Worst Leaders

[O-J Island]

Who do you think are the top 10 worst world leaders, past or present, for a real world country? The country may not exist anymore.
1. Adolph Hitler
2. Khmer Rouge (I like elephants!)
3. Kim Jung Il (He gets fresh lobster daily!)
4. Saddam Hussein
5. Vlad Dracula
6. Kaiser Wilhelm
7. Emperor Hirohito
8. Emperor Nero
9. Kim Jung Un (Not a leader yet, but said mean stuff!)
10. Not President O-J! He's great!

[Vetok]

Who do you think are the top 10 worst world leaders, past or present, for a real world country? The country may not exist anymore.
1. Adolph Hitler
2. Khmer Rouge (I like elephants!)
3. Kim Jung Il (He gets fresh lobster daily!)
4. Saddam Hussein
5. Vlad Dracula
6. Kaiser Wilhelm
7. Emperor Hirohito
8. Emperor Nero
9. Kim Jung Un (Not a leader yet, but said mean stuff!)
10. Not President O-J! He's great!

1 on that list had his name spelt 'Adolf'. Spelling it 'Adolph' could confuse some people. Kim Jung Un isn't a leader either past or present, so I don't know why you have him on your own list. Anyways;

1. Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili (Joseph Stalin)
He's here because this man was, ultimately, responsible for some of the worst excesses ever seen in human history. Yes, he did good things for Russia, but at the price of the blood of millions.
2. Adolf Hitler
As with the above. He slaughtered millions by default and nearly wiped out an entire social group/ethnic race, which far outweighs the few positives he did for Germany
3. Pol Pot
The main face of the Khmer Rouge. Why wouldn't he be here? 1.7 million of his own citizens died at his hands, and considering the low population of Cambodia at the time in comparison, he pretty much exterminated a massive part of his own nation.
4. Kim Il-sung
Founded the DRPK, one of the most policed states in human history. Life's no bed of roses there, so here he is.
5. Mohammed Omar
Ruled over Afghanistan until 2001, and instituted a massive programme of enforced extremist Islam on the people there.
6. Nero, Emperor of Rome
Do I really need to say anything here?
7. Charles Taylor
Helped supply the RUF in Sierra Leone with guns and ammunition in return for blood diamonds, in the process funding a brutal ten year civil war in that country.
8. Robert Mugabe
He's evicting native white settlers for what their ancestors did, beating opposition supporters, and being an all-round bastard who rolls in luxury while leaving his people with barely enough to get by.
9. Saddam Hussein
Yep, he kept Iraq nice and stable during his reign. Shame it was at the price of leaving people vulnerable to his crazy sons, gassing the Kurds and generally having it be the peace of the gun.
10. John Lackland, King of England
Well, let's see. When told that his brother Richard had been captured by Leopold of Austria, instead of forgetting that he'd been left in charge by Richard and given dozens of privileges by him, he betrayed him and joined Philip of France. His insufferable greediness wasn't good for the common tax-payers either.

[Texina]

Someone's got to say it, so I will

George
Dubyah
Bush

Just 'cause he can't spell.

[Gorgentia]

Someone's got to say it, so I will

George
Dubyah
Bush

Just 'cause he can't spell.

Prove it
He wrote a book

[St George of England]

Someone's got to say it, so I will

George
Dubyah
Bush

Just 'cause he can't spell.

Prove it
He wrote a book

Ghost writer babe, surely.

And Hirohito wasn't that bad a leader tbh.

[The Archregimancy]

10. John, King of England
Well, let's see. When told that his brother Richard had been captured by Leopold of Austria, instead of forgetting that he'd been left in charge by Richard and given dozens of privileges by him, he betrayed him and joined Philip of France. His insufferable greediness wasn't good for the common tax-payers either.

The idea that King John, whatever his faults, belongs on any list of history's worst leaders is - frankly - risible.

The man undoubtedly had both faults and failures, but he had his notable successes, and even his opponents (of which he had many) acknowledged that he was an intelligent monarch who usually ran a highly efficient administrative system. Indeed, maybe he was too clever for his own good. His chief mistakes of his own making were in the replacement of traditional feudal manpower obligations with scutage (an actual financial tax), and the killing (not necessarily by his own hand) of his nephew Arthur. The first of these was the most catastrophic, leading directly to armed conflict with his nobility and Magna Carta. But as far as mistakes by medieval monarchs go, it didn't lead to the destruction of his kingdom, his dethronement, or any form of mass slaughter.

He didn't enjoy too much success in conflicts with France or the Papacy, either, but was arguably unlucky here in facing Philip Augustus and Innocent III, respectively.

I'm not attempt to whitewash his failures, but 10th worst leader in history? Hardly. There are plenty of European medieval and classical rulers who were indisputably worse. He's not even the worst English monarch; Stephen, Henry VI, Aethelred the Unready, Richard II, Charles I and James II all have claims on the title; they were all forced to abdicate (or were simply murdered) or renounce the rights of their heirs, four of them were involved in far more catastrophic wars than anything John was involved in, and Henry VI was additionally insane.

[Vetok]

10. John, King of England
Well, let's see. When told that his brother Richard had been captured by Leopold of Austria, instead of forgetting that he'd been left in charge by Richard and given dozens of privileges by him, he betrayed him and joined Philip of France. His insufferable greediness wasn't good for the common tax-payers either.

The idea that King John, whatever his faults, belongs on any list of history's worst leaders is - frankly - risible.

The man undoubtedly had both faults and failures, but he had his notable successes, and even his opponents (of which he had many) acknowledged that he was an intelligent monarch who usually ran a highly efficient administrative system. Indeed, maybe he was too clever for his own good. His chief mistakes of his own making were in the replacement of traditional feudal manpower obligations with scutage (an actual financial tax), and the killing (not necessarily by his own hand) of his nephew Arthur. The first of these was the most catastrophic, leading directly to armed conflict with his nobility and Magna Carta. But as far as mistakes by medieval monarchs go, it didn't lead to the destruction of his kingdom, his dethronement, or any form of mass slaughter.

He didn't enjoy too much success in conflicts with France or the Papacy, either, but was arguably unlucky here in facing Philip Augustus and Innocent III, respectively.

I'm not attempt to whitewash his failures, but 10th worst leader in history? Hardly. There are plenty of European medieval and classical rulers who were indisputably worse. He's not even the worst English monarch; Stephen, Henry VI, Aethelred the Unready, Richard II, Charles I and James II all have claims on the title; they were all forced to abdicate (or were simply murdered) or renounce the rights of their heirs, four of them were involved in far more catastrophic wars than anything John was involved in, and Henry VI was additionally insane.

I know he's overrated when it comes to it, I'm examining his reign in my Medieval History A-Level, but he's mostly on here for causing so much trouble to the people. Granted, when he lost most of the Angevin Empire, it wasn't all his fault, but still...and I object to your inclusion of Athelred Unraed, he was just unlucky

[Tagmatium]

I know he's overrated when it comes to it, I'm examining his reign in my Medieval History A-Level, but he's mostly on here for causing so much trouble to the people. Granted, when he lost most of the Angevin Empire, it wasn't all his fault, but still...and I object to your inclusion of Athelred Unraed, he was just unlucky

A lot of "bad" rulers have been unlucky, often by being merely medicore and having the misfortune to come up against a truly capable opponent.

[WWII History Geeks]

Ivan Grozny.

Because after researching him for a year...well...

[Frenca]

1. Pol Pot: Do I really have to explain this one? He practically destroyed Cambodia, made year zero, made horrible concentration camps, left Phnom Penh in ruins, etc.
2. Adolf Hitler: Obvious.
3. Josef Stalin: Obvious.
4. Kim il-Sung: Obvious.
5. Mao Zedong: Cultural Revolution anyone? Destroying artifacts and trying to make the peasants more powerful by psychologically damaging the upper-class? Propaganda against upper classes? Great Leap Forward? Yeah, this is why.
6. Idi Amin: Expelling Asians and saying they are horrible is wrong.
7. Robert Mugabe: Yeah, this is why Rhodesia>Zimbabwe.
8. Saddam Hussein: Do I really have to explain this one?
9. Richard II: An insane tyrant.
10. Nero: Well, why would an emperor watching something burn play his instrument?

[Druidville]

7. Emperor Hirohito

Hiro's problem lies in the fact he didn't bother to override his Generals. He really believed that the war was winnable and going well until that second bomb was dropped. Then he couldn't ignore the reality anymore. He knew, if my reading is correct, that things were going bad but he didn't change the course. Japan got lucky in that America wasn't a sore winner, and helped rebuild.

Edit: I overlooked old Ivan the 4th's issues. He was a real winner.

[Tagmatium]

10. Nero: Well, why would an emperor watching something burn play his instrument?

He probably didn't do that, you know.

[WWII History Geeks]

7. Emperor Hirohito

Hiro's problem lies in the fact he didn't bother to override his Generals. He really believed that the war was winnable and going well until that second bomb was dropped. Then he couldn't ignore the reality anymore. He knew, if my reading is correct, that things were going bad but he didn't change the course. Japan got lucky in that America wasn't a sore winner, and helped rebuild.

Exactly. Which is why I wouldn't include him. :/

[WWII History Geeks]

10. Nero: Well, why would an emperor watching something burn play his instrument?

He probably didn't do that, you know.

He used Christians for lanterns.

[Juristonia]

Someone's got to say it, so I will

George
Dubyah
Bush

Just 'cause he can't spell.

Prove it
He wrote a book

Not only did he not write it, his ghost writers didn't even write huge parts of it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/12/george-bush-book-decision-points_n_782731.html#s180908&title=undefined

[Tekania]

Who do you think are the top 10 worst world leaders, past or present, for a real world country? The country may not exist anymore.
1. Adolph Hitler
2. Khmer Rouge (I like elephants!)
3. Kim Jung Il (He gets fresh lobster daily!)
4. Saddam Hussein
5. Vlad Dracula
6. Kaiser Wilhelm
7. Emperor Hirohito
8. Emperor Nero
9. Kim Jung Un (Not a leader yet, but said mean stuff!)
10. Not President O-J! He's great!

Absolutely worse leader of all time was Alfred von Mustereffleberger.

[Frenca]

10. Nero: Well, why would an emperor watching something burn play his instrument?

He probably didn't do that, you know.

He is also infamously known as the emperor who "fiddled while Rome burned",[6]

[WWII History Geeks]

He probably didn't do that, you know.

He is also infamously known as the emperor who "fiddled while Rome burned",[6]

But fiddling here may mean "messing around" or "wasting time" rather than playing an actual fiddle.

[Frenca]

But fiddling here may mean "messing around" or "wasting time" rather than playing an actual fiddle.

But still, he was a tyrant and he persecuted Christians, and like you said, used Christians as lanterns.

[Juristonia]

He probably didn't do that, you know.

He is also infamously known as the emperor who "fiddled while Rome burned",[6]

Same wikipedia page:

It was said by Suetonius and Cassius Dio that Nero sang the "Sack of Ilium" in stage costume while the city burned.[87] Popular legend claims that Nero played the fiddle at the time of the fire, an anachronism based merely on the concept of the lyre, a stringed instrument associated with Nero and his performances. (There were no fiddles in 1st-century Rome.) Tacitus's account, however, has Nero in Antium at the time of the fire.[88] Tacitus also said that Nero playing his lyre and singing while the city burned was only rumor.[88]

[Professional Leaders]

Who do you think are the top 10 worst world leaders, past or present, for a real world country? The country may not exist anymore.
1. Adolph Hitler
2. Khmer Rouge (I like elephants!)
3. Kim Jung Il (He gets fresh lobster daily!)
4. Saddam Hussein
5. Vlad Dracula
6. Kaiser Wilhelm
7. Emperor Hirohito
8. Emperor Nero
9. Kim Jung Un (Not a leader yet, but said mean stuff!)
10. Not President O-J! He's great!

i know hitler was a terrible man but he was a great leader. he lead germany out of depression and built them to a world power in only a few decade. so i the leader perspective he was great.....but a terrible person

[WWII History Geeks]

But fiddling here may mean "messing around" or "wasting time" rather than playing an actual fiddle.

But still, he was a tyrant and he persecuted Christians, and like you said, used Christians as lanterns.

I know, I was referring to the playing of instruments thing.

But still, Ivan Grozny should at least get a shout out!

[Juristonia]

War economy is not a lasting economy.

[WWII History Geeks]

Same wikipedia page:

It was said by Suetonius and Cassius Dio that Nero sang the "Sack of Ilium" in stage costume while the city burned.[87] Popular legend claims that Nero played the fiddle at the time of the fire, an anachronism based merely on the concept of the lyre, a stringed instrument associated with Nero and his performances. (There were no fiddles in 1st-century Rome.) Tacitus's account, however, has Nero in Antium at the time of the fire.[88] Tacitus also said that Nero playing his lyre and singing while the city burned was only rumor.[88]

[WWII History Geeks]

War economy is not a lasting economy.

Unfortunately...