worst villain ever

[Baconheimer]

I say Stalinist USSR. You should have added Mao's Peoples Republic of China.

This has been "asleep" for over 8 years. Why reopen it?

 

[Mongo]

This has been "asleep" for over 8 years. Why reopen it?

I have to say that I fail to see what is so terrible about posting to long-dormant threads. The alternative (creating a new thread) simply multiplies the number of threads and makes it more difficult to navigate the list of threads. Plus resurrecting an old thread allows people who had not read it before to gain from the earlier discussion, and possibly add new insights.

But instead when somebody posts to an old thread, there inevitably are attacks of "thread necromancy!", as if that was a bad thing.

 

[PlayerOne]

No colonial slaveowners? Guess I'm gonna have to settle for Literal Nazis!

 

[Jinx999]

It depends whether you grade on:

1) Threat to other nations. Nazi Germany is the "winner" here. Taking on the other three most powerful nations in the world simultaniously and being considered a credible threat, on top of being vile puts them in this category.

2) Absolute number killed. Mao managed this. Despite fierce competition.

3) Proportion of one's own population killed. Pol Pot's Cambodia is the dark horse in the race if you grade like this.

Stalin get's some points for coming second in multiple categories and NK is notable for its longevity.

 

[maidros]

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?

Are you sure about this? Maybe you should begin reading Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis. Might give you a good picture about what the dear British gentlemen were up to.

The British generally committed their genocides far from the inquisitive eyes of Europe, and being winners, wrote the history. But their deeds are around for people to read, if they go to the sources.