETELY disregard this comment...
With a simple remark of "Shut up, Republican."
Go ahead and do it. Just know that I was expecting it.


Anyway... back to the topic at hand.
Saddam Hussein was pretty brutal. He sliced people's faces with razor blades.
But I'd say that Stalin would take the cake as worst world leader.

I guess you are right. The blame can't be put entirely on Bush and he's not the only guy at fault here. I was actually arguing with my dad about this. He said pretty much what you said Klagermeister. And yes, Bush has managed to accomplish many things over his presidency but lets face it, its always fun to put the blame on the big guy.

Yeah, people always feel better when they can find a scapegoat...
A single person who can take the blame for everything.
But heck, if people are saying Bush was a bad leader all across this forum...
Then I'm incredibly surprised noone's mentioned Nixon yet.

 

[theultimateend]

Bill O'Reilly

but seriously, Stalin due to the fact that through his purges it has been said that he had killed more people then Hitler.

He killed 10 million peasants alone. I don't know where that stacks up against the Holocaust but that was just the peasants.

I think they were called Kurks. He told everyone they were rich and were causing the implosion of Russia. Keep in mind while these people were being mass murdered they were being killed outside their run down shacks and stuff.

It's amazing what people will overlook when it doesn't fit with their accepted propoganda O.O. "HE MUST BE RICH AND HIDING IT!"

 

[theultimateend]

George W. Bush for sure

Dang, all this railing on George Bush for things he didn't even DO.
Heck, sending troops to Iraq was hardly his decision. It was the UN's decision.
And, in fact, Iraq has so far been a successful mission.
Of the 11 objectives they had in Iraq, 10 were accomplished.
The only objective that wasn't met was finding nuclear weapons.
However, we DO have satellite images of missile-transporting trucks fleeing Iraq...
Showing they may have escaped with their experimental nuclear weapons technology.

Frankly, I think he deserves more than people give him credit for.

And I'm almost positive someone will COMPLETELY disregard this comment...
With a simple remark of "Shut up, Republican."
Go ahead and do it. Just know that I was expecting it.


Anyway... back to the topic at hand.
Saddam Hussein was pretty brutal. He sliced people's faces with razor blades.
But I'd say that Stalin would take the cake as worst world leader.

Cheney was the one doing most of the terrible stuff.

Likewise when you set your objectives low enough its kind of hard not to accomplish them.

I mean if my goal for the day is "Don't spontaneously combust." I'm probably going to complete it.

Anywho yeah, most research has shown Cheney has been the primary villain (If only for making millions of dollars in investments with companies given no bid contracts during the war).

I'd also ask where Saddam would have sent his weaponry, he wasn't exactly a popular man. On a funny sidenote he was the most vocal hater of Osama Bin Laden in the middle east (long before 9/11) yet he was the first leader we killed.

Then again if some guy tried to kill my dad I'd make sure he didn't survive.

 

[Beefcakes]

I've noticed something about this thread, its that most people are saying 'world leader X, Y and Z', then people are coming along and saying 'what are you on about, leader X, Y, or Z did great things etc etc...'
But people fail to realize, that to get into a position of power, they have don't have to do 'good' thing, not by your or my standards
People are not realizing that being a good leader doesn't mean they did fantastic thing for the country, a good leader sets out goals and gets them done
Hitler may have killed X amount of people for reason Y, but regardless of it being morally wrong, he got it done, with the support of his entire nation, because they trusted him to lead well
Stalin may have also killed X amount of people, for reason Y, but regardless of it being morally wrong, he got it done, because he lead smartly, and wisely, and got the tasks he wanted to complete completed at his whim
The fact is, a leader is nothing with out the people he leads doing exactly what s/he wants, and all the leaders listed have those people, and as such, they all lead well, regardless of morality issues.
Bad leaders are those who have no followers, no people dedicated to his/her cause, and as such, you have probably never heard of them

EDIT: Wow, I didn't mean to /thread, keep talking, its okay, I won't judge you

 

[Ridergurl10]

I've noticed something about this thread, its that most people are saying 'world leader X, Y and Z', then people are coming along and saying 'what are you on about, leader X, Y, or Z did great things etc etc...'
But people fail to realize, that to get into a position of power, they have don't have to do 'good' thing, not by your or my standards
People are not realizing that being a good leader doesn't mean they did fantastic thing for the country, a good leader sets out goals and gets them done
Hitler may have killed X amount of people for reason Y, but regardless of it being morally wrong, he got it done, with the support of his entire nation, because they trusted him to lead well
Stalin may have also killed X amount of people, for reason Y, but regardless of it being morally wrong, he got it done, because he lead smartly, and wisely, and got the tasks he wanted to complete completed at his whim
The fact is, a leader is nothing with out the people he leads doing exactly what s/he wants, and all the leaders listed have those people, and as such, they all lead well, regardless of morality issues.
Bad leaders are those who have no followers, no people dedicated to his/her cause, and as such, you have probably never heard of them

EDIT: Wow, I didn't mean to /thread, keep talking, its okay, I won't judge you

I completely agree with you, at least up until the end. In my opinion a bad leader is not someone you have never heard of, but someone who is in power and does nothing (or has no one listen to them). My nomination for worst leader would be someone like Nicholas the 2nd, the last czar of Russia. He was the leader of russia, but he never did anything. And then when he actually tried to do something (put down the revolution in Feb. of 1917) his whole military disobeyed and went against him. He lost all control and was forced to abdicate. He was completely useless as a leader, he ignored all of the problems that were present in Russia, making him a bad leader.

 

[theultimateend]

To be fair the worst leaders in the world are the one's none of us ever hear about.

 

[Yeager942]

Personally, I would award Kim Jong Il of North Korea as Worst Leader Ever.

 

[Rushin]

Kim Jong Ill because hes turrible simply turrible

 

[Nomad]

[...] Caligula [...]

Good choice. Either him or Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. That I've heard anything about, anyway. I'm sure there are loads of less known rulers that were really crappy as well, especially outside of Europe. Like Moctezuma II or Quetzalcoatl, if he indeed existed in reality.

My nomination for worst leader would be someone like Nicholas the 2nd, the last czar of Russia. He was the leader of russia, but he never did anything. And then when he actually tried to do something (put down the revolution in Feb. of 1917) his whole military disobeyed and went against him. He lost all control and was forced to abdicate. He was completely useless as a leader, he ignored all of the problems that were present in Russia, making him a bad leader.

Also a good choice.

 

[Lord_Zach]

I would have to say...Czar Nicholas the 2nd, he let some pathetic bolsheviks take over his country, instead of fighting them, he abdicated and was killed, along with his entire family, by the reds.

He also let Gregori Rasputin basically take over his government.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I think, in fact the worst leader is Hermann Wilhelm Göring, who commaned the Luftwaffe. Whilst Hitler was trapped in Berlin he assumed leadership, so Hitler issued a telegram to tell him that he had committed high treason. He was stricken from the Nazi party and was dismissed as commander of the Luftwaffe. He was described as a coward and before he was due to be hang at the nuremburg trials, he commited suicide by cyanide pill. Possibly history's worst leader and greatest coward.

 

[zacaron]

bush...oh wait...Oboma? no not yet...whos leading china?

 

[peduncle]

Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and come to mind. Genocide is a terrible thing.

not to pick on you, but youre near the beginning so:

Stalin and Hitler were AMAZING LEADERS! they might not have done the best of things in your opinions, but they were two of the best leaders ever to exist. (Pol Pot - ~~eh~~ not great but not worse)

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Alexander the Great ... despite the fact that he murdered so many Athenians, you'd think the Greeks wouldn't have added him into the Olympic games opening ceremony would you?

 

[INF1NIT3 D00M]

Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and come to mind. Genocide is a terrible thing.

Pretty much these guys... and G.W. Bush.
Oh and props for axia777, JTHM is the best comic ever.

 

[Infiniteloop]

Obama, 63% of Congress, and Pol Pot.

 

[new_age_reject]

It's funny how a lot of the leaders named were actually really damn good leaders... they just did terrible things with their brilliant leadership qualities.