Who is the most Evil individual from the 20th century ?

[Naren1987]

From where did you get the number of 70 million dying on the Eastern front?

Although Stalin undoubtedly carried out numerous atrocities, the extent of these crimes have been the victim of considerable inflation. The population of the entire USSR in 1939 was around 170 million. Such losses of the scale that you describe would have depleted the Soviet human resource base and had enormous long-term consequences. But in reality, the Soviet Union was able to quickly recover from the devastation of WWII and emerge as a world superpower by 1950. Consider that the Soviet population in 1991 (the last year of its existence) was 293 million, despite steadily declining birth rates from the 60s onwards.

The same could be said of Hitler's victims, how did the Jewish population grow to 24 million in 1946 from 18 million?

 

[KS]

Jinnah needs to be removed from the list. According to me he was not a villain,, he was just a catalyst. Partition would have happened irrespective of Jinnah. United India was too fragile a state to be united.

For the poll - Mao takes the cake..or eats the lo mein.

 

[Armand2REP]

I voted for Pol Pot. He wiped out a quarter of the entire population.

 

[pmaitra]

Jinnah needs to be removed from the list. According to me he was not a villain,, he was just a catalyst. Partition would have happened irrespective of Jinnah. United India was too fragile a state to be united.

For the poll - Mao takes the cake..or eats the lo mein.

Jinnah will stay. According to you he may not be a villain, but according to someone else, he is. Everyone's opinion counts. You should vote for the person you feel is the most evil.

 

[KS]

Jinnah will stay. According to you he may not be a villain, but according to someone else, he is. Everyone's opinion counts. You should vote for the person you feel is the most evil.

I said Mao takes the cake.

 

[asianobserve]

I think the discussion was about the population of the USSR, and how many could have been actually killed by Stalin, not how the USSR controlled the Eastern European states.

The point of contention was the ability of the USSR to bounce back quickly from the devastation of WW2... my friend civfanatic was enthralled (I am too make no mistake about it) by this and he attributes it to the fact that the population of the USSR was not that badly depleted by Stalin's purges as what is claimed by Western sources. But in my case I attribute the extraordinary ability of the USSR to bounce back from the ravages of WW2 due to the fact that after the war it effectively annexed (okay, not formally) key countries such as East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc. which have their own industrial bases. Note that operation Barbarossa alone claimed about 8.7 million Soviet soldiers and about 20 million Soviet civilians so by any measure this is a significant depletion of USSR population that should have had negative effects on post-war Soviet economy. This figure does not include the number of people purged by Stalin immediately before and during the war.


Some interesting observations from a certain Mark Kramer on the matter:

"Other considerations pointed Stalin in the same direction. The Soviet leader viewed the establishment of a secure buffer zone in Eastern Europe as the best way to obtain economic benefits from the region, initially in the form of reparations and resource extraction.14 From eastern Germany alone, the Soviet Union extracted some 3,500 factories and 1.15 million pieces of industrial equipment in 1945 and 1946.15 Similar amounts of industrial facilities, manufacturing equipment, and transport systems (especially railroad cars) were taken from Hungary.16 In addition, Stalin regarded the East European countries as a foundation for the eventual spread of Communism into France, Italy, and other West European countries that in his view would be increasingly "ripe for socialism" as the benefits of the system elsewhere became more apparent.17"

http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/6186/Stalin_and_Eastern_Europe.pdf

 

[pmaitra]

I said Mao takes the cake.

I was responding to your post (read what you wrote bud) where you said Jinnah should not be in the list. You can vote for Mao, but Jinnah will stay in the list because some other member requested it.

Jinnah needs to be removed from the list. According to me he was not a villain,, he was just a catalyst. Partition would have happened irrespective of Jinnah. United India was too fragile a state to be united.

For the poll - Mao takes the cake..or eats the lo mein.

My response to that request is negative.

 

[utubekhiladi]

how come my name is not in the poll list :evil:

 

[pmaitra]

The point of contention was the ability of the USSR to bounce back quickly from the devastation of WW2... my friend civfanatic was enthralled (I am too make no mistake about it) by this and he attributes it to the fact that the population of the USSR was not that badly depleted by Stalin's purges as what is claimed by Western sources. But in my case I attribute the extraordinary ability of the USSR to bounce back from the ravages of WW2 due to the fact that after the war it effectively annexed (okay, not formally) key countries such as East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc. which have their own industrial bases and other forms of wealths. Note that operation Barbarossa alone claimed about 8.7 million Soviet soldiers and about 20 million Soviet civilians so by any measure this is a significant depletion of USSR population that should have had negative effects on post-war Soviet economy. This figure does not include the number of people purged by Stalin immediately before and during the war.


Let me share some interesting observations from a researcher on the matter:

"Other considerations pointed Stalin in the same direction. The Soviet leader viewed the establishment of a secure buffer zone in Eastern Europe as the best way to obtain economic benefits from the region, initially in the form of reparations and resource extraction.14 From eastern Germany alone, the
Soviet Union extracted some 3,500 factories and 1.15 million pieces of industrial equipment in 1945 and 1946.15 Similar amounts of industrial facilities, manufacturing equipment, and transport systems (especially railroad cars) were taken from Hungary.16 In addition, Stalin regarded the East European
countries as a foundation for the eventual spread of Communism into France, Italy, and other West European countries that in his view would be increasingly "ripe for socialism" as the benefits of the system elsewhere became more apparent.17"

http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/6186/Stalin_and_Eastern_Europe.pdf

See in blue.

That is your interpretation.

Please respond to CivFanatic's post objectively. He countered you on the population of USSR, which did not include the populations of Easter European countries. Do you agree with that or not?

Adding for convenience:

But in reality, the Soviet Union was able to quickly recover from the devastation of WWII and emerge as a world superpower by 1950. Consider that the Soviet population in 1991 (the last year of its existence) was 293 million, despite steadily declining birth rates from the 60s onwards.

Maybe you forgot the post WW2 absorption of Baltic states, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and not to mention the pillage of NAZI stash/wealth from occupied territories... Stalin made his research well...

See what you wrote, "... post WW2 absorption of Baltic states, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, ...," which clearly shows your reasoning was based on a premise that is factually incorrect.

 

[IBSA]

I dont question if Hirohito or Mohammad Ali Jinnah should be on the list of worst killers or not, but I think the dictators Suharto and Saddam Hussein might to gain a place on this list easy

Suharto clean out almost all Indonesean communist militants - till then the third Communist Party of world in followers -, pursuit the Chinese minorities, and kill 250,000 in East Timor invasion.

And Saddam Hussein murdered with brutality Shia and Kurdish opposition groups, doing use of chemical weapons even against civil people.

 

[panduranghari]

Amartya Sen in his book "famines & poverty" conclude that it was more of a hoarding problem rather than an inflationary and supply side problem as claimed by Madhushree Mukhreji.
But recent disclosures about Kenya Mau Mau rebellion shows the true picture of self-proclaimed and huminatarian British Raj. More research is needed on this front. Although, I would still not put the entire blame on Churchill for this since it was a natural calamity aided by Hitler/Japan's aggression. The role of Churchill came after these two incidents in denying the supply of rice/grains to Bengal.

Why do you think Amratya Sen got the Nobel prize?

 

[panduranghari]

I know Churchill was one big racist, but he is nowhere in the league of big brother(Mao,Stalin,Hitler).

Yes he is not in the same league. He is in a league of himself. We must revise our history books to tell the truth.

 

[panduranghari]

Churchill ran a death camp where 3 million of my countrymen starved to death.


Yes people tried to help, but any significant help was prevented from getting through. Subash Chandra Bose offered rice - there was plenty in Burma. The British refused on behalf of us Indians. The Americans offered grain. The British refused on behalf of us Indians. All the while ships full of grain were passing by from Australia to Great Britain. Britain had enough food, but Churchill felt the the English working class, for reasons of morale, deserved their little luxeries such as white bread. Finaly, at the height of the famine in Bengal, Churchill stockpiled food for the oncoming assualt on Greece, in order to prevent food shortages and famine in Greece - brown lives are expendable but not white Greek lives.


Next time, try walking after a few days without food, let alone a few weeks. Mudhushree gave the example of people dying from the slightest knock due to physical weakness.

I stick by what I said. Churchill was the greatest evil - because he got away with it and is still seen as a hero.

Oh is actually worse. He not only took the grains from India. He also bled the country of its gold and silver. The inflation in the early 1900 was very very high. He decided to resort to the gold standard when he was the British Chancellor of exchequer in 1925 which failed miserably. It was based on Indian gold. Indian people died due to famines which were engineered but so did many South African Afrikaans speaking majority. He was pivotal in establishing concentration camps in south Africa.

The bastard has committed many crimes.

He and his tory party also offered General dyer a 25000£ purse as he was sacked by British government after Jalianwallah bagh massacre.

My blood boils even when I hear his name.

 

[balai_c]

I believe it was Churchill who said

India is a beastly country with a beastly religion.

at least something to the spirit of the above quote. He hated India with a passion. During his rule, there was a widespread economic depression in India from the 1930's to the end of the second world war. That period is said to be the longest depression in the history of any country anywhere in the world. The British actively discouraged industrialization of India along with rise of literacy rate. British rule is undoubtedly the darkest hour of Indian economic history.

 

[fzaq]

from the indian point of view, who is churchil?

 

[trackwhack]

Can someone who is a member of ARRSE please take a screenshot of the poll results and post a new thread on ARRSE. Lets get them something to think about and maybe a few will join DFI. That way we have more brits to whack-a-mole with.

 

[LalTopi]

I believe it was Churchill who said

at least something to the spirit of the above quote. He hated India with a passion. During his rule, there was a widespread economic depression in India from the 1930's to the end of the second world war. That period is said to be the longest depression in the history of any country anywhere in the world. The British actively discouraged industrialization of India along with rise of literacy rate. British rule is undoubtedly the darkest hour of Indian economic history.

Hindhus are a beastly people with a beastly religion

He was quite particular about the Hindhu bit, seeing Muslims as natural alies to keep India under colonial rule.
He was right in a way, in that the 'beast' turned round and bit his a**se eventually.

 

[Dovah]

I believe it was Churchill who said

at least something to the spirit of the above quote. He hated India with a passion. During his rule, there was a widespread economic depression in India from the 1930's to the end of the second world war. That period is said to be the longest depression in the history of any country anywhere in the world. The British actively discouraged industrialization of India along with rise of literacy rate. British rule is undoubtedly the darkest hour of Indian economic history.

+1

Churchill.

Anon polls suck, btw.

 

[Razor]

+1

Churchill.

Anon polls suck, btw.

Yup, Anon polls suck. Please make all polls open. I voted for the mofo Churchill

 

[The Messiah]

good job! that mass murdering scum churcill is leading now :clap: