Worst leaders in history?

[Yorkopolis]

The worst leaders in history, it depends on what aspect of their leadership you are talking about. If you are talking about economics, Greece's prime minister, Mugabe, Chairman Mao and Brezhnev score extremely high on the list of worst leaders. When talking about genocides, Hitler and Stalin would score the highest. When talking about foreign policy, then Nixon, Kim Jong-il, Kim Il-Sung, and others, would score drastically high. When talking about civil rights, we're going towards Ceasescu, Honecker, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, and Kim Il-Sung, they would score high on the list of leaders whose states had least civil rights during their rule. In overall, when combining the most important factors (civil rights, economics), Ceasescu or Honecker would be the worst of all leaders.

[Kirrig]

The worst leaders in history, it depends on what aspect of their leadership you are talking about. If you are talking about economics, Greece's prime minister, Mugabe, Chairman Mao and Brezhnev score extremely high on the list of worst leaders. When talking about genocides, Hitler and Stalin would score the highest. When talking about foreign policy, then Nixon, Kim Jong-il, Kim Il-Sung, and others, would score drastically high. When talking about civil rights, we're going towards Ceasescu, Honecker, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, and Kim Il-Sung, they would score high on the list of leaders whose states had least civil rights during their rule. In overall, when combining the most important factors (civil rights, economics), Ceasescu or Honecker would be the worst of all leaders.

This is what I tried to say, but I seemed to not manage to get across. I would disagree with your final two choices as they aren't well known enough. I think that the worst leaders should be widely known to be bad, but that's my opinion.

[Anitgrum]

Seriously of the all leaders in history the people you think are the worst are the founding father? Not the one leader who emptied all the cities in his country, forced them to work in the rice paddies from sun up to midnight, didn’t bother to feed them for days on end, and kill everyone over the age of 65 as well 20% of his counties population because they weren’t needed in this new agrarian paradise. Or that other leader who stared a war that killed fifty million people, leveled hundreds of cities across Eurasia, and resulted in the leader’s counties being split in two for 41 years. Or the other leader whose agricultural disastrous polices caused forty million people to starve to death. Nor did you think of that one Emperor who : declared himself an all-powerful god, required that every Synagogue have a statue of him placed inside so the Jews could worship he, made his horse a high priest and try to appoint him to the senate, nearly bankrupted the empire by splurging most of the money on himself, caused a famine in the capital by replacing the cities shipments of grain with sand, had people executed that he though had better hair than he did. Hell there has been far worse leaders in American history than the founding fathers. Like that one leader who committed ethic cleansing in direct violation a Supreme Court ruling and whose quest to vanquish the Bank of the United States caused a depression that destroyed three hundred banks. Or that other President who was bribed by oil companies to give then vast track of oil rich Federal land for practically nothing. Which eventually resulted in the Secretory of the Interior being convicted of bribery the first time it had happened in the history of the country. While his Attorney General was somehow found innocent despite he admitted to destroying incriminating documents as he put it protect the President, and an aid of his with had evidence against him conveniently committed suicide in the Attorney General home. But obviously the founding fathers are far worse than the leaders mentioned above because they supposed are the reason why Americans get angry if they have to pay higher taxes. Please learn some history before you make statements like that.

Now, you seem to be quite intelligent and certainly seem to think that you are (at least in comparison to what you seem to think of me) so what I am about to say will be very easy to follow. The leaders of the US Revolution have in the US approached the point where they have become unquestioned. What I have done is make a perfectly reasonable assessment of their status, based on a perceived (and again reasonable) effect of their actions. Those actions have resulted in the hatred of increased taxes which goes a long way to explain why the US has budget deficits which contribute to increasing levels of debt. As the debt gets higher it becomes more of a problem and will eventually lead to a major issues globally.

With regards to your examples you quite clearly seem to think that these leaders are worse. The point is you are comparing world leaders on a different metric and making choices on which are worse using a different values system. An individual's values drive their decision making process.

I must also point out that I never said the leaders of the US Revolution were the worst leaders, I said that they are up there. I have previously explained that I don't think it is possible to decide on any single worse leader, but deciding on a shortlist is possible. The leaders of the US Revolution are, along with Hitler, part of my short list. The main thing to remember is that they are up there for different reasons.

I will also add another leader to my shortlist: Robert Mugabe. While his early days were good for Zimbabwe, and race relations in Zimbabwe, the situation has degenerated. Massive inflation and a reversal in Zimbabwe's fortunes, as well as an almost anti-apartheid racial situation.

No I don't like myself mentally superior to anyone and I am certainly not questioning your intelligence but your reasoning. I don't understand why you include the founding father. For starter it is absurd to blame the current problems of the U.S on the people who lived four hundred year it. It tantamount to declaring that Theodoros Kolokotronis and Andreas Londos are among the worst leaders in history because they are responsible for creating indecisiveness and infighting found in Greece. And as such Greece coming to an agreed conclusion to deal with it debt which threatens the economy EU which in turns threatens the Global Financial Markets. So that is why I have then on my list with Pol Pot Caligula and Hitler. You see the problem there. Secondly there have been leader through the History of the U.S that have done far more to the country that you allege that the founding father have done. Lastly Hitler and Mugabe were directly responsible for the the atrocities they have committed because the directly order it. Where as the founding father as you claim left America with the ideal of to lower taxes. Which isn't true by any means after the Revolution war the U.S ended up imposing just as much if not more taxes that the British wanted to levy to pay for the war debts they inured.The concept the founding father left with Americans was no taxation without representation in the government levying said taxes.It quite insulting that you consider them on par to people who both knowing and unwittingly caused death misery and hardship to millions .

[Chemaki]

The worst leaders in history, it depends on what aspect of their leadership you are talking about. If you are talking about economics, Greece's prime minister, Mugabe, Chairman Mao and Brezhnev score extremely high on the list of worst leaders. When talking about genocides, Hitler and Stalin would score the highest. When talking about foreign policy, then Nixon, Kim Jong-il, Kim Il-Sung, and others, would score drastically high. When talking about civil rights, we're going towards Ceasescu, Honecker, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, and Kim Il-Sung, they would score high on the list of leaders whose states had least civil rights during their rule. In overall, when combining the most important factors (civil rights, economics), Ceasescu or Honecker would be the worst of all leaders.

This is what I tried to say, but I seemed to not manage to get across. I would disagree with your final two choices as they aren't well known enough. I think that the worst leaders should be widely known to be bad, but that's my opinion.

I'd say Ceaucescu is actually very well known. He was a very brutal (not to mention insane) dictator - He made Ghaddafi look like, well, a playground bully.

[Kirrig]

Now, you seem to be quite intelligent and certainly seem to think that you are (at least in comparison to what you seem to think of me) so what I am about to say will be very easy to follow. The leaders of the US Revolution have in the US approached the point where they have become unquestioned. What I have done is make a perfectly reasonable assessment of their status, based on a perceived (and again reasonable) effect of their actions. Those actions have resulted in the hatred of increased taxes which goes a long way to explain why the US has budget deficits which contribute to increasing levels of debt. As the debt gets higher it becomes more of a problem and will eventually lead to a major issues globally.

With regards to your examples you quite clearly seem to think that these leaders are worse. The point is you are comparing world leaders on a different metric and making choices on which are worse using a different values system. An individual's values drive their decision making process.

I must also point out that I never said the leaders of the US Revolution were the worst leaders, I said that they are up there. I have previously explained that I don't think it is possible to decide on any single worse leader, but deciding on a shortlist is possible. The leaders of the US Revolution are, along with Hitler, part of my short list. The main thing to remember is that they are up there for different reasons.

I will also add another leader to my shortlist: Robert Mugabe. While his early days were good for Zimbabwe, and race relations in Zimbabwe, the situation has degenerated. Massive inflation and a reversal in Zimbabwe's fortunes, as well as an almost anti-apartheid racial situation.

No I don't like myself mentally superior to anyone and I am certainly not questioning your intelligence but your reasoning. I don't understand why you include the founding father. For starter it is absurd to blame the current problems of the U.S on the people who lived four hundred year it. It tantamount to declaring that Theodoros Kolokotronis and Andreas Londos are among the worst leaders in history because they are responsible for creating indecisiveness and infighting found in Greece. And as such Greece coming to an agreed conclusion to deal with it debt which threatens the economy EU which in turns threatens the Global Financial Markets. So that is why I have then on my list with Pol Pot Caligula and Hitler. You see the problem there. Secondly there have been leader through the History of the U.S that have done far more to the country that you allege that the founding father have done. Lastly Hitler and Mugabe were directly responsible for the the atrocities they have committed because the directly order it. Where as the founding father as you claim left America with the ideal of to lower taxes. Which isn't true by any means after the Revolution war the U.S ended up imposing just as much if not more taxes that the British wanted to levy to pay for the war debts they inured.The concept the founding father left with Americans was no taxation without representation in the government levying said taxes.It quite insulting that you consider them on par to people who both knowing and unwittingly caused death misery and hardship to millions .

Reasoning and intelligence, I can see where I got slightly confused. My apologies.

However, while you disagree with the reasoning it makes perfect sense. I will also make a note of emphasising that the leaders of the US Revolution are in the shortlist when measure using a toatly different system than with the likes of Hitler. What we have here is a case of two different interpretations. If we were two massively respescted historians we would be creating two schools of thought. The leaders of the US Revolution also, I point out, caused a number of deaths and acted illegaly in leading the Revolution.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Antiquity: Nero, Caligula, Commodus, Caracalla, Elagabalus, Sulla, Tiberius, Pope John XII

Modern-Day: Nicolae Ceaucescu, Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin, Jean-Bedel Bokassa, George Bush, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Papa Doc Duvalier, Fulgencio Batista, Walther Ulbricht, Erich Honecker, Slobodan Milosevic etc.

There are plenty more but I know these by-far.

[Kirrig]

Antiquity: Nero, Caligula, Commodus, Caracalla, Elagabalus, Sulla, Tiberius, Pope John XII

Modern-Day: Nicolae Ceaucescu, Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin, Jean-Bedel Bokassa, George Bush, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Papa Doc Duvalier, Fulgencio Batista, Walther Ulbricht, Erich Honecker, Slobodan Milosevic etc.

There are plenty more but I know these by-far.

Ah, a nice shortlist. How did you determine who made the list? A lot seem to be on moral grounds. Sulla is a good inclusion, but what of Crassus?

[Anitgrum]

The worst leaders in history, it depends on what aspect of their leadership you are talking about. If you are talking about economics, Greece's prime minister, Mugabe, Chairman Mao and Brezhnev score extremely high on the list of worst leaders. When talking about genocides, Hitler and Stalin would score the highest. When talking about foreign policy, then Nixon, Kim Jong-il, Kim Il-Sung, and others, would score drastically high. When talking about civil rights, we're going towards Ceasescu, Honecker, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, and Kim Il-Sung, they would score high on the list of leaders whose states had least civil rights during their rule. In overall, when combining the most important factors (civil rights, economics), Ceasescu or Honecker would be the worst of all leaders.

Well it all three criteria Pol Pot would be considered the worst. He policy of emptying every city in Cambodia and forcing every citizen to work in a farming collective destroyed Cambodia's economy well as violating civil rights. Then his policy a killing everyone over the age of 65 and two million others was crime against humanity .On the international stage he provoke a war with the fellow communist nation Vietnam by launching raid across the border and calling for the the extermination of 50 million Vietnamese.

[Kirrig]

The worst leaders in history, it depends on what aspect of their leadership you are talking about. If you are talking about economics, Greece's prime minister, Mugabe, Chairman Mao and Brezhnev score extremely high on the list of worst leaders. When talking about genocides, Hitler and Stalin would score the highest. When talking about foreign policy, then Nixon, Kim Jong-il, Kim Il-Sung, and others, would score drastically high. When talking about civil rights, we're going towards Ceasescu, Honecker, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, and Kim Il-Sung, they would score high on the list of leaders whose states had least civil rights during their rule. In overall, when combining the most important factors (civil rights, economics), Ceasescu or Honecker would be the worst of all leaders.

Well it all three criteria Pol Pot would be considered the worst. He policy of emptying every city in Cambodia and forcing very citizen to work in a farming collective destroyed Cambodia's economy well as violating civil rights. Then his policy a killing everyone over the age of 65 and two million others was crime against humanity .On the international stage he provoke a war with the fellow communist nation Vietnam by launching raid across the border and calling for the the extermination of 50 million Vietnamese.

Not that killing everyone over 65 is a good thing it is easier to justify than many of Pot's other actions. I would not say that he should be considered the worse. In terms of foreign policy, Hitler and Chamberlain had probably the worst and in the genocide stakes I think Stalin was worse than Pol Pot.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Ah, a nice shortlist. How did you determine who made the list? A lot seem to be on moral grounds. Sulla is a good inclusion, but what of Crassus?

Ah yes most of these leaders were selected mainly because of their extreme cruelty and lack of morality. I forgot about Crassus until you mentioned him. I have a few more:

Antiquity: Domitian, Sejanus, Empress Theodora (from the Byzantium Empire),

We also have King John, Henry VIII, Girolamo Savonarola, King Leopold II, Ante Pavelic, Enver Hoxha, Dr Hastings Banda, Mengistu Haile Mariam and Turkmenbashi.

Anyone considering Augusto Pinochet?

[Meowfoundland]

Ah, a nice shortlist. How did you determine who made the list? A lot seem to be on moral grounds. Sulla is a good inclusion, but what of Crassus?

Ah yes most of these leaders were selected mainly because of their extreme cruelty and lack of morality. I forgot about Crassus until you mentioned him. I have a few more:

Antiquity: Domitian, Sejanus, Empress Theodora (from the Byzantium Empire),

We also have King John, Henry VIII, Girolamo Savonarola, King Leopold II, Ante Pavelic, Enver Hoxha, Dr Hastings Banda, Mengistu Haile Mariam and Turkmenbashi.

Anyone considering Augusto Pinochet?

Now how was Theodora one of the worst leaders in history?

[Kirrig]

Ah, a nice shortlist. How did you determine who made the list? A lot seem to be on moral grounds. Sulla is a good inclusion, but what of Crassus?

Ah yes most of these leaders were selected mainly because of their extreme cruelty and lack of morality. I forgot about Crassus until you mentioned him. I have a few more:

Antiquity: Domitian, Sejanus, Empress Theodora (from the Byzantium Empire),

We also have King John, Henry VIII, Girolamo Savonarola, King Leopold II, Ante Pavelic, Enver Hoxha, Dr Hastings Banda, Mengistu Haile Mariam and Turkmenbashi.

Anyone considering Augusto Pinochet?

King John was pretty bad. I know for certain that he was responsible for the Baron's revolt and pretty much lost English France, but was he the one who ejected the Jews? King Leopold II is probably the worst manager of colonial empires ever. ALthough I think the variety of Brits who allowed the Tasmanian Aborigines to die out should actually beat Stalin and Hitler in the genocide stakes, I mean they didn't actually manage to totally exterminate an ethnic group. And by allowed, I often mean hunted down.

[Milks Empire]

King John was pretty bad. I know for certain that he was responsible for the Baron's revolt and pretty much lost English France, but was he the one who ejected the Jews?

No; that was his grandson.

[Anitgrum]

Well it all three criteria Pol Pot would be considered the worst. He policy of emptying every city in Cambodia and forcing very citizen to work in a farming collective destroyed Cambodia's economy well as violating civil rights. Then his policy a killing everyone over the age of 65 and two million others was crime against humanity .On the international stage he provoke a war with the fellow communist nation Vietnam by launching raid across the border and calling for the the extermination of 50 million Vietnamese.

Not that killing everyone over 65 is a good thing it is easier to justify than many of Pot's other actions. I would not say that he should be considered the worse. In terms of foreign policy, Hitler and Chamberlain had probably the worst and in the genocide stakes I think Stalin was worse than Pol Pot.

Well an estimated 700,000 to 1,000,000 people died due to Stalin's paranoia.The another 1.5-7.5 million people die but it debatable weather or nit was intentional So if we don't count the Holodomor Pol Pot killed more of his own people. If we count the Holodomor Stalin did. However even with the maximum estimate of Stalin killing 8.5 million of his own people Pol Pot killied more as a proportional population. The Soviet Union at the time had 180 million people while Cambodia had 10 million. So 8.5 million people killed is 4.7 percent of the USSR population. While 2 million is twenty percent of Cambodia population. As for Hitler he proved adept at intimidating the world into getting what he wanted the problem was that he got greedy and pushed Britain and France past there breaking point. Also he never could finished what he started. Before he defeated Britain he declare war on the Soviet Union, before he defeat either of the U.K or the USSR he declared war on the U.S. While Pol Pot was unable to intimidate or negotiate with Vietnam due to his heavy handedness. His only ally was China and they only supported him as a counter balance to Vietnam. As opposed to Hitler who was able to negotiate a non-aggression pact with the USSR and get Italy,Japan, Hungary,Bulgaria, and Romania to ally themselves with him.

[Wisconsin East]

Stanlin, Bin Ladin, Obama, Chi Coms , Putin all those people

[Kirrig]

Not that killing everyone over 65 is a good thing it is easier to justify than many of Pot's other actions. I would not say that he should be considered the worse. In terms of foreign policy, Hitler and Chamberlain had probably the worst and in the genocide stakes I think Stalin was worse than Pol Pot.

Well an estimated 700,000 to 1,000,000 people died due to Stalin's paranoia.The another 1.5-7.5 million people die but it debatable weather or nit was intentional So if we don't count the Holodomor Pol Pot killed more of his own people. If we count the Holodomor Stalin did. However even with the maximum estimate of Stalin killing 8.5 million of his own people Pol Pot killied more as a proportional population. The Soviet Union at the time had 180 million people while Cambodia had 10 million. So 8.5 million people killed is 4.7 percent of the USSR population. While 2 million is twenty percent of Cambodia population. As for Hitler he proved adept at intimidating the world into getting what he wanted the problem was that he got greedy and pushed Britain and France past there breaking point. Also he never could finished what he started. Before he defeated Britain he declare war on the Soviet Union, before he defeat either of the U.K or the USSR he declared war on the U.S. While Pol Pot was unable to intimidate or negotiate with Vietnam due to his heavy handedness. His only ally was China and they only supported him as a counter balance to Vietnam. As opposed to Hitler who was able to negotiate a non-aggression pact with the USSR and get Italy,Japan, Hungary,Bulgaria, and Romania to ally themselves with him.

I distinguish between foreign relations and policy. Pol Pot was clearly bad at the latter, in fact very bad maybe the worst. Anyway I have decided that no-one person deserves the title of worst in terms of their genocidal ratings: see my post before this one.

[Maeksa]

Joseph Stalin. He starved his people, barely paid them, nearly worked them to death, and then drafted them into the military and killed them. Nearly 12,000,000 people happened to lose their lives because of him. Unfortunately, they never found them again, and had no afterlife of any kind, because there's no religion at all in Soviet Russia. After him, I'd say a tie between Franklin D. Roosevelt, and whatever moron in the Weimar Republic decided it's a good idea to pay war debts with money that doesn't exist. I say that because the Weimar Morons printing money started the great depression, and FDR prolonged it. It took a dictator to get rid of these morons, and he had a few bad ideas that overshadowed his many good ones. FDR raised taxes and tariffs during the great depression, lengthening that horrible era. The Founding Fathers fought taxation, and paid with their lives. FDR changed all of that by being an idiot.

The Revolutionary War was more about the colonies being taxed without representation rather than the taxes themselves.

They wanted to represent themselves in British Parliament so they could lower their taxes...

[Auremena]

Militarily: Hitler
Politicly: Stalin
Socially: George W. Bush
Economically: Kim Jong Il

[Mike the Progressive]

Militarily: Hitler
Politicly: Stalin
Socially: George W. Bush
Economically: Kim Jong Il

Really? Bush wasn't good, but on a list with Hitler, Stalin, and Kim Jon il? Really? Or did I miss the FEMA death camps operated by the TSA under Cheney a few years ago as I drove back from Florida?

[Lani Lani]

Obama -Our Big Ass Mistake America-

Oh god so sig'd.

[Greater Tezdrian]

Benito Mussolini. *shakes head*

So... horrible...

Bullshit.

Nero and Caligula.

[Hamelburg]

Militarily: Hitler
Politicly: Stalin
Socially: George W. Bush
Economically: Kim Jong Il

Hitler wasn't a BAD leader, just an evil one. His major mistake of invading Russia so late in the year really kicked his butt, but against almost every other country he was brilliant. (Just the US and Russia, really. UK didn't lose, but they weren't really getting anywhere on their own either...)

[Auremena]

Militarily: Hitler
Politicly: Stalin
Socially: George W. Bush
Economically: Kim Jong Il

Hitler wasn't a BAD leader, just an evil one. His major mistake of invading Russia so late in the year really kicked his butt, but against almost every other country he was brilliant. (Just the US and Russia, really. UK didn't lose, but they weren't really getting anywhere on their own either...)

He never listened to his generals which advised him against it... He was a good leader though, I mean who else could convince people that killing over 6 million Jews, gypsies, and Slavs was a good thing?

[Jordiddlia]

Adolf and Jimmy Carter

Hitler may have been a dick head, but he was one of the best leaders in all of history.

[New Sapienta]

Pol Pot by far.