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

[ice berg]

Yes, you are right. The Japanese also carried out large scale massacres in territories they controlled. However, instead of going ballistic, what you could do is post references to support your claims. That way, your points carry a lot more weight and become more credible than posts that are unsupported.

Here are two examples:
The Rape of Nanking (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nanking Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will add Hirohito to the list.

There is nothing ballistic about my post. I just assume that everyone who ever read a history book know the atrocities commited by the imperial japanese army. That is well documented.

My point remains. No single person is responsible of carrying out those acts.

Instead of the childish discussion of who is most evil. (wdt?) Try to see what makes it possible for those incidents to occur in human history.

Who carriered out those orders? Why? Why is nobody stopping them? What can we learn from it?

Those are the questions that need answering. Not who is most evil. The allied force saved us from Germany and Japanese and probably saved millions of life. Is Churchill less evil then because of the lives he saved?

The question of who is most evil only suit simple minded people. The world dont works that way.

The blame game is for the people who never learn from the history. Like the topic starter. and his troll friends.

 

[niharjhatn]

I'd probably go with the guys with the Manhattan Project.

Directly = Zero deaths

Indirectly = ....

 

[ice berg]

You mean Albert Einstein?

 

[HeinzGud]

Add all of them. Also include the Armenian Genocide, East Pakistan Genocide, Pol Pot, Idi Amin.

Hirohito is responsible for the massacres carried out by Japanese troops.

Hirohito is not responsible for the massacres caused by the Japan... it was Tojo and his war cabinet... however Hirohito is responsible for dragging the war in the last few months!

 

[niharjhatn]

You mean Albert Einstein?

???

Albert Einstein was not a part of the Manhattan project.

As far as I knew, he didn't conceptualise the idea of a chain reaction in a fission reaction - I believe it was Fermi who did and conveyed his idea to Einstein.

 

[Virendra]

Churchill was not alone to punish us. First, blame the nature which caused the famine. Second, blame the hoarders who did earn profits at the cost of people's life. Third, blame ourselves that we were not able to help our own countrymen. In earlier famines due to the likes of Vivekanand and others we did respond very well to the famines. Its only after all our safety mechanisms have failed that we expected the British support and that is where Churchill failed us.

Churchill was the decision maker, may be not alone but one of the foremost.
Coming to famines -
Uneven/absent distribution of grains is more responsible for famines rather than the simplistic definition that crops failed due to nature.
This is not my concoction but what scholars like Amartya Sen have found in their study of socio-economics.
Churchill wasn't "a bit cold" in "not giving" grains. Instead he was monstruous in "snatching Indian grains' for "his war".
That is what made the situation so grim. You really think in a country as big as India people can't find food to eat if there was enough?
Problem was that grain was not circulated. More so, it was actually circulated out of the country at the worst possible time (for India).

Regards,
Virendra

 

[ice berg]

???

Albert Einstein was not a part of the Manhattan project.

As far as I knew, he didn't conceptualise the idea of a chain reaction in a fission reaction - I believe it was Fermi who did and conveyed his idea to Einstein.

In November 1954, five months before his death, Einstein summarized his feelings about his role in the creation of the atomic bomb: "I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them." (Clark, pg. 752).

Ronald Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times

 

[trackwhack]

There is nothing ballistic about my post. I just assume that everyone who ever read a history book know the atrocities commited by the imperial japanese army. That is well documented.

My point remains. No single person is responsible of carrying out those acts.

Instead of the childish discussion of who is most evil. (wdt?) Try to see what makes it possible for those incidents to occur in human history.

Who carriered out those orders? Why? Why is nobody stopping them? What can we learn from it?

Those are the questions that need answering. Not who is most evil. The allied force saved us from Germany and Japanese and probably saved millions of life. Is Churchill less evil then because of the lives he saved?

The question of who is most evil only suit simple minded people. The world dont works that way.

The blame game is for the people who never learn from the history. Like the topic starter. and his troll friends.

Wow, since you decided to climb up the pedestal, allow me to pull your arse right back down.

What have the Chinese people done regarding the mass killings that Mao ordered? Oh yes, they painted a massive portrait of him overlooking his main killing field.

What morality are you preaching when your nation is the only one that has not reformed from the evil that Mao and his thugs started and continue till today. The Nazis have been chased from Germany and the British has given up her colonies. But the CCP still reigns supreme in China., still executing more than 10,000 people a year. You are going to preach morality.

You should go relieve yourself, the build up of animosity will drive you nuts.


It is also funny that you voted for Hirohito who killed less than a million Chinese and ignored Mao, who killed upwards of 35 million Chinese.

 

[LalTopi]

Please elaborate on why he is evil to you...

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

@Sakal Gharelu Ustad
Ohh..common..There is a difference between letting people die in famine and sending them for execution to gulags..In the former case, people can help each other, community supporters might get in,

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.

people might migrate and you are free to find a way out.

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.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Churchill was the decision maker, may be not alone but one of the foremost.
Coming to famines -
Uneven/absent distribution of grains is more responsible for famines rather than the simplistic definition that crops failed due to nature.
This is not my concoction but what scholars like Amartya Sen have found in their study of socio-economics.
Churchill wasn't "a bit cold" in "not giving" grains. Instead he was monstruous in "snatching Indian grains' for "his war".
That is what made the situation so grim. You really think in a country as big as India people can't find food to eat if there was enough?
Problem was that grain was not circulated. More so, it was actually circulated out of the country at the worst possible time (for India).

Regards,
Virendra

The state governments were equally responsible for the situation. They imposed trade barriers on movement of grains from one part of country to another and no one opposed it at that time. We are so good at faulting others for our own mistakes.

I would still say that Churchill's inaction was not the biggest reason for the extreme number of deaths. Burma was annexed by Japanese and it exacerbated the problem of importing. Although, Sen believes that it was distribution failure, Ms Mukherjee claims that Churchill did not let grain import to India. There are so many reasons and so singling out Churchill for the whole mess and comparing him to the likes of Hitler and Mao is too biased.

 

[LalTopi]

The state governments were equally responsible for the situation. They imposed trade barriers on movement of grains from one part of country to another and no one opposed it at that time. We are so good at faulting others for our own mistakes.

I would still say that Churchill's inaction was not the biggest reason for the extreme number of deaths. Burma was annexed by Japanese and it exacerbated the problem of importing. Although, Sen believes that it was distribution failure, Ms Mukherjee claims that Churchill did not let grain import to India. There are so many reasons and so singling out Churchill for the whole mess and comparing him to the likes of Hitler and Mao is too biased.

I think you are so engrossed in tiny details that you cannot see the obvious wood for the trees.

Britain was in charge. It was Churchill's watch. He let 3 million people starve to death, on his watch, whilst commanding food ships to pass by. Evil. period.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

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

3 million Indians died for mother England in ww2 on both fronts. There has
never been any official acknowledgement by UK. So I would pick Churchill
only for this reason; as far as opinion in UK he is one of their beloved leaders.
And in many ways he takes more credit then he deserves that belongs more
to Roosevelt for saving UK.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

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.

And how about the provincial govt. imposing trade barriers on each other. How about Sen's analysis who showed there was enough grain even in Bengal at that time but the provincial govt. could not take action against the hoarders? Although what Madhushree said has some fine points to it about Churchill, but we cannot wash away the hands of provincial govt. at that moment. Mr Bose offered grains alongwith Japanese tanks under his command. Any sane Britisher would have turned down that offer.

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.

You do not run out of food stock in a week. We always expect state help(old socialists we are)...Although in case of big shocks one might expect government intervention but that does not rid you of your own responsibility.

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

Churchill did many evil things, but just because he is portrayed as a hero in the west does not mean we would start comparing him with Hitler. If we look at his actions from a bigger perspective and given the fact British was still a functioning democracy during WW2, not all actions could be attributed to him. Unlike his losing peers he did not micro-manage the war. It was a collective British failure.

 

[Virendra]

The state governments were equally responsible for the situation. They imposed trade barriers on movement of grains from one part of country to another and no one opposed it at that time. We are so good at faulting others for our own mistakes.

I would still say that Churchill's inaction was not the biggest reason for the extreme number of deaths. Burma was annexed by Japanese and it exacerbated the problem of importing. Although, Sen believes that it was distribution failure, Ms Mukherjee claims that Churchill did not let grain import to India. There are so many reasons and so singling out Churchill for the whole mess and comparing him to the likes of Hitler and Mao is too biased.

I could've agreed to put it on the State governments if they were autonomous as in today's democracy. But we should remember who called the shots. The one who calls the shots would obviously be singled out. Him and his administration is already single by their action and inaction.
Even then, there wasn't much that State governments could do solely. Churchill and his guys had already sucked all the grain out of India in early years of war. You can distribute grain from one state to other when:
a) it is there,
b) distribution system is proper
c) the system is allowed to work as expected in case of famine

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

I could've agreed to put it on the State governments if they were autonomous as in today's democracy. But we should remember who called the shots. The one who calls the shots would obviously be singled out. Him and his administration is already single by their action and inaction.

The state governments according to the GOI act 1935 were autonomous in calling the shots in this case of putting up/removing trade barriers. But they did not remove it till very late in the famine. Rather than showing national integration, the local leaders instead put up draconian measures. And if you commit such big follies of restricting trade in food grains by imposing trade barriers during a famine---no one could help you..Without acknowledging the fault of provincial govt., blaming Churchill wholly for it looks like an escape goat.

 

[Virendra]

The state governments according to the GOI act 1935 were autonomous in calling the shots in this case of putting up/removing trade barriers. But they did not remove it till very late in the famine. Rather than showing national integration, the local leaders instead put up draconian measures. And if you commit such big follies of restricting trade in food grains by imposing trade barriers during a famine---no one could help you..Without acknowledging the fault of provincial govt., blaming Churchill wholly for it looks like an escape goat.

But where was the grain? What one would consider as surplus for the rainy day, Churchill and his men had already drained it out for the war and much more than that. Other Provincial Governments would fight famines at their own backyard if they gave up whatever they had left.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

But where was the grain? What one would consider as surplus for the rainy day, Churchill and his men had already drained it out for the war and much more than that. Other Provincial Governments would fight famines at their own backyard if they gave up whatever they had left.

Well, for that matter Sen has argued and given detailed stats that it was not a problem on the supply side, but that on the distributions side. Although, the grain availability in 1943 was almost the same as that in 1939-40, the prices were four times. So, there was a violent shift in purchasing power of people and rural labourers were hit the hardest. Now add to it the role of trade barriers and it becomes clear that inflation was also the result of this miscalculation on part of states, not to forget the black marketing and hoarding of grains.

Although, I am not denying the fact that racialism was at work on part of Britain and Australia and things could have been better. But there is no denial to the fact that famine is the result of many interconnected factors and all of them have to be taken into consideration before reaching a conclusion.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

if Kissinger is on the list, why not Nixon?

 

[trackwhack]

Kissinger spans several Presidents. His influence was alive through Bush senior. His protege Brezinski took over around that time.

I would attribute the following to him

At least 50% of the lives lost in Vietnam.
All of the victims of the bombings in Cambodia.
At least 50% of the Bangladeshis slaughtered by the Pukes.
At least 50% of the casualties in the first Gulf war
Numerous CIA atrocities sanctioned by him in South America through 30 years since the late sixties.

Kissinger wrote American foreign policy starting from before he was NSA to long after he officially walked away. Nixon was a pawn in Kissinger's great game.

Though I put his name in there, I did not vote for him because the others were worse. But he is definitely top 5 in terms of pure numbers.

And yeah, I know they gave him the Nobel peace prize.

 

[Ray]

Kissinger was a skunk.

We are talking about human beings!