The impact they had in the rise of their respective nations?Something that is very conveninently brushed aside everytime these topics pop up.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Top Mass Murderers in History (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
You are ridiculous, Sal. So a leader of a country gets a pat on the back from you if he brings economic progress regardless of how many people are slaughtered as a small side effect?
If Hitler wasn't such a maniac to think he could conquer all of Europe then the Allied powers wouldn't have felt so threatened and might just have cut a deal with him. And then watch Hitler turn the new great Germany into a prosperous state admired economically everywhere. Salman says good job.
Honestly, man.
You're always waiting to step in with a tangential comment, aren't you? Noone said European countries should be admired for their history, that was Salman's idea. So stop poking the strawman with needles.
If Hitler wasn't such a maniac to think he could conquer all of Europe then the Allied powers wouldn't have felt so threatened and might just have cut a deal with him. And then watch Hitler turn the new great Germany into a prosperous state admired economically everywhere. Salman says good job.
Honestly, man.
You're always waiting to step in with a tangential comment, aren't you? Noone said European countries should be admired for their history, that was Salman's idea. So stop poking the strawman with needles.
Ok sometimes being nasty pays off. You're right on that point. Sometimes things didn't work out so well. Look at Pol Pot, probably did the worst to his country out of all the guys on his list. The same thing can be said about the guy in East Timor and to some effect Stalin's Russia. Sure those countries prospered for a sort time for a few but in the end they ate dust.
What I don't get is that people always say: well, the whole western world has done things people shouldn't be proud of. And yes, pretty much every country on the face of the earth has caused the world a lot of harm. But is that the issue here? And why would that justify Mao's actions?
I feel as if people tell me I shouldn't be on my moral high horse, because I'm a hypocrit if I were to say that Mao might not have been such a nice guy. If killing so many people isn't considered a big deal, I think we're setting the standard pretty low.
I feel as if people tell me I shouldn't be on my moral high horse, because I'm a hypocrit if I were to say that Mao might not have been such a nice guy. If killing so many people isn't considered a big deal, I think we're setting the standard pretty low.
I am very accostumed to that childish knee-jerk mentality. For example, when it comes to the Brittish empire, there is positive effects to be accounted for, but the image of that empire is so rosy and white washed. Whenever I bring up the fucked up shit they did as a colonial empire (only empire to completely erased a group of people in Tasmania, first to use concentration camps etc), I have gotten similar stuff as you just did, listing the "wonderful" acheivements and pointing out how others were worse blabla, not even been close to acknowledging the dark deeds.
Weird as mentality, might as well close your eyes, scream lalala and ignore the pink elephant in the room. Revisionistic mentality sucks real hard. Wether its for the west or the east, doesnt matter fuck all.
P.S But even I am use to that kind of argumenting, the scale of this one is utterly ridicolous. I mean to even come close to thinking you can justify killing 70m people is just.....
Weird as mentality, might as well close your eyes, scream lalala and ignore the pink elephant in the room. Revisionistic mentality sucks real hard. Wether its for the west or the east, doesnt matter fuck all.
P.S But even I am use to that kind of argumenting, the scale of this one is utterly ridicolous. I mean to even come close to thinking you can justify killing 70m people is just.....