The most evil in history?

[-:Undertaker:-]

The most evil in history?

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