Top Mass Murderers in History (9 Viewers)

Zé Tahir

JhoolayLaaaal!
Moderator
Dec 10, 2004
29,281
#82
Yes, you do belong in a straight jacket. Enough of this though, I'm not arguing anything with you anymore. You need a lesson in not taking other peoples words and running with them however you like.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
115,946
#83
All nations have done evil things to be where they are today. Most modern European countries today got rich off free slave labour and by seizing resources in other places. America almost killed off an entire population and did the whole slavery thing.
So what you're saying is the Europeans and Americans are more efficient in their slaughters? Is that it?
 
OP
Martin

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #86
    So what you're saying is the Europeans and Americans are more efficient in their slaughters? Is that it?
    I don't know about efficient, but definitely hugely impactful. Colonization was basically an exercise in how to conquer people, grab their territories, find all the natural resources. I suppose you could say that sometime after resistance had been squashed and the natives had been reduced to second class citizens, then yes they built a railroad and telegraph lines and other western goodies. But this was all at the point of a sword, no doubt about it.

    I guess you could say the Vikings had an early version of this.
     

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    115,946
    #87
    Bürkε;1770021 said:
    Well, I would agree with that, even if he isn't insinuating it....
    So would I, but I'm not sure if I get where Tahir is going with his assault on Martin.

    They are very good at making it a capitalist venture.
    Anybody would.

    I don't know about efficient, but definitely hugely impactful. Colonization was basically an exercise in how to conquer people, grab their territories, find all the natural resources. I suppose you could say that sometime after resistance had been squashed and the natives had been reduced to second class citizens, then yes they built a railroad and telegraph lines and other western goodies. But this was all at the point of a sword, no doubt about it.

    I guess you could say the Vikings had an early version of this.
    I think the Assyrians were the fathers of it. They were damn good at innovation.
     

    Seven

    In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
    Jun 25, 2003
    39,320
    #88
    This isn't about Mao&Stalin vs Hitler. I'm saying that if you're going to condemn Mao and Stalin for what they've done despite what they've achieved for their nations (which I agree with) then you have to condemn the leaders of Europe (and that doesn't just mean Hitler). How many people died under the various leaderships of the British Empire? the Spanish? The Portuguese? The Germans?




    Wake up on the wrong side of bed this morning? Floss your teeth with a penis last night? What's the matter?



    lol, I bet Seven is going to think that I've embroiled him an argument when really you're the one flipping out here.



    You certainly didn't complain about the list either.
    First off the list might be pretty accurate. Yes, maybe at some point in time there was someone who was responsible for over 70 million deaths. But at least with Mao we can be fairly sure it was about 70 million. You can talk about the British Empire all you want, but fact is that the British Empire was not one guy and that it's not exactly clear who got killed how and when.

    I honestly don't see why you are so annoyed because we condemn Mao. Where did I say Leopold was a great man?
     

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    115,946
    #89
    Mao is a bastard. Olympics or no Olympics, Mao is a bastard.

    I think Tahir sees our dislike for the Beijing Olympics as "Western prejudice." But really, it's not. I'm not trying to lobby for American cities in this case.
     

    Seven

    In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
    Jun 25, 2003
    39,320
    #90
    Fuck, you guys are making mountains out of molehills. Seriously, get over yourselves.


    Knowing Seven and most other members here are very anti-China, which was at its height during the Olympics, I simply wanted to put it out there that as evil as Mao was, he hasn't done anything worse than the leaders of most European nations.

    What the hell is the problem with saying that??

    This list is retarded btw. Am I to believe that this list includes the top mass murderers in History?

    Where is Charles V, under which Cortés killed close to 90 million people?
    Hmmm.. that's actually pretty debatable IMO. At least most European leaders were fighting against the enemy. Mao was slaughtering his own, which is something Stalin did as well, but on a smaller scale.
     

    Seven

    In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
    Jun 25, 2003
    39,320
    #91
    What is wrong with you? Why do you have to bring that up? How is that relevant? This thread is about the worst killers in the history of the world, and you have to "remind" us that European history is violent? For that matter, several of the people on the list *are* European. What on earth are you after?
    Its not just you, he is being the perfect example of the knee jerk argumenting I was referring to (Salman is way worse though :D).

    I mean Stalin and Hitler are big fucking boogeymen to even the monsters on that list and European. But somehow Ze deems it necessary to totally pointlessly and irrevelanty out of the blue, remind Seven that Europeans did this or that, just because its Mao who was mentionned. I mean, seriously Ze, in a list with Hitler and Stalin topping it, you really think Europeans are being overlooked? WTF are you on about really?

    There must be an ulterior motive, because you really cant be that clueless to deem it necessary to remind others here of the violent evils of Europeans when its painstakingly clear which figures the topic is about, and the continent the top worst ones are from...

    That's pretty much how I feel. It must have something to do with the fact that I'm rather anti-China on a lot of issues TODAY (which I will never deny), but I don't see how that really matters.
     

    Osman

    Koul Khara!
    Aug 30, 2002
    61,488
    #92
    This list is pretty modern history (except the jokish entry of GOD), BECAUSE its sure fire science to count casualties in these modern times, why further back its just idle speculation mostly.

    We could say for example the Timurids were the Maos of their time, their Khan being responsible for an estimated 30-40m dead more or less. But firstly, not only is virtually hard to confirm that and is just vague guessing game based on rare obscure history documents (estimates can wildly vary basd on the biasm of the sources). But also the expectations and set standard of things were quite different from way back then (depend on how far back), to the more civilized modern times. Back then, it wasnt really so "bad" to going around killing everything in sight, for lack of better words.

    They were less likely, to say the least, to scrutinize eachother and name their own Hitlers and set him as the benchmark for evil. On the contrary, usually the most evil massmurdering son of a bitch was completely worshipped, and had the title GREAT added to his name, with every other nation envying them for not having an own massmurdering leader like that :touched: (Not only blaming our ancestors, we are guilty of it too, not just seeing it in historical context, but we nostalgically semi worship the most awesome massmurderers of our history).

    I hope the made the distinction clear enough. Its quite essential an evil list like this is modern, to make sense. Otherwise it would be pointless and counter productive. If we count non modern times, we would be more likely to discuss who is the greatest, not who is the most evil (it would sound odd calling Caesar and Alexander evil, doesnt it? Even if it makes sense with our standards). Not much different between that mostly, except the tides of time.
     

    HelterSkelter

    Senior Member
    Apr 15, 2005
    20,537
    So you seriously think Mao and Stalin did well for their nations? And if they did, then why stop there? Hitler wasn't so bad either was he?
    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.
    WTF? Seriously man? Killing 70m of your population is justifiable now?
    I bet you wish you hadn't written this by now. :howler:
    Dont be Shocked.We just follow different political ideoligies.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 9)