Who Was Worse Than Hitler?
- Thread starter Goldie
- Start date
His victims and their descendants get to shape the narrative.
toheeb27
OG
My 2 runner ups, Rupert Murdoch and Leopold the 2nd
mryounggun
OG
There's a very long list. But off the top of my head, King Leopold, Joseph Stalin and Mao. All of them killed WAY more people. All of them killed people in WAY worse ways.
Northside7
OG
Hitler probably doesn't even crack the top 5.
IUTpt2
Active Member
Stalin came to mind, but wouldn't surprise me if there were worst.
ablackweb.com
Henry Kissinger (jew) Dead At 100
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/henry-kissinger-world-shaping-diplomat-dies-100-rcna127314 Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state who shaped decades of U.S. policy, dies at 100 He came to be seen as one of the leading diplomats and international relations intellectuals of...
ablackweb.com
konceptjones
The one between three and three.
Genghis Khan
Leopold II
Joseph Stalin
^^^ off the top, those three were lightyears beyond Hitler evil.
Leopold II
Joseph Stalin
^^^ off the top, those three were lightyears beyond Hitler evil.
mryounggun
OG
There hasn't been enough time since the awful shit he did. But mark my words, eventually history is gonna start to look at Hitler differently. It happens with almost all historical mass murderers.
mryounggun
OG
Great example of the Hitler thing I just mentioned. And we can add Julius Caesar to that list also. But I dunno if niggas are ready to have that conversation.
The Lonious Monk
Celestial Souljah
I don't know. I guess it really depends on how you define evil. Genghis Khan was probably responsible for killing more people than Hitler, but he didn't just cherry pick a group of people and choose to exterminate them. He typically gave people a choice, and when they chose violence, he let them have it. He was a bad guy for sure, but I wouldn't say his motivations were as bad as some others.
Columbus' name should be thrown into the ring. He was so bad to the brown people that he found that even other white people were protesting his actions.
Columbus' name should be thrown into the ring. He was so bad to the brown people that he found that even other white people were protesting his actions.
mryounggun
OG
I struggle with this also. People tend to rank you lower on the 'evil' scale if you killed a bunch of people in the name of conquest, rather than on some Hitler shit, just because you ain't like them and though they were beneath you. Or on some Leopold, in the interest of greed.
But should that be the case? Killing people in the name of conquest really isn't on any higher moral ground than doing it for profit or hate. I dunno. It's a question I think about more than I should.
The Lonious Monk
Celestial Souljah
I think killing in conquest is ok if you plan on making things better in the long run. I mean there have been a lot of long standing empires that pushed humanity forward in ways that were created in part through conquest. So I actually don't think conquest in itself is bad at all. It's a case by case type thing.
The problem with Kahn is that he went overboard with his shit. He would give leaders the option to submit, and if he didn't like the way they answered, he'd do shit like take the city and then kill every living then in it just to prove a point. That goes beyond just being a conqueror.
Old Man Cain
OG
this man makes Hitler look like a preschool nigga playing Calling of Duty. The shit that he did to these people it's a legit horror story 14-15 million Black people killed by that dusty cracka thats the real Holocaust
Old Man Cain
OG
Khan killed so many people that he changed the Earth's weather.... the nigga actually created a climate change
He would have his daughters marry into other kingdoms then kill of the king his daughters would take over and he would rule those lands he was a Apex predator of his time estimated 40 mil people was killed by him
mryounggun
OG
Eh, that's a slippery slope. 'Better' is subjective. How many tribal people around the world were killed in order to subdue a group so that Christians could eventually show them a 'better' way of life? Killing is killing, at the end of the day.
mryounggun
OG
There is a LOT of evidence that this claim is false. I'm not buying it.
But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter, because either way he was certainly the most prolific mass killer in history.
The Lonious Monk
Celestial Souljah
I hear what you're saying, but you have to be careful about examples like that. "Christians civilizing savages" was the narrative given to justify actions in the Americas, but was never really the truth. It's just the story that was told. Columbus wasn't sent to the Americas to civilize the Natives. He was sent to find gold and riches to help Spain maintain supremacy.
There is a difference between building an empire where all the conquered territories have rights and reap the benefits of the empire and something like the British Empire where all the conquered territories were basically just fodder to feed the conqueror.
It is a tricky thing for sure, but again, history is full of successful empires that thrived for hundreds of years.