worst villain ever

[basileus]

Vote for your "favourite" villain regime (i.e.: mass murder, tyranny, warmongering, etc.)


The Assyrians
The Huns
The Mongols
The Ottoman Turks
The Aztecs
The Inquisition
Nazi Germany
Stalinist Soviet Union
North Korea
Muslim Integralism

[aktarian]

Cain. When he killed Abel he wiped out 25% of world's population, feat unparalled in history and not repeatable short of nuclear war. :D

Joking aside I'd say Nazis because they planned to wipe out entire groups solely because of belonging to said group. There would be no chances for survival and because they went after them in such industrialised manner. While I agree Khmer Rouge were as brutal you had a chance for getting out of camps. There was no such chances for Jews or other groups.

[NapoleonXIV]

Nazis, hands down from this list, Stalinists close second. The Mongols killed more but it took 50 years and was in China in the 1200's. The Nazis were a gang of thugs who hijacked the most advanced nation in the world and used it to industrialise death in the service of a madman.

Many of the others are, (very arguably) more a matter of bad press and of their times

Isn't the latest findings on the Inquisition actually that it probably saved some nations from the worst ravages of the Witchhunt mania?

[basileus]

Nazis, hands down from this list, Stalinists close second. The Mongols killed more but it took 50 years and was in China in the 1200's. The Nazis were a gang of thugs who hijacked the most advanced nation in the world and used it to industrialise death in the service of a madman.

Many of the others are, (very arguably) more a matter of bad press and of their times

Isn't the latest findings on the Inquisition actually that it probably saved some nations from the worst ravages of the Witchhunt mania?

True, but countries like Italy, Spain and Portugal have never fully recovered from the scientific castration of minds it enforced.

[Grey Wolf]

Maybe the Mongols don't win other votes because people do not know what they did in detail ? Destroyed entire civilisations, butchered the entire populations of cities, and their longevity IMHO makes them WORSE for being a ravaging tide upon the Earth for so much longer

Grey Wolf

[basileus]

Maybe the Mongols don't win other votes because people do not know what they did in detail ? Destroyed entire civilisations, butchered the entire populations of cities, and their longevity IMHO makes them WORSE for being a ravaging tide upon the Earth for so much longer

Grey Wolf
Have you ever read the bold reconstructions of the Assyrian conquest of enemy cities reported in their literature?
In comparison, Genghis Khan seems a British gentleman.

[Zach Rosen]

I really don't see any difference between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The Soviets killed more people than the Nazis ever dreamed, and had the potential to kill many, many more.

[Xen]

Im not going to vote because there is no way to see how one is worse than another. The Spanish surprisingly didnt make the list, their treatment of the native americans were far worse than the way the United States, Britain, France, Mexico and Canada treated Native Americans. They destroyed three mighty empires in Central and South America. But as Grey Wolf said the Mongols arent much better, the Russians under Ivan the Terrible were particularly brutal, so were the Vikings. We cant forget the Crusaders or the Islamic Conquerors all were responsible for much travesty and destruction.

[Ian the Admin]

The Soviets killed more people than the Nazis ever dreamed


Stalin's mass starvation and other nastiness killed 2-3 times as many people as the holocaust, though in a longer period. NOBODY has "killed more people than the Nazis ever dreamed" - some of their plans for what to do with a conquered Russia called for extending their mass extermination to an extent that would have exceeded the worst of Stalin and Mao. And then there's the death toll from fighting WW2 itself, started by the Nazis and exceeding the death toll of the Holocaust and Stalin's atrocities put together.

No, the Nazis were REALLY nasty. Stalin was a horrible brutal dictator and he murdered tens of millions of people, but his killing potential was limited compared to Hitler because he didn't try to conquer neighboring regions in order to exterminate much of their population and move his own people into the resulting "living space".

There are similarities to other historical civilizations. The Assyrians and the Mongolians, in particular, were horrible mass killers because they were both terribly brutal, and effective conquerors who spread that brutality to an every larger region. The early Mongol conquests were every bit as brutal as the Nazis, except that since they didn't have machineguns to exterminate lines of people, they just hacked them to death with axes.

[zoomar]

Nazi Germany, hands down. I know this sounds ethnocentric, but 20th Century Germany was a center of modern western civilization, it claimed to be an heir to Christian love and humanistic enlightenment, and went in two generations from being one of the most liberal and tolerent European nations regarding its Jewish citizens to being the architect of the most horrible atrocities of modern times. Only Stalin's Russia comes close; Stalinism because it also stemmed from a 20th century western base in a culture which should have had more respect for human life. It's nowhere near as bad, however, because by all measures, early 20th century Russia was nowhere near as westernized and influenced by enlightenment values as Germany. My third worst would be the Inquisition because these mass murders were performed by people believing they were Christians perverting a religion which teaches tolerence and unconditional love. We need to realize, however, that Spanish society and culture of the 1400-1500's had been informed by years of religious war between Christians and Moslems, and was a pre-enlightment, much more brutish culture.

With the possible exception of North Korea and modern Islamic radicalism (if that's what "integralism" means), none of the other candidates represented cultures which would be expected to be aware of or practice respect for individual human lives, as further tempered by modern political notions of human equality and human dignity. Certainly, the acts these cultures and groups can be considered "evil" in an abstract sense, but this "evil" was being practiced by people who did not know what they were doing was "evil". The fact that the Nazis attemped to hide their holocaust and Germans tried to pretend it wasn't happening shows that they were fully aware of the import of their crimes.

Regarding those who didn't make the "10 most evil list", I wonder about the absence of Maoist China, the Cambodia of Pol Pot, and even Revolutionary France, which by many measures were far more "evil" than the Ottomon Turks, who over most of their history were fairly tolerant by the standards of the time (occasional mass murders of Armenians and others notwithstanding).

[basileus]

Nazi Germany, hands down. I know this sounds ethnocentric, but 20th Century Germany was a center of modern western civilization, it claimed to be an heir to Christian love and humanistic enlightenment, and went in two generations from being one of the most liberal and tolerent European nations regarding its Jewish citizens to being the architect of the most horrible atrocities of modern times. Only Stalin's Russia comes close; Stalinism because it also stemmed from a 20th century western base in a culture which should have had more respect for human life. It's nowhere near as bad, however, because by all measures, early 20th century Russia was nowhere near as westernized and influenced by enlightenment values as Germany. My third worst would be the Inquisition because these mass murders were performed by people believing they were Christians perverting a religion which teaches tolerence and unconditional love. We need to realize, however, that Spanish society and culture of the 1400-1500's had been informed by years of religious war between Christians and Moslems, and was a pre-enlightment, much more brutish culture.

With the possible exception of North Korea and modern Islamic radicalism (if that's what "integralism" means), none of the other candidates represented cultures which would be expected to be aware of or practice respect for individual human lives, as further tempered by modern political notions of human equality and human dignity. Certainly, the acts these cultures and groups can be considered "evil" in an abstract sense, but this "evil" was being practiced by people who did not know what they were doing was "evil". The fact that the Nazis attemped to hide their holocaust and Germans tried to pretend it wasn't happening shows that they were fully aware of the import of their crimes.

Regarding those who didn't make the "10 most evil list", I wonder about the absence of Maoist China, the Cambodia of Pol Pot, and even Revolutionary France, which by many measures were far more "evil" than the Ottomon Turks, who over most of their history were fairly tolerant by the standards of the time (occasional mass murders of Armenians and others notwithstanding).

On China and Cambodia you're right, I'm ashamed at not having put them into but I should have reposted the poll.
On Revolutionary France, well, I don't consider it as a "villain" regime apart the worst xcesses of the Great Terror and the Vandéan insurrection (where atricities were committed by both sides). And as to the Napoleonic wars, they derived both by Nappy's oversize ego and the reactionary powers of Europe's obstinate refusal to recognize French power, and worst of all the new political ideas. In France revolution was necessary, and healthy in the long term, differently from England for example.

[Zach Rosen]

Stalin's mass starvation and other nastiness killed 2-3 times as many people as the holocaust, though in a longer period. NOBODY has "killed more people than the Nazis ever dreamed" - some of their plans for what to do with a conquered Russia called for extending their mass extermination to an extent that would have exceeded the worst of Stalin and Mao. And then there's the death toll from fighting WW2 itself, started by the Nazis and exceeding the death toll of the Holocaust and Stalin's atrocities put together.

No, the Nazis were REALLY nasty. Stalin was a horrible brutal dictator and he murdered tens of millions of people, but his killing potential was limited compared to Hitler because he didn't try to conquer neighboring regions in order to exterminate much of their population and move his own people into the resulting "living space".

I don't know. Check this out.

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/museum1.cgi

[Hymie Goldberg]

The worst villains are the British, no competition.

British imperialism and mercantilism is responsible for every single one of the world's ills, from bride-burning in India (almost nonexistant before British rule) to the plight of the Kurds (Churchill killed more Kurds than Saddam) to the ongoing Ibo genocide in Nigeria to Episcopalianism to the World Bank.

[Beck Reilly]

Although the British Empire may have been *indirectly* responsible for many of the ills in Africa (they pulled out too fast, leaving almost no governing structure behind), it was done with good intentions, unlike Nazi Germany.

I don't know how you can rationalize the British Empire being more villainous than Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia or Mao's Red China...

[LDoc]

well they did actively try and create racial tensions in their conquered areas. Also their goal behind their imperalism was to profit themselfs. I mean their exploitions of africans in their daimond mines is disgusting. I mean in Isreal they were largely responsible for putting a wedge for the jewish and arab community as both tried to gain independence.

[Beck Reilly]

I'm saying they neither actively promoted nor commited intentional mass genocide or murder, unlike the three nations I mentioned below. You actually believe that the British were worse killers than Adolf Hitler?

By the way, if you want a better example of African exploitation try either Belgium or the Central and South American countries, or the Caribbean. Together, Central and South America plus the Caribbean imported 90%+ of African slaves....

[Hymie Goldberg]

The British are more villainous because they've hurt and enslaved more people than any of the others and have been doing it for 400 years. They are the most successful villains, therefore the worst.

The British are worse than the Nazis because they created the conditions for Nazism to rise.

They are worse than the ChiComms because they created the conditions that led to the Kuomintang taking power.

They are worse than Islamic Fanatics because they are the ones who installed all of the despotic pro-western Arab regimes, as well as the regimes of the Shah and Sukarno, where the only safe place to talk about the government was/is in the mosques.

They are worse than Stalin because they got the Tsar to use his people as cannon fodder in WWI, and instigated recalcitrantism among the Kulaks after the Revolution.

[Hymie Goldberg]

I'm saying they neither actively promoted nor commited intentional mass genocide or murder....

Yes they did. After WWI. Kurds, Turks, Hungarians, Greeks, Albanians, various Arab clans were all ethnically-cleansed from their homes in order to fit better within British-drawn borders.

[Beck Reilly]

Okay, well, clearly there's no convincing you that the most evil nations in the history of the planet are worse than the British Empire so I'll leave you with a couple of statistics.

Empires and the deaths they are responsible for:

Mao Zedong's Regime (incl. Civil War): 54,000,000
Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany: 40,000,000
Joseph Stalin, Lenin, and Soviet Russia: 38,800,000


But, clearly, the 133 million deaths above are all the blame of the 'horrid' British Empire....

[LDoc]

well they did have the power to create and mold the conditions of much of the world, and instead of doing it for good they did it to profit themselfs. But i don't think their evil, just another typical empire on a larger scale.

[Beck Reilly]

Exactly, they weren't evil, they were an empire. There's a major difference. There has never been a nation which creates an empire for the purpose of bettering the lives of the citizens of the world. No, empires are created expressly to generate money for the mother nation. But, there's a huge difference between creating an empire and being evil.

[LDoc]

But the same argument could be said for many of those except for the Nazis, Russians, and the Cinese. And even then u could find loop holes.

[Hymie Goldberg]

British victims in thier India colony alone: 1,000,000,000

[Beck Reilly]

You just proved my whole point. The Nazis, Soviets, and Chinese Communists under Mao did it because they were evil, making them the worst villains.

[Beck Reilly]

British victims in thier India colony alone: 1,000,000,000

What the hell are you talking about? One billion.

Are you saying that the British lined up a billion people, made them dig their own graves, and then shot them like the Nazis did to the Jews and Russians?

Or, perhaps they were left to starve because the Chinese government was 'reforming' the nation?

Or, maybe they were sent to Siberia where they could freeze to death?

Or, perhaps the entire living population of India, including those who answer the phone when I call for tech support for my computer are clearly victims?

By that sense, maybe all Americans are victims too, since they were part of the British Empire?

And the Native Americans too, because the Americans killed them 100 years after freeing themselves?

Maybe instead of whining about how they've been victimized, the Indians should build themselves up to American levels. After all, we did it for ourselves without British help, why should the Indians, and Africans for that matter, make the British do it?

[Hymie Goldberg]

The Black Shirt Nazis were, undoubtedly more evil than the British Imperialists have ever been (and still are). However, the Black Shirts only had about 10 years to work thier evil while the British have had 400 years(and are looking forward to at least 100 more)to work thier, albeit lesser, evil.

Mao wasn't evil, neither was Stalin. They both did what they saw as necessary to create a society without oppression. They were no more racist than Churchill and FDR.

[Beck Reilly]

The Black Shirt Nazis were, undoubtedly more evil than the British Imperialists have ever been (and still are). However, the Black Shirts only had about 10 years to work thier evil while the British have had 400 years(and are looking forward to at least 100 more)to work thier, albeit lesser, evil.

So, the British are still in India, still commiting genocide (or whatever you say they did which was abnormal for an empire) as they have for the past 400 years. Oh, and by the way, I guess you have a crystal ball so you know that the British, who never left in 1947 as I was alway led to believe, will keep committing this hidden 'genocide' for the next 100 years.

At least at many points during the British occupation of India, the Indians were in rebellion, killing thousands of innocent British (see the Cawnpore massacre, where the Indians signed an agreement to allow the British to leave without harm, and then slaughtered them while they left, later killing the women and children in jail) where as the Jews that Hitler killed were simply trying to live their lives. But, no, the British are horrible, horrible villains....

[Hymie Goldberg]

India is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the evil of British Imperialism. The 1,000,000,000 in Indian were mentioned because that was the single most egregious example that still reverberates today due to the sheer numbers of people who continue affected by British imperial policy.

I didn't say the British were still in India, I meant that they are still imperialists--and look forward to another 100 years of working thier own evil.

They have been destroying cultures for 400 years (you could even claim more than that if you go back to Henry V's murder of the captured French nobility) and continue to do so through the World Bank and IMF.

Regardless of the actions the Nazis took, they (Black Shirts) were only in action for a decade--and they ultimately failed. And, before you try to say it was the British who stopped them remember who provided the cannon fodder for defeating the Nazis: the "evil" Stalin. Was Stalin evil for forcing Siberians and Khazaks to fight for European Russia against the Nazis?

How can the British, who've been successful in sowing thier evil for 400 years and counting be less evil than a regime that lasted for only a decade and was ultimately unsuccessful in doing what they set out to do?




At least at many points during the British occupation of India, the Indians were in rebellion, killing thousands of innocent British ....

Um, if the British were occupiers, they weren't innocent.

[Beck Reilly]

BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DELIBERATELY SET ABOUT TO ELIMINATE A RACE OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH

How can you say that a nation that wanted to literally exterminate an entire race of human beings is not more evil than the goddamned British Empire???

But then again, considering your name, maybe you don't care that the Nazis set about to wipe all Jewish people off the face of the earth.

[Hymie Goldberg]

What is with the ad hominem attack on my name?

I thought personal attacks weren't allowed.

[Beck Reilly]

I didn't know "disparaging and offensive" slang is allowed in names...

[Hymie Goldberg]

My middle name is Hyman. My Dad was a plank-owner on the Bainbridge.

[Beck Reilly]

Still...what the hell is the Bainbridge anyways?

[Hymie Goldberg]

What, you lose your argument and then change the subject?

Do a Google.

[Beck Reilly]

Oh my God, I did not lose the argument. I can see that I'm not going to change your opinion, no matter what I say. And I know for goddamned certain you're not going to change mine, so what is the point of continuing the argument? Just to get more and more frustrated?

[Grey Wolf]

Hmmm, I've woken up into an Alternate History Timeline where people blame the British for everything, how utterly bizarre.

I think you will find that a lot of British imperialism was carried out with the EXPRESS PURPOSE of eliminating the slave trade. Under internationally-agreed terms this included the 'Hinterland' policy of annexing territories that bordered on one's own for the express purpose of securing the latter. You will see where this came into effect together in places such as Sokoto (Northern Nigeria) where the British expedition was carried out to halt the slave trade, to break the power of the sultanate to carry out raids into British protectorates, and then to annex them under the Hinterland policy

I think you will also find that modern liberal democracy the world over is a direct result of the British Empire

Sorry, this is crazy, I can't be bothered to argue anymore against such crazy allegations

Grey Wolf

[basileus]

Hymie, don't you relaize that ALL the guilts you cast upon the British Empire are now, multiplied by 10, to be cast upon the USA as sole legitimate heir?

[Hymie Goldberg]

Hymie, don't you relaize that ALL the guilts you cast upon the British Empire are now, multiplied by 10, to be cast upon the USA as sole legitimate heir?


Yes. I do realize that. The US is the tool of the British bankers, has been since 1907.

[aktarian]

Okay, well, clearly there's no convincing you that the most evil nations in the history of the planet are worse than the British Empire so I'll leave you with a couple of statistics.

Empires and the deaths they are responsible for:

Mao Zedong's Regime (incl. Civil War): 54,000,000
Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany: 40,000,000
Joseph Stalin, Lenin, and Soviet Russia: 38,800,000


But, clearly, the 133 million deaths above are all the blame of the 'horrid' British Empire....


I don't think one should count victims of wars as "villianism". War is war. While I don't like it peopel die in wars, it's to be expected. It can't be on same levels as concentration camps, gulags, killing fields etc.

[zoomar]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone can take Hymie's statements as anything other that a deliberate attempt to start flamewars. There is no need to respond to him on these ludicrous claims.

[Leej]

The mongols and all that may have been bad but they are well in the past while the nazis still have large lasting effects.
Stalin was bad though he wasn't the one who actually started the war, he wasn't as evil as Hitler imo.

In reply to the current topic the British empire was good. It had some bad spots but then everyone does. Someone mentioned on the old forum that the bad acts the British empire commited are remembered by everyone more then those of other empires as they were so out of character for Britain.
India isn't in a very good state but without Britain it would be much worse- I'm not saying Britain in India was a good thing though compared to the other fates India could have enjoyed it was.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The British? The numbers game is not a legitimate way to gauge evil; INTENT (that is, coupled with an actual crime) is the only yardstick.

For instance, which of the three is the worst, or most evil?

1. Susie, while emptying Mary's dishwasher, drops a plate, breaking 10 of Marys glasses.

2. Susie, incensed at Mary's refusal to understand that the POD of a hyena coughing in Africa will not radically change history, throws a glass at Mary's head, breaking the glass.

3. Susie plans to break all of Mary's glasses, but gets accepted to art school and the idea slips her mind.

[Diamond]

Clearly, response #3 is the worst, or most evil.

#1 is accidental (I think) - the side effects were not planned.

#2 is a sort of 'temporary insanity' thing - its not premeditated. The immediate effect is worse than #1, but can be smoothed out thru discussion and honesty.

#3 is clearly premeditated, devious, and evil. The fact that it slips Susie Schikelgruber's mind is even worse - its like a buried mine waiting to go off; who knows when she'll remember and act on it?

:D

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Clearly, response #3 is the worst, or most evil.

#1 is accidental (I think) - the side effects were not planned.

#2 is a sort of 'temporary insanity' thing - its not premeditated. The immediate effect is worse than #1, but can be smoothed out thru discussion and honesty.

#3 is clearly premeditated, devious, and evil. The fact that it slips Susie Schikelgruber's mind is even worse - its like a buried mine waiting to go off; who knows when she'll remember and act on it?

:D

I did not expect anyone to say that. #2 seems to me to clearly be the most evil, since Susie #2 deliberately tried to harm Mary. #1 was an accident, and #3 was an evil thought, but not carried out. Haven't you ever plotted Scott's demise? It's not evil unless you actually do it.

This sounds like a good poll.

[Leej]

2 is the most evil.
I always come up with schemes for ultimate evil deeds but never carry them out.

[Flocculencio]

"India is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the evil of British Imperialism"

The British Empire, while sinking, at times, to shamefully low points (e.g. the Amritsar Massacre) was on the whole, one of the greatest forces for good that the world has ever and possibly will ever see.

"I think you will also find that modern liberal democracy the world over is a direct result of the British Empire"

That is the most obvious example but in addition to that the British Empire went into its colonies to make money but didn't resort to simply raping entire countries and peoples to do so. Let us take the example of Malaya. The British started out with the Crown Colonies of Penang, Malacca and Singapore. However, slowly but surely over the course of the 19th Century, each and every malay state was incorporated into the Frderated states of Malaya. In none of these cases did the british go in guns blazing- indeed in many cases they were invited in. Upon taking control of each Malay state, the british set about abolishing slavery, building roads and railroads, eliminating corrupt local government etc etc...
Much the same thing happened a few decades before this in India. The Mutiny was the tragic result of the governing style of the East India company- however, the British showed they could learn from their mistakes, dissolving the EIC after the Mutiny had been quelled.

I think one thing above all shows the true spirit of the British Empire. By the 1950s they had educated enough of the best and brightest of the colonial natives to the extent that they could ask and obtain self rule and later independence.

Speaking as an Indian myself, and having spoken with relatives who remember living under the British, I can confidently say that british rule in many parts of Asia was in many ways better than what replaced it.

And where does the figure of 1 billion dead in India come from anyway?

[DominusNovus]

British imperialism and mercantilism is responsible for every single one of the world's ills
Sorry to be an anal retentive literalist, but every single one?
AIDS?
Cancer?
79.5% of Japanese Anime? :p

You can't blame the British for everything. The only thing's that they've really done wrong, more so than other countries is that they can't cook, and they mauled the language that they themselves invented. Other than that, they're ok.

Oh, and they've got bad teeth. But they're still better than the French. At least the Brits can hold their own in a fight.

Yes. I do realize that. The US is the tool of the British bankers, has been since 1907.

Prove it. I've heard bits and pieces of this supposed conspiracy before, yet I've never gotten the whole story. Other than the fact that both countries are run by greedy people looking out for their own self interests (as they should be, those are the only kind of people you can trust), there's not much evidence for it, AFAIK

[Leej]

Since 1907?
Surely you mean until 1907.

[Knight Of Armenia]

It's funny; the people who adore Britain and the people who loathe Britain have one thing in common: they still view Britain as one of the central forces in the world. I'm really sorry, but it just isn't a Power. It hasn't been for a very long time. To think that America dances to British interests? Come on. That's as bad as those who think the US is a slave to Israel, when clearly the truth is the other way around. If anything, Britain depends upon the United States, and is quick to agree to its views; otherwise, it will have to fully join the EU to maintain its position in the world, in which case it will be promptly swallowed up by Germany's population and economy, and France (which has refused to let Germany's leash go after WW2).

[DominusNovus]

It's funny; the people who adore Britain and the people who loathe Britain have one thing in common: they still view Britain as one of the central forces in the world. I'm really sorry, but it just isn't a Power. It hasn't been for a very long time. To think that America dances to British interests? Come on. That's as bad as those who think the US is a slave to Israel, when clearly the truth is the other way around. If anything, Britain depends upon the United States, and is quick to agree to its views; otherwise, it will have to fully join the EU to maintain its position in the world, in which case it will be promptly swallowed up by Germany's population and economy, and France (which has refused to let Germany's leash go after WW2).
See, I like Britain mainly because they handled losing the major power status better than the French did.

[Flocculencio]

"See, I like Britain mainly because they handled losing the major power status better than the French did."

Agreed. I don't try to argue that the uK is in any way a world power currently. I just feel that when it was, it handled its power in ways that were much better than other world powers through history.

[Glen]

Hmmm....so many baddies, so little votes allowed...

[Eltaco]

My vote goes to Mongols. Their entire power base was built upon instilling fear into those they conquered.

Nazi's are a close second. They are the most modern and most connectable version of evil in the modern world. Still though its the mongols for me.

lol Britian isn't that bad. I mean if you weren't colonized by them it would have just been someone else. I love these arguements cause it comes down to the exact same thing: "Its crap being the losers":D

[Brandonazz]

Grey Wolf and Ian the Admin both posted here!

This is definitely sacred ground :D

[Sargon]

Grey Wolf and Ian the Admin both posted here!

This is definitely sacred ground :D

And don't forget The Pasha, another sorely missed and distinguished member.

Hmm, I think it's either the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge. Being executed simply for wearing glasses or looking clever is pretty hard to beat. Add to that ONE THIRD of the population of Cambodia murdered by that insane regime, then you have a very nasty gang of thugs indeed.

Sargon

[Superdude]

You know you can switch "british" with "jew" in all his posts, and you would get what he was really aiming ofr before he got banned?

I mean, his name said it all

In my opinion, the worst were the Nazis.

[reddie]

Worst villain ever? The Monarch, no doubt. He's simply no good at killing Dr. Venture.

Hypno-Hustler and Big Wheel run a close second.

[wodrp]

My choice for worst villain is the Nazis.

I don't know wht the banned Hymie Goldberg had against the Brits but he apparently sees (saw?) no good to the Empire at all.

Despite my choice of Nazis as the worst, some of them were not evil.

No matter how much you dislike or despise a group, you REALLY shouldn't generalize. There are good and bad in ALL groups.

[Max Sinister]

However, some groups contain more and more evil members than others, and those become our "favorite" villains.

[Brandonazz]

For example, most people think politicains are bad, but what about George Bush? .....wait.....

Bad example :(

[srv fan]

No matter how much you dislike or despise a group, you REALLY shouldn't generalize. There are good and bad in ALL groups.

How does that work? There were good men in Quantrill's Raiders? The Janjaweed? Al-Queda? I'm all for different cultural standards of morality, but there is no possible way a decent human being could be in one of those groups.

[Condottiero]

My Top 5:

1. Mao's China
2. Stalinist Soviet Union
3. Nazi Germany
4. Huns
5. North Korea

[Berra]

Aztecs. so crazy that I get no suspension of disbelif (human sacrifice) but they are real. Decent sientific progress make them a eqvivalent to the nazis and communists.

[wallwriter]

My choice for worst villain is the Nazis.

I don't know wht the banned Hymie Goldberg had against the Brits but he apparently sees (saw?) no good to the Empire at all.

Despite my choice of Nazis as the worst, some of them were not evil.

No matter how much you dislike or despise a group, you REALLY shouldn't generalize. There are good and bad in ALL groups.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” -Edmund Burke

I believe thats the crucial factor for these infamous regimes go be able to attain power and did what they did.

[Derek Jackson]

The reason the Nazis qualify is that the Aztecs did their evil acts because of crazy mistaken faith, Pol Pot, Stalin's Russia and Mao's China were willing to kill millions for their political objectives

In the case of Nazi Germany killing millions WAS the political objective.

[Kabraloth]

Difficult vote. Since the Khmer Rouge (which I would call the most evil regime this world has yet seen) are not an option, I voted for Nazi Germany.

[Berra]

The more modern ideologys is also a kind of fate.

[Superdude]

The reason the Nazis qualify is that the Aztecs did their evil acts because of crazy mistaken faith, Pol Pot, Stalin's Russia and Mao's China were willing to kill millions for their political objectives

In the case of Nazi Germany killing millions WAS the political objective.

Well, one could say that, going by certain elements, Nazism was a faith, of sorts.

[Jbenuniv]

Based solely on the number of people murdered, Communism in general wins with 120+ million, which is pretty evil. This breaks down to 20-30 million in Soviet Russia, 40-80 million in China, the rest being in Eastern Europe, Cuba, Latin America, and the Middle East.

However for ultimate evil it would have to be the Japanese Empire. Very brutal and viscious.

[basileus]

Difficult vote. Since the Khmer Rouge (which I would call the most evil regime this world has yet seen) are not an option, I voted for Nazi Germany.

It was my fault not to insert that regime. I regret it, and ask forgivennes to its unknown number of victims.

[HelloLegend]

Yes, the KR was bad. They killed the actor in the KF you know?

[Massis]

...for the Turks as being the worst in hisotry for warmongering and mass murder.
Compared to others, the Turks have been able to carry our these atrocities for over 1,000 years.

From the huns and their destruction of the Roman Empire, the Avars and their ransacking of Germanic peoples and the Byzantines, the Seljuks and their devastation of Armenia and Anatolia, the Timurids and their sadistic lust for blood (millions killed in India) and the Ottomans joy at the ruination of cities and peoples.

A people who live at the expense of others.

[Keenir]

...for the Turks as being the worst in hisotry for warmongering and mass murder.
Compared to others, the Turks have been able to carry our these atrocities for over 1,000 years.

A people who live at the expense of others.

Using your logic, the Germans are the ultimate evil...they were destroying cultures and burning villages long before the Romans came (whereupon the Germans put a stop to Roman expansion & made the Romans start to slide into decadence and weakness....then the Germans invaded England, an invasion that not even the Normans could undo....Germans were part of a corrupt and evil regime that attempted to destroy England under Philip II....the Germans killed millions of Jews during the Middle Ages, and millions more in the 20th Century.

[Massis]

Using your logic, the Germans are the ultimate evil...they were destroying cultures and burning villages long before the Romans came (whereupon the Germans put a stop to Roman expansion & made the Romans start to slide into decadence and weakness....then the Germans invaded England, an invasion that not even the Normans could undo....Germans were part of a corrupt and evil regime that attempted to destroy England under Philip II....the Germans killed millions of Jews during the Middle Ages, and millions more in the 20th Century.

I haven't a clue what our on about, as regards logic...

The land of 'England' prior to Germanic conquest was called Brittania.
And the Normans (another Germanic people) did conquer England.
Phillip II king of Spain may have claimed Gothic ancestry but was Spanish and he attempted to overthrow the Protestant rule of England, not destroy England.
Of course the crimes against humanity would put the Germans as 1st place for 'worst villains in history' but at least the German government has accepted the crimes and made efforts to amend them.

Todays Turkish Republic denies the Greek, Armenian, Assyrian, Alevi and Kurdish genocides ever happened...

[MerryPrankster]

I've never heard of an Alevi or Kurdish genocide.

I know that the Kurds were the boots-on-the-ground for the Armenian Genocide and were historically quite brutal to the Assyrians too. Are you referring to the modern situation with the Kurds?

[basileus]

...for the Turks as being the worst in hisotry for warmongering and mass murder.
Compared to others, the Turks have been able to carry our these atrocities for over 1,000 years.

From the huns and their destruction of the Roman Empire, the Avars and their ransacking of Germanic peoples and the Byzantines, the Seljuks and their devastation of Armenia and Anatolia, the Timurids and their sadistic lust for blood (millions killed in India) and the Ottomans joy at the ruination of cities and peoples.

A people who live at the expense of others.

Are you Greek, Armenian or Kurdish?

[Hapsburg]

Nazis were the worst. No question. They tried purposefully to obliterate entire ethnic and religious groups for no real reason. At least the soviets didn't purposefully try to obliterate the ukrainians; the famine that did that was partially due to the failed attempt at collective farming- they had no idea that it would fail so badly.
And as for the British...well, yes, one could argue that they indirectly caused much more death than any other empire, but...they didn't purposefully try to kill ethnic groups. What they did inadvertantly led to the situations where said killings happened, but they did not mean for things to spiral out of control like that.

[Haggis]

Mao wasn't evil, neither was Stalin. They both did what they saw as necessary to create a society without oppression. They were no more racist than Churchill and FDR.
WHAT? Mao once said he'd kill half of the Chinese people in order to complete a single one of his projects.

Don't talk about those bastards helping anyone. Mao and Stalin are on the same level as Hitler and Pol Pot. In fact, they killed more people.

[Smaug]

JMO...Stalin....Biggest rat bastard in history..... Except for a possibe earlier moggot who's not chronicled. He surely gets it on strength of signing the papers. Pol Pot did pretty well too though...1/4 of the population....