Another "offensive" flag?

[Pong Messiah]

did u say ultimate sin

 

[Carrie Mathison]

 

 

 

I say this without exaggeration- Pol Pot is probably the most evil man to have ever lived. Hitler doesn't even come close.

 

Who cares though? After all, it's just a bunch of Asians. And if there's one thing I've learned about leftists, they don't give a f-ck about Asians.

 

Pol Pot was definitely evil. Kind of hard to make the case he's worse than Hitler, considering between 60 to 85 million people were killed in WW2, but I would never say Pot was better or less evil than Hitler, either. Then again, if Pol Pot had been in charge of a larger country, he might have been another Mao, whom I would have to say is the worst of the lot.

 

 

You're falling into the same trap that both LK and I were describing. Hitler caused more deaths, yes, but first off- I don't think one man can be held responsible for a war that was largely inevitable after WWI, and second, that has more to do with the fact that Germany was a major power, both economic and military, in Europe, had a lot more geopolitical importance, and its enemies were all industrialized Western nations. Cambodia was a poor, isolated nation that had little geopolitical importance that no one gave a sh-t about (and still no one gives a sh-t about). Just because WW2 had more impact on the Western world and has more immediate impact to you emotionally, due to you living in the West, does not mean that Pol Pot is less evil.

 

Actually go back and read the list of things Pol Pot did. Say what you will about Hitler, he never banned reading, medicine, all professions but farmer, owning any property except for one spoon, and even glasses, for goodness' sake. It's absolutely terrifying to think about what would've happened had Pol Pot been in control of a larger country that actually had global significance. Imagine if Pol Pot had control of nuclear weapons? I could see him launching them just to see what would happen, and in fact, he'd probably be pretty excited at that opportunity, since his ideal state of human civilization was animal like beings that existed in a hunter-gatherer pre-historic like state.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

 

Mao

His policies led to a ridiculous kill count, but does it make any difference to you if his general intent wasn't the mass murder of ethnic/religious/ideological or potential military foes as it was with other dictators? Or if he actually had a lot less direct control over his country than it seemed like?

 

Not saying he was a good guy who shed tears over the millions who died from famine or exhaustion while implementing his Utopia. Just wondering if it is more, less, or the same level of evil if people die due to your extraordinary incompetence and "we leap forward at any cost" fanaticism as say, ordering the extermination of entire groups of people 'cause you believe in strange fantasies (Hitler), or if you just kill because you're a murder perv (Pol Pot).

 

Evil is evil regardless of motive. Be it incompetence, megalomania, cult of personality, brainwashing the population, reeducation camps, concentration camps, etc. I would go as far as to say say that Mao was Lenin, Stalin, Napoleon, and Pol Pot all rolled into one man .

Mao was no bumbler. He simultaneously led and fought against the Japanese in WW2 and led and successfully fought a revolution that put him in power of the world's most populace nation. It's not so much incompetence as you say, as it was Mao's ruthlessness, indifference to human life, and being out of touch with the people once he had gained power that lead to so many millions of deaths. Also, Mao had been deposed only to come back after successfully brainwashing enough people to finish the job he started. That takes a hell of a lot of guile, charisma, and political acumen. Even to this day, probably about half the Chinese consider him a hero, rather than the mass murderer he was, so that speaks to his ability to manipulate people and politics. When people can turn a blind eye to some 45-80 million deaths (depending on source), and call you a hero, that is a master manipulator that takes a special kind of evil to achieve. I would argue every dictator since aspired/aspires to be like Mao.

 

In the end, Mao was directly responsible for more deaths than any other dictator. Now, had Pol Pot been in leader of China, sure he had the potential to maybe as bad if not worse, but at the end of the day, Pol Pot didn't affect much more than Cambodia, whereas China and the rest of the world still feels some of the effects of Mao to this day. Who knows, there might not have been a Korean War or a North Korea today, without Mao.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

 

 

 

 

I say this without exaggeration- Pol Pot is probably the most evil man to have ever lived. Hitler doesn't even come close.

 

Who cares though? After all, it's just a bunch of Asians. And if there's one thing I've learned about leftists, they don't give a f-ck about Asians.

 

Pol Pot was definitely evil. Kind of hard to make the case he's worse than Hitler, considering between 60 to 85 million people were killed in WW2, but I would never say Pot was better or less evil than Hitler, either. Then again, if Pol Pot had been in charge of a larger country, he might have been another Mao, whom I would have to say is the worst of the lot.

 

 

You're falling into the same trap that both LK and I were describing. Hitler caused more deaths, yes, but first off- I don't think one man can be held responsible for a war that was largely inevitable after WWI, and second, that has more to do with the fact that Germany was a major power, both economic and military, in Europe, had a lot more geopolitical importance, and its enemies were all industrialized Western nations. Cambodia was a poor, isolated nation that had little geopolitical importance that no one gave a sh-t about (and still no one gives a sh-t about). Just because WW2 had more impact on the Western world and has more immediate impact to you emotionally, due to you living in the West, does not mean that Pol Pot is less evil.

 

Actually go back and read the list of things Pol Pot did. Say what you will about Hitler, he never banned reading, medicine, all professions but farmer, owning any property except for one spoon, and even glasses, for goodness' sake. It's absolutely terrifying to think about what would've happened had Pol Pot been in control of a larger country that actually had global significance. Imagine if Pol Pot had control of nuclear weapons? I could see him launching them just to see what would happen, and in fact, he'd probably be pretty excited at that opportunity, since his ideal state of human civilization was animal like beings that existed in a hunter-gatherer pre-historic like state.

 

You raise some good points but you are forgeting a few things. Also you are equating brutishness to ultimate evil. I will respond in more depth when I have more time. But consider this: Hitler never enforced book banning? He didn't need to, he censored the press, and wanted everyone to read Mein Kampf to the point where they could recite it from memory, and had all books he didn't approve of burned. He sent SS around to enforce that. When faced with defeat, rather than surrender, he felt Germany deserved utter destruction because they didn't live up to his expectations.

 

You say Pol Pot was more brutal, and that is for sure. But I would say that Hitler was far more intelligent than Pol Pot, and had a lot more potential to take Germany down a far better and more prosperous path, and that is why Pot is not worse than Hitler. I will go into this more later....

[Burt]

Hey, how about this one?

http://imgur.com/XQZNwB5

[Ms. Spam]

HA!

 

If I had to think of a modern version of a very bad man I'd vote for whomever is running North Korea right now.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

 

You're falling into the same trap that both LK and I were describing. Hitler caused more deaths, yes, but first off- I don't think one man can be held responsible for a war that was largely inevitable after WWI, and second, that has more to do with the fact that Germany was a major power, both economic and military, in Europe, had a lot more geopolitical importance, and its enemies were all industrialized Western nations.

Much of what you say there is valid, but consider this. Hitler rose to power in no small part based on the fact he was calling for revenge on the Allies, as well as using the Jewish people as a scapegoat and focus of hate. Once in power, Hitler then used that power to not just help Germany rebuild its nation and economy, but plunged Germany into an un-winnable war for selfish reasons. A war may or may not have happened, but Germany also had the potential to go down a path more like how Japan did after WW2, rather than the path Hitler took it down. So, I think it is fair to say that Hitler is culpable, at least to some degree, for all the deaths that occurred during WW2.

 

 

Cambodia was a poor, isolated nation that had little geopolitical importance that no one gave a sh-t about (and still no one gives a sh-t about). Just because WW2 had more impact on the Western world and has more immediate impact to you emotionally, due to you living in the West, does not mean that Pol Pot is less evil.

I agree that Pol Pot was no LESS evil that Hitler. If you re-read what I wrote, I agree with that. In fact, as before, I think that Pot is every bit as evil as Hitler, I am just saying his evil exceeds Hitler's is a tall order. Pot did not have the influence Hitler had. Therefore, Pot's evil was contained largely to that of Cambodia. If you ask a Cambodian who's life was somehow touched by Pol Pot, sure I agree that person will say he was worse than Hitler, and that person would be right...from their point of view. But as to how both men affected the world with their evil actions, Hitler's actions still influence how the world operates to this day, whereas Pot is more like an Idi Amin: his actions were certainly evil, but contained within his own country.

 

As to the list...

 

 

Actually go back and read the list of things Pol Pot did. Say what you will about Hitler, he never banned reading, medicine, all professions but farmer, owning any property except for one spoon, and even glasses, for goodness' sake. It's absolutely terrifying to think about what would've happened had Pol Pot been in control of a larger country that actually had global significance. Imagine if Pol Pot had control of nuclear weapons? I could see him launching them just to see what would happen, and in fact, he'd probably be pretty excited at that opportunity, since his ideal state of human civilization was animal like beings that existed in a hunter-gatherer pre-historic like state.

 

Take, for example, Pol Pot. His regime killed up to 3 million people, almost a quarter of the population of Cambodia. Including, literally burying hundreds of thousands of people alive. Of course, the alternative wasn't much better- death by pickaxe (killing people with bullets was rare, since bullets cost $).

The Nazis under Hitler did this, or something as equally brutal in not just in the concentration camps, but when they invaded Poland, USSR, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc, not to mention lobbing V1s and V2s into the UK, a their invasion of North Africa wasn't exactly gentle, with the most savage atrocities committed upon Jewish people, Roma people, or "undesirables."

 

 

Not to mention that he also banned all religion.

Hitler banned religion: Judaism was forbidden. While there was a certain amount of tolerance towards Catholics and protestants, various smaller churches DID face persecution. But Hitler did this mostly out of pragmatism. What he really wanted to do was move to a secular state. In fact, in classrooms under Nazi Germany, children had been made to take a mandatory and daily pledge of allegiance not to a flag, but to Hitler.

 

 

Banned all relationships not approved by the state.Banned family members from talking to each other. Banned sex (penalty- immediate execution)

Hitler enforced this against homosexuals and Jews, as well as instituted a breeding program where select Nazi soldiers would sleep with multiple selected women to promote "Aryan stock."

 

 

Banned travel. Banned privacy. Banned certain words. Banned professionals. Banned education and teachers.

Hitler did this. Papers please? Unwarranted searches and seizures. Censorship of the press and radio. Teachers had to follow certain curriculum.

 

 

Banned artists, musicians, writers, and filmmakers (these people were all tortured then executed- the punishment for almost everything was execution).

Hitler did this, if it was not something Pro-Nazi or supported Hitler.

 

 

Banned reading

Hitler wanted people to read, but only approved material. The Nazis were famous for their book burnings.

 

 

Banned banks

The Nazis pilfered all occupied territories and stole gold and valuables, which the Swiss were all too happy to help the Nazis hide their assets. Not to mention, what partly kicked off WW2 int he first place was when Nazi Germany stopped paying the debts to the Allies it "owed" (due to unfair treaty).

 

 

Banned hospitals and medicine.

The Nazis did interfere with these too, but really didn't have to. the Nazis were famous for executing the old, the infirm, the "physical defects," and the deformed (eugenics in the extreme). Also, Jews and other concentration camp victims were frequently and forcibly experimented on with medicine and surgeries.

 

So, saying "Pol Pot is probably the most evil man to have ever lived. Hitler doesn't even come close," is a tall order. They were both equally evil because they both did many of the same things. The only thing is Hitler had a longer, and international reach.