The most evil in history?

[-:Undertaker:-]

The most evil in history?


http://www.iaza.com/work/130228C/iaza17776187377300.png

When it comes to unspeakable crimes, or horrific acts of evil - there's (sadly) a lot of competition. Across world history, there have been examples of wars fought on religion, politics and resources which have resulted in thousands dying sometimes even millions - some would say war can be classified as evil, a charge usually thrown at former British Prime Minister Blair and former American President Bush. Others would go for the more classic, less politically charged options of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and other famous dictators. Indeed, some may even opt for controversial and disputed figures such as Queen Elizabeth I of England, King Henry VIII, former Rhodesian Prime Minister Iain Smith, Enoch Powell, Gerry Adams and Nelson Mandela. And then at the end, some will even opt for murderers rather than public figures; the Moors murderers, Ian Huntley and John Wayne Gacy.

But who do you think is the most evil person to have walked this earth? and more to the point, how do you justify your conclusion? do you base it on numbers killed or method used to kill? is it even based on acts of murder or something else?


There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum. Positive contributions towards official debates will sometimes be rewarded with a month's VIP subscription in a colour of your choice as part of the Top Contributor award. As well as this, reputation will be awarded throughout the debate to those who make valid and constructive posts. Those who make the best contributions within a month win the Debater of the Month award and wins themselves a month's worth of forum VIP and 10 reputation points. Finally, those who create debate topics that generate a lot of buzz and engaging discussion will receive 20 reputation points.

The debate is open to you, and will be closed when discussion withers away. Enjoy!

[Lewis]

There isn't a such thing as the 'most evil' in my opinion. Evil is evil, some just take things further than others.

Hitler killed thousands of people, but what makes him different from a serial killer thats killed 10 people or something? They might kill thousands if they could, plus a murder is a murder.

So who's the evilest in the world? All those that are evil ok

[Matthew]

I'm with Mk,; I think.

I don't you can really rank people in order of 'evil-ness' if you get me.. I don't see any difference between someone who kills thousands of people and someone who kills only 10. They're both evil.

And also if you were to rank people in order of 'evil-ness' then it would go down to personal circumstances as well- if I was a Jew than I might be inclined to say Hitler whereas if my grandma was murdered by Gary down the road then I may well think its him. Its a hard task to say 'x is more evil than y' IMO!

[Teabags]

Purely on headcount.
Mao Zedong has to be considered as one of the most tyrannical leaders of the modern world - with a suspected death count of 78million of his own countrymen. Of which, 27 million died in labour camps with a further 38 million, who met their end at the hands of poor attrition and famine. It is not necessarily possessing the mentality to kill that makes you evil (eg euthanasia (and even Hitler didn't have the stomach to watch some of his more gruesome ordered atrocities ie piano-wire hanging)). Mao's terror reign spanned for through generations (27 years) - killing 45million in the space of 4 years.

This prolonged torture of his fellow peers must surely brand him as the most tyrannical man to have lived. Committing the mass murder from his Forbidden City (reaching a death toll unprecedented by anyone else - Stalin managed 23-40million).

[GommeInc]

The thing is, Hitler and many of the individuals who are considered evil did not kill hundreds, thousands or even millions of people personally, with their own hands. Their ideas were evil and they had the power to get other people to kill. I find serial killers more evil to some extent as they're the ones personally doing it with their own hands. It's probably strange thinking that. I'm certainly not saying he's any less evil because power can be used for evil and more lives can be loss through power than on the numbers of an individual death count.

I think Hitler et al have one sort of evil - their ideas were evil and they had the power to attempt to fulfil their ideas. But if you isolate them as an individual you are left with someone with evil ideas and zero (or very few) dead by their hands. It's the element of power which is important.

I think the ultimate evil, or most evil in history, needs to be someone or something that has caused physical and mental pain to loads of completely innocent people in the most sinister way. I can't think of anyone who has fulfilled this :/ To some extent maybe Jack the Ripper, but it just doesn't seem crude enough.

[Teabags]

The thing is, Hitler and many of the individuals who are considered evil did not kill hundreds, thousands or even millions of people personally, with their own hands. Their ideas were evil and they had the power to get other people to kill. I find serial killers more evil to some extent as they're the ones personally doing it with their own hands. It's probably strange thinking that. I'm certainly not saying he's any less evil because power can be used for evil and more lives can be loss through power than on the numbers of an individual death count.

I think Hitler et al have one sort of evil - their ideas were evil and they had the power to attempt to fulfil their ideas. But if you isolate them as an individual you are left with someone with evil ideas and zero (or very few) dead by their hands. It's the element of power which is important.

I think the ultimate evil, or most evil in history, needs to be someone or something that has caused physical and mental pain to loads of completely innocent people in the most sinister way. I can't think of anyone who has fulfilled this :/ To some extent maybe Jack the Ripper, but it just doesn't seem crude enough.
someone like Albert Fish?
He was a cannibal, who claimed to have killed at least two people in every state of America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish
+ Fritzl fills the description pretty well?

[bondyboy99]

To be honest they have all done something bad, which in my view is bad or evil. so they are all as bad as eachother

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'd agree with others, if you go purely on headcount then obviously Mao and Stalin come out on top. But then Ryan also makes the valid point asking whether actually killing somebody yourself is worse than ordering the killing of innocent people. It's a tough one, I don't really think there's a valid answer other than our own reasoning and even experiences in deciding who is the worst killer in history.

In terms of my own opinion, I would opt for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rogue regime in Cambodia. Although the death toll wasn't as high as others, I find the systematic destruction and mass murder of almost an entire country of people to be so interesting and sinister. It's true that Hitler and Stalin had almost factory-like killing, but Pol Pot and his general command literally applied it to an entire country of people - and the effect on Cambodia as a country with 9m odd people in, I think it was something along the lines of 2m who were killed within a small number of years.

It's essentially like 8m+ people in Britain being killed out of a population of 60-70m.

I'd advise anybody who is interested to watch the film 'Killing Fields' which is based on a true story, can find on the internet if you know where to look.

[Ardemax]

Stalin and Lenin combined were just outrageous. No other words for it and I don't think many people can compete with their reign of terror.

Short and sweet. Unlike them.

[GommeInc]

someone like Albert Fish?
He was a cannibal, who claimed to have killed at least two people in every state of America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish
+ Fritzl fills the description pretty well?
Fritzl didn't cause harm to enough people, I guess because it's his family it's all localised and hidden away. If he raped completely random people or locked them away with no one knowing them then maybe. It doesn't seem too sinister.

Perhaps my idea of the ultimate or "most" evil" doesn't exist :P

[Inseriousity.]

I actually think people's indifference to fighting evil is the biggest evil in the world. I wonder how effective these regimes would be if people had been more proactive in tackling it. Admittedly, easier said than done but that shouldn't mean not to try when there are examples throughout history of people doing so in the smallest of ways (Anne Frank's family being hidden, for example).

[The Don]

I actually think people's indifference to fighting evil is the biggest evil in the world. I wonder how effective these regimes would be if people had been more proactive in tackling it. Admittedly, easier said than done but that shouldn't mean not to try when there are examples throughout history of people doing so in the smallest of ways (Anne Frank's family being hidden, for example).

Sounds like victim blaming to me

[Inseriousity.]

How so?
The way I see it there are three types of people: the privileged, the oppressed and the middle ground. The privileged are unlikely to give up their power for the sake of the oppressed and the oppressed are powerless to act. However, the people in the middle ground are neither privileged nor oppressed and so must do all they can to help those oppressed rather than side with privilege. I don't really see that as victim blaming at all.

[Catchy]

@:-:undertaker:-:; where the hell is fred and rose on ur image?!

[:Markster:]

How so?
The way I see it there are three types of people: the privileged, the oppressed and the middle ground. The privileged are unlikely to give up their power for the sake of the oppressed and the oppressed are powerless to act. However, the people in the middle ground are neither privileged nor oppressed and so must do all they can to help those oppressed rather than side with privilege. I don't really see that as victim blaming at all.

Well in ideology that's a good statement but in reality the middle class isn't a very big group of people, or hasn't been one up until the industrial revolution really. Only recently has the size of the middle class begun to grow with people moving to cities and living less at the country side doing agricultural work. An example of this would be the Russian Revolutions in 1917. There was not a very big upper class or bourgeoisie, the middle class was nonexistent and then there was a massive lower class. After Czar Nicholas II managed to piss people off with several bad decisions (losing in wars up to the Bloody Sunday of 1905) Lenin promised the people 3 simple things which were peace, land and bread. With the masses of the lower class behind him he was able to overthrow the government. It's more or less the same with Communist China. As the government controlled so much (education, the economy etc.) people were brainwashed into believing that the government was doing the right thing. Even after Mao Zedong died and his actions of killing millions were published he was viewed as a saint. So in conclusion the middle ground isn't very big and in many cases they aren't aware of the things the oppressors do, they think what they do is right or in some cases they just don't believe it (which is what happened during the holocaust, the USA just didn't believe what people were telling them about Hitler and what he was doing to the jews).

On the note of the evilest person, i think there is evil in each and every one of us. Whether we have the ability to control it or not is a whole different thing. I guess it brings up the nature vs. nurture argument; were we born evil or do some people become evil as they grow up. For example it has been noted that in psychopaths most of them start out with hurting animals, not being able to feel compassion for the creatures, their curiosity just overwhelms them. I believe that the spectrum of "most evil" is a very subjective one. Each person can look at it differently, whether it's by the sheer numbers or for example the severity of the killings. Heck i could even say that people that embezzle from schools and orphanages are the most evil people in the world. Also it depends what side you look at it from. There was a Finnish sniper in WW2 who killed 505 russian soldiers, the most recorded in any major war. In Finland the man was a hero while in Russia he probably was public enemy #1.
So to end it all off - evil is a very hard thing to measure, to find the most evil person you have to create a criteria for it and specify what exactly you're looking at.

[Inseriousity.]

Regardless of how big it is, it's there - it doesn't really have to be a class issue - and granted, propaganda won't reveal the big picture but I'm not talking about the big picture. I'm talking about the small piece of the puzzle where you see someone in pain and instead of turning the other cheek, you help out as best you can. The good samitarian story in real life, basically.

[mrwoooooooo]

thatcher

[Yawn]

powertoo

[Attain]

I personally think that Lord Kitchener.
As he was the one who thought of the concentration camps , at first he suggested this to impress Adolf Hitler.
Hitler approved of course and then went on to use the camps to hide political enemies.