Worst Leaders

[EnragedMaldivians]

To be fair, secularization is not really the same thing as violently suppressing any expression of religion - just making sure that government does not enforce one religion over another.

We all know the Russians weren't just going to "separe Church and State"

I actually know very little about the Eastern Orthodox Church - but yes, religion seems a very important part of identity in Russia.

[Neo Prutenia]

your country is Democratic Socialist, but the top 3 worst people on your list were exactly that....

You don't know that quite a lot of Social Democrats were in Concentration Camps, don't you? They were political enemy number 2 in Nazi Germany.

[Queensberry2]

Despite what you may think you can't rule a leader the worst because he had people slaughtered cause most leaders in history did.

and i'm not a Nazi Supporter but Hilter was actually one of the Greatest leaders in history dispite the fact that he is responsible for the death of millions. He brought a crushed and broken country back together and led it to be a world superpower though it was only for a short period of time. and beings that he pretty much started world war 2 one could credit him with ending the Great Depression because WW2 is the only thing that ended the Great Depression if it wasn't for WW2 it probably would've lasted well into the 50's

[Neo Prutenia]

Despite what you may think you can't rule a leader the worst because he had people slaughtered cause most leaders in history did.

and i'm not a Nazi Supporter but Hilter was actually one of the Greatest leaders in history dispite the fact that he is responsible for the death of millions. He brought a crushed and broken country back together and led it to be a world superpower though it was only for a short period of time. and beings that he pretty much started world war 2 one could credit him with ending the Great Depression because WW2 is the only thing that ended the Great Depression if it wasn't for WW2 it probably would've lasted well into the 50's

Depends on your definition of "worst". Some on this thread read is as "most inhumane" other as "most incompetent". Hitler had an awful longterm economic plan, human rights issues aside. I'd never put him into the "greatest leaders ever" category solely because of that.

[Eskandapolis]

We all know the Russians weren't just going to "separe Church and State"

I actually know very little about the Eastern Orthodox Church - but yes, religion seems a very important part of identity in Russia.

By Russians I meant Soviets, they were more of promoting "state atheism" (different from French- style secular state), though ocassionally they supported some "not very moderate"Islamic leaders such as Qaddafi

[Queensberry2]

Despite what you may think you can't rule a leader the worst because he had people slaughtered cause most leaders in history did.

and i'm not a Nazi Supporter but Hilter was actually one of the Greatest leaders in history dispite the fact that he is responsible for the death of millions. He brought a crushed and broken country back together and led it to be a world superpower though it was only for a short period of time. and beings that he pretty much started world war 2 one could credit him with ending the Great Depression because WW2 is the only thing that ended the Great Depression if it wasn't for WW2 it probably would've lasted well into the 50's

Depends on your definition of "worst". Some on this thread read is as "most inhumane" other as "most incompetent". Hitler had an awful longterm economic plan, human rights issues aside. I'd never put him into the "greatest leaders ever" category solely because of that.

well we can't make assumptions on what might have happend we can only decide from what has happend and you also have to look at it from the time period and the perspective of the people whats right for one isn't right for all when it comes to economics you can't say it was awful just cause you disagree with it or what not and you don't know how it would've turned out because well quite frankly we all know how that ended. I mean take Capitalism for instance theres plenty of people out there that hate it and think its one of the worst economic systems ever and that it can't be substained but yet its been around for hundreds of years and is still holding strong and holds a spot as one of the top and most desired systems.

[Kruplyan]

your country is Democratic Socialist, but the top 3 worst people on your list were exactly that....

You don't know that quite a lot of Social Democrats were in Concentration Camps, don't you? They were political enemy number 2 in Nazi Germany.

did you even read the list?

10. Mao Zedong
9. Joseph Stalin
8. Adolf Hitler
7. Abraham Lincoln
6. Nelson Mandela
5. Theodore Roosevelt
4. Lyndon Johnson
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
2. Jimmy Carter
1. Barack Obama

[South Asia Minor]

China and Russia are a hell of a lot better than Afghanistan these days.

Everywhere's a hell of a lot better than Afghanistan these days.

Except Glasgow.

A city in a country so loathed by yourselves that you refuse to let it go.

[The Matthew Islands]

Everywhere's a hell of a lot better than Afghanistan these days.

Except Glasgow.

A city in a country so loathed by yourselves that you refuse to let it go.

Hey, I would love to be shot of Scotland.

[South Asia Minor]

A city in a country so loathed by yourselves that you refuse to let it go.

Hey, I would love to be shot of Scotland.

You've got the SNP's vote for PM.

[Neo Prutenia]

well we can't make assumptions on what might have happend we can only decide from what has happend and you also have to look at it from the time period and the perspective of the people whats right for one isn't right for all when it comes to economics you can't say it was awful just cause you disagree with it or what not and you don't know how it would've turned out because well quite frankly we all know how that ended. I mean take Capitalism for instance theres plenty of people out there that hate it and think its one of the worst economic systems ever and that it can't be substained but yet its been around for hundreds of years and is still holding strong and holds a spot as one of the top and most desired systems.

Of course I can make assumptions. But I don't have to. This was Hitlers economic model, pure, clear Raubwirtschaft, put in some corporatism and planned economy and that is basically it. The very moment the war would have ended and the Third Reich ceased to expand, it would either have regressed and collapsed like the Roman Empire, or would have been forced to change - and therefore replace Hitler and his ideas. How can you maintain that this economic model is good for a Nation? Any Nation?

It wasn't some short-term scheme or war economy. It was based on exploitation of conquered territory and slave labour. At some point, the conquered territories would have run out of Poles and Ukrainians to enslave. But domestic production would have suffered anyway. How would the average citizen be supposed to by anything if all his work is done by some eastern european Zwangsarbeiter? How would small and medium enterprises compete with the very, very cheap labour at the disposal of I.G.Farben and other large corporations which used slave labour? How would Nazi germany had remained competitive on the market under such conditions? It simply wouldn't have. Nazi germany would have ended up similarly if not the same as the Soviet Union in terms of economy.

[Queensberry2]

well we can't make assumptions on what might have happend we can only decide from what has happend and you also have to look at it from the time period and the perspective of the people whats right for one isn't right for all when it comes to economics you can't say it was awful just cause you disagree with it or what not and you don't know how it would've turned out because well quite frankly we all know how that ended. I mean take Capitalism for instance theres plenty of people out there that hate it and think its one of the worst economic systems ever and that it can't be substained but yet its been around for hundreds of years and is still holding strong and holds a spot as one of the top and most desired systems.

Of course I can make assumptions. But I don't have to. This was Hitlers economic model, pure, clear Raubwirtschaft, put in some corporatism and planned economy and that is basically it. The very moment the war would have ended and the Third Reich ceased to expand, it would either have regressed and collapsed like the Roman Empire, or would have been forced to change - and therefore replace Hitler and his ideas. How can you maintain that this economic model is good for a Nation? Any Nation?

It wasn't some short-term scheme or war economy. It was based on exploitation of conquered territory and slave labour. At some point, the conquered territories would have run out of Poles and Ukrainians to enslave. But domestic production would have suffered anyway. How would the average citizen be supposed to by anything if all his work is done by some eastern european Zwangsarbeiter? How would small and medium enterprises compete with the very, very cheap labour at the disposal of I.G.Farben and other large corporations which used slave labour? How would Nazi germany had remained competitive on the market under such conditions? It simply wouldn't have. Nazi germany would have ended up similarly if not the same as the Soviet Union in terms of economy.

First of all large corporations weren't the only ones that were allowed to use the "slave" labour and no the system probably wasn't substainable but we'll never know. Had the war ended differntly with a peace treaty where Germany maintained the lands it had conquered they were not lacking in the wealth department at all they could've lasted for decades even if the countries budget was in the Red every single year but germans aren't stupid they more than likely woud've changed their economic polices. And as far as the germans go with remaining useful in the workplace that was kind of the point Hitler thought that they were above everyone else thats why they did the whole slave thing Germans weren't suppose to have to work it was kind of one of those you scratch my back i'll scratch your back deals.

[Maryginia]

10.Pol Pot
9. Joseph stalin
8.Andrew Jackson
7.John Adams
6.Ivan The Terrible
5.Napolean
4.Abraham Lincoln
3.Adolf Hitler
2.Emporer Nero
1.Sadamm Hussien

[Neo Prutenia]

First of all large corporations weren't the only ones that were allowed to use the "slave" labour and no the system probably wasn't substainable but we'll never know. Had the war ended differntly with a peace treaty where Germany maintained the lands it had conquered they were not lacking in the wealth department at all they could've lasted for decades even if the countries budget was in the Red every single year but germans aren't stupid they more than likely woud've changed their economic polices. And as far as the germans go with remaining useful in the workplace that was kind of the point Hitler thought that they were above everyone else thats why they did the whole slave thing Germans weren't suppose to have to work it was kind of one of those you scratch my back i'll scratch your back deals.

Cher ami, you have neither adressed nor answered any of the point I mentioned. Large Corporations had political clout, therefore the party had to cater to them for support. I.G.Farben could requisition as many slaves as it wanted; local workshop in Cologne or family shop Bauer in Bavaria lacked that clout. Those who were already rich and powerful, would have become richer and more powerful, therefore, they would have more political clout and even more slaves would have been taken by them, not small and medium businesses. Average German suffers. At best, it would have turned into a welfare state, for Germans only.

The Nazis could have maintained their conquered lands for all eternity, but once stripped of their industries and economic nackbone (i.e. the population and infrastructure) those lands would be useless under Hitlers economic plans. The Reich needed constant expansion to continue its policies, favorable peace treaty or not. Not to mention the human element - insurgents, restince fighters, partisans, terrorists, etc. Great lands those would be. These are facts, not assumptions. You don't even have to use deductive reasoning and logic, just read any sourcebook about the Economi policies of Nazi germany and how the conquered lands were managed, specifically the General Goverment and Reichskommissariat Ukraine. It was ridiculous and short-sighted.

Also, if you agree that the policies would have to be changed, then bravo, you have proven my point. Because Hitler didn't want to change them. He thought that they were awsome for keeping the german public in line and good shape. And don't you come to me with that "probably wasn't sustainable" non-sense. If Slavery was sustainable, we'd still have it. Serious slavery on WWII Nazi Germany level, not some child abuse cases from Nestle in West Africa.

[Glorious Freedonia]

There have been some real doozies. Lately, I think some of the Central Asian leaders are definitely in the running. The Uzbeki President is really awful and seems to enjoy boiling people to death which is pretty brutal. Other fellows in that region are about as bad but far more insane. Who was that guy who made an ice sculpture of himself in the desert and spends large amounts of money keeping it frozen while his people are broke? I think he also made his own religion or something. That guy has to at least be in the top five.

Africa always represents herself pretty well in the bad leader department. East Africa has had some rough characters. I just read another book on Idi Amin Dada of Uganda. I dont know that he was the worst tyrant ever but he was an odd bird and pretty solidly established as an uber-tyrant.

The Khmer Rouge were bad but for some reason I fall a little short of calling Pol Pot a tyrant because he seems to have led a simple personal life. He seemed to have ruled by making fotune cookie or bumper sticker sayings from a simple hut. Of course the suffering he caused was A game stuff.

Caligula and Nero will always make the list.

Mao and Stalin were pretty bad. Mao probably killed more people but Stalin's paranoia probably puts him ahead of Mao. Plus I bet Maos reeducation camps were not as bad as Stalin's gulags.

Both of the Kims of North Korea are definitely in the top 5. The second one is worse because the first one arguably kinda had a good reason to be communist. By being commie he could get help from his very powerful neighbors of China and USSR instead of being hostile to them. The other Kim was commie by choice. Of course, neither has an excuse for their awful human rights records that are probably placing them as likely candidates for the top spots of biggest tyrants.

Sorry, but the OP's suggestion that Kaiser Wilhelm is in the top 10 is just wierd. He was not all that bad. WWI was all that bad but he was not.

Various Roman Catholic leaders in charge of Inquisitions and the killing of heretics, witches, etc. were A gamers too and should not be forgotten in the list of infamous world leaders.

Saddam was as bad as any run of the mill tyrant could be and thankfully he is gone. He had ok economic leanings but these were balanced out by his love of making war.

To be a true A list tyrant you need to do incarcerate, torture and kill lots of people because of their political views, political aspirations, religious conscience, or race. That is nonnegotiable. In addition you must fulfill as many of the following as possible (don't feel hemmed in by this a to z list. Get creative and pioneer new realms of cruelty and oppression. Bonus points for creativity.):
a. Eat human flesh for reasons other than starvation.
b. Be very wealthy at the taxpayer's expense
c. Be very wealthy at the bribepayer's expense.
d. Supress intellectual activity
e. Supress scientific theories that are rather self-evident.
f. Treat pictures of yourself as sacred relics and have your picture everywhere.
g. Punish people for mistreating newspapers that have your picture on them.
h. Have a lavish lifestyle when the typical family is starving or freezing.
i. Have show trials
j. Have your own media monopoly.
k. Have successfully turned a rich or growing economy into a wrecked economy.
l. Spend more on foreign military aid than social benefits.
m. Attack your neighbors
n. Hate Israel and the USA.
o. Fund or otehrwise give comfort to terrorists.
p. Have a lot of self awarded medals.
q. Have a pretend religion.
r. Make up a ridiculous religion or spiritual movement and force others to conform to your new religion
s. Arrest a lot of people on the basis of economic sabotage when your wierd economic policies fail.
t. Kill your relatives.
u. Arrest torture and kill relatives of prisoners or defectors just for being related to them.
v. Have extermination camps
w. Deny all allegations of wrongdoing.
x. If you are ousted never face trial or die fighting in the defense of your country.
y. Intrude deeply into your people's romantic and familial lives by determining if and when they may marry, how many children they must have, and outkawing heterosexual activity without a license.
z. Rape children as a matter of governmental policy or personal preference.

[Glorious Freedonia]

10.Pol Pot
9. Joseph stalin
8.Adolph Hitler
7.John Adams
6.Ivan The Terrible
5.Andrew Jackson
4.Napolean
3.Abraham Lincoln
2.Emporer Nero
1.Sadamm Hussien

So, Hitler and Stalin were better than Adams, Jackson, Bonaparte, and Lincoln? You have to be trolling us. Why would you claim that?!?

[Wamitoria]

1. Pol Pot- killed 2 million of his own people and tried to destroy society to fit his warped vision of what the future should be.
2. Adolf Hitler- Do I actually need to explain? He's responsible for WWII.
3. Joseph Stalin- Industrialized Russia, but was responsible for the deaths of several million people in the process.
4. Leopold II of Belgium- Just google "Congo Free State" and you'll find out why.
5. Nicolae Ceauşescu- arguably the craziest of the Eastern Bloc leaders during the cold war.
6. Caligula- self-explanatory
7. Leonid Brezhnev- Undid all of the great things that Khrushchev did.
8. Kim Il-Sung/Kim Jong-Il- refused/continued to refuse to reform the DPRK to save their people from famine. Both lived/still live in luxury.
9. Mobutu Sese Seko- the epitome of kleptocracy.
10. Francisco Solano López Carrillo- caused the War of the Triple Alliance.

[Glorious Freedonia]

The only thing good about tyrantys is that we love to hate them and their madness is fascinating. Perhaps I could say it better like this. Ok, we have a political problem. We have maybe 5 different approaches to dealing with the problem that rely on certain factors over others. Like we might have a radical commie approach that radically stresses equality. We might have a radical libertarian approach that radically stresses laissez-faire capitalism. In between we have various radical approaches. Well your Real Tyrantgga will go with none of the above but will instead do something really interesting and people will definitely be incarcerated tortured and killed as a result. Their response will be so left field that even the most radical choices will seem reasonable balanced and moderate in comparison.

It is like they know they are psychotic tyrants. They know it like they know that mirrors reflect light. Their job as they see it is how to really make the history books for being the craziest tyrant ever and they approach that goal like it is their freaking mission. It is like how Mother Theresa really busted her ass to be fully devoted to good with strict devotion and steadfast determination but in the completely opposite direction.

Anyone can be a serial killer and any leader can start a war. But to be a Real Tyrantgga you have to have all that and a whole hell of a lot more. You got to bring it T!

[Eskandapolis]

There have been some real doozies. Lately, I think some of the Central Asian leaders are definitely in the running. The Uzbeki President is really awful and seems to enjoy boiling people to death which is pretty brutal. Other fellows in that region are about as bad but far more insane. Who was that guy who made an ice sculpture of himself in the desert and spends large amounts of money keeping it frozen while his people are broke? I think he also made his own religion or something. That guy has to at least be in the top five.

Africa always represents herself pretty well in the bad leader department. East Africa has had some rough characters. I just read another book on Idi Amin Dada of Uganda. I dont know that he was the worst tyrant ever but he was an odd bird and pretty solidly established as an uber-tyrant.

The Khmer Rouge were bad but for some reason I fall a little short of calling Pol Pot a tyrant because he seems to have led a simple personal life. He seemed to have ruled by making fotune cookie or bumper sticker sayings from a simple hut. Of course the suffering he caused was A game stuff.

Caligula and Nero will always make the list.

Mao and Stalin were pretty bad. Mao probably killed more people but Stalin's paranoia probably puts him ahead of Mao. Plus I bet Maos reeducation camps were not as bad as Stalin's gulags.

Both of the Kims of North Korea are definitely in the top 5. The second one is worse because the first one arguably kinda had a good reason to be communist. By being commie he could get help from his very powerful neighbors of China and USSR instead of being hostile to them. The other Kim was commie by choice. Of course, neither has an excuse for their awful human rights records that are probably placing them as likely candidates for the top spots of biggest tyrants.

Sorry, but the OP's suggestion that Kaiser Wilhelm is in the top 10 is just wierd. He was not all that bad. WWI was all that bad but he was not.

Various Roman Catholic leaders in charge of Inquisitions and the killing of heretics, witches, etc. were A gamers too and should not be forgotten in the list of infamous world leaders.

Saddam was as bad as any run of the mill tyrant could be and thankfully he is gone. He had ok economic leanings but these were balanced out by his love of making war.

To be a true A list tyrant you need to do incarcerate, torture and kill lots of people because of their political views, political aspirations, religious conscience, or race. That is nonnegotiable. In addition you must fulfill as many of the following as possible (don't feel hemmed in by this a to z list. Get creative and pioneer new realms of cruelty and oppression. Bonus points for creativity.):
a. Eat human flesh for reasons other than starvation.
b. Be very wealthy at the taxpayer's expense
c. Be very wealthy at the bribepayer's expense.
d. Supress intellectual activity
e. Supress scientific theories that are rather self-evident.
f. Treat pictures of yourself as sacred relics and have your picture everywhere.
g. Punish people for mistreating newspapers that have your picture on them.
h. Have a lavish lifestyle when the typical family is starving or freezing.
i. Have show trials
j. Have your own media monopoly.
k. Have successfully turned a rich or growing economy into a wrecked economy.
l. Spend more on foreign military aid than social benefits.
m. Attack your neighbors
n. Hate Israel and the USA.
o. Fund or otehrwise give comfort to terrorists.
p. Have a lot of self awarded medals.
q. Have a pretend religion.
r. Make up a ridiculous religion or spiritual movement and force others to conform to your new religion
s. Arrest a lot of people on the basis of economic sabotage when your wierd economic policies fail.
t. Kill your relatives.
u. Arrest torture and kill relatives of prisoners or defectors just for being related to them.
v. Have extermination camps
w. Deny all allegations of wrongdoing.
x. If you are ousted never face trial or die fighting in the defense of your country.
y. Intrude deeply into your people's romantic and familial lives by determining if and when they may marry, how many children they must have, and outkawing heterosexual activity without a license.
z. Rape children as a matter of governmental policy or personal preference.

z+1. Label yourself as god like
z+2. Declare yourself President for Life, and if possible, do this to help your offspring
z+3. Say you have found the way to make Socialism/Communism better
z+4. Promote a new constitution
z+3. Kill ethnic or religious groups for complotting against you
z+4. Ban any kind of real progress while investigating stem cells or nuclear bombs
z+5. Attempting several coup d'etats when not in power
z+6. Having 38 government positions, yourself
z+7. Expropiate and use the expropiated lands as forced labour camps
z+8. Killing large portions of your population in several civil wars

[Glorious Freedonia]

Escandapolis, you are right. We can add some more to our list, "Start your reign of terror with people actually dancing in the streets and singing your praises in the streets. Then steadily turn your people against you so that when you are ousted they will dance in the streets and sing the priases of their liberators." Also: "Actually make the effort to have "elections" the official outcomes of which have you winning with 80% of the vote. Bonus points are awarded if your "opponents" spend their entire campaign talking solely about how great you are and that people should actually vote for you."

Also, the Real Tyrants does not stop at merely having one secret police agency. Oh no, that would be weak action. You have to have lots of them. More agencies means more people who know too much which gives you more of a bumper crop during your purge "harvests". Also, they can all spy on each other as well as the people.

Also, have arrest quotas for your secret police to encourage them to arrest any guy off the street for trumped up political crimes. This spreads terror beautifully throughout the populace.

Why bother with civil wars though when you can have beautiful purges, extermination programs, and the like? I mean dont get me wrong civil wars ar eall well and good because they are still wars but I think a real dictator doesnt bother with them because when there is a civil war some of your people are temporarily in your land following someone else instead of being ground together beneath your jackboots like they should be.

To paraphrase Tom Clancy, "In the USA we have the Miranda rights that require the police to essentially tell the suspect to go ahead and shut up, we dont mind. In dictatorships, the Miranda rights given to suspects by the police are 'Scream all you like, we don't mind.'"

[Verdeguay]

Francisco Solano López is the worst ever. Other dishonorable mentions (in no particular order): Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hideki Tojo, Pol Pot, Suharto, Leopold II of Belgium, Mengistu Haile Mariam, Francisco Macías Nguema, Efraín Ríos Montt, Anastasio Somoza Debayle, Ho Chi Minh, Francisco Franco, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, Vladimir Lenin, Omar al-Bashir, Saddam Hussein, Mobutu Sese Seko, Hendrik Verwoerd, and the list goes on and on...

[Maxedon]

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.

Off Topic:
Have you noticed that Mods ALWAYS write very long posts?

OT:
Josef Stalin, purged millions.
Josef (I think it is) Lenin. Famous leader of Communism.
Karl Marx. Self-Explanitory.
Mao Zedong Do I really need to explain?
Ho Chi Minh same with Mao.

[The Andromeda Islands]

Currently:

Kim Jong Il & Robert Mugabe

[The REAL Glasers]

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

Except he was a complete ideologue which completely ruined him in the war.

[Verdeguay]

1. George W. Bush
2. Saddam Hussein
3. Adolf Hitler
4. Zia Ul-Haq
5. Ronald Reagan
6. Pol Pot
7. Mullah Omar
8. Augusto Pinochet
9. Francisco Franco
10. Reza Shah Pahlevi

Pinochet? WTF? Sure, the man was a monster, but he was small beans compared to other Latin American dictators. Efraín Ríos Montt, Fidel Castro, Anastasio Somoza Debayle, Maximiliano Hernández Martínez, Rafael Trujillo, the Duvaliers, and Francisco Solano López all killed more. WAY more.