Worst Dictator Ever

[California Mountain Snake]

None. But I'd be willing to bet that most people would have picked a non-civilian drop zone for a nuke and most would have never dropped the second.

Japan didn't surrender even after a bomb was dropped on a city. Only after the second one 3 days later did they comply. Saying we could have just dropped one on an uninhabited island shows a distinct lack of historical perspective.

[bunny: spider bitten]

Japan didn't surrender even after a bomb was dropped on a city. Only after the second one 3 days later did they comply. Saying we could have just dropped one on an uninhabited island shows a distinct lack of historical perspective.

No, but you could blow up military and not innocent people. And waiting 4 days for a surrender back in the 1940s wasn't enough by any means.

And for the record, these were cities left untouched by warfare just so they could see how much damage the nukes could do. What the fuck is that?

Edited December 20, 2008 by bunny

[California Mountain Snake]

These were cities left untouched by warfare just so they could see how much damage the nukes could do. What the fuck is that?

Subjective judgement. If you're just going to start making stuff up then this isn't a debate anymore.

Japan didn't have much of a military left at that point, and in no location were there any concentrations of soldiers great enough to warrant the use of a nuclear warhead that you couldn't just use regular carpet bombing techniques for. A nuke wouldn't have done much more at Iwo Jima than days on end of Navel barrage didn't do, and it's not like all of the Japanese soldiers were on Yavin 4 or something, a secluded "military target"; soldiers were concentrated and deployed from urban centers, and it was impossible to bomb any location without involving citizens. A US land invasion would have resulted in more casualties on every front, not just US soldier deaths. They would have held out to the last man standing, and only in the face of nuclear weaponry, a foe there was no way of countering, would they surrender. The casualties would have been literally twenty-fold, if not more, had a mainland invasion been attempted.

Anyways, this is all irrelevant to your original accusation; that somehow Truman decided to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima to "one-up" FDR, another outlandish claim I can only attribute to psychotic mental illness; and your second unfounded conjecture that FDR wouldn't choose to end the war in the same way that Truman did, which is also without proof considering FDR was president during the firebombings of Japanese cities, which included one single B-29 air raid that killed over 100,000 people in Tokyo, more than the immediate deaths of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Black Knight

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

Considered by who? You? Napoleon was not a dictator any more than Loise Quatorze (XIV, if you don't know French [14, if you didn't get past 3rd grade]) or any of the kings and queens from centuries before him. Calling Napoleon a dictator, of all rulers, especially since he was (and still is) so loved and was so popularly supported by his people, is idiotic. I'm also noticing a certain Japanese ruler missing from your list, little miss Okinawa.

First of all, if you haven't noticed. I'm a guy. I don't know why you started making such a condescending remake but seriously you better lose the attitude Mr. Know-it-all.

Oh so your calling me an idiot? In case your too dumb to notice, Napoleon tried to take over all of Europe. Napoleon show people how he can seize power and become a dictator. In other words, he abused his powers for his own selfish needs because his greed in creating the largest French empire as he continued the French Revolution and wars with Britain which eventually led to his downfall. If Napoleon didn't existed, you wouldn't have people like Hitler, Stalin, and all these other dictators. Does that not sound like a dictator to you or do I have to get it through your thick skull of yours?

Edited December 20, 2008 by Namie Amuro

[California Mountain Snake]

First of all, if you haven't noticed. I'm a guy.

Napoleon show people how he can seize power and become a dictator. In other words, he abused his powers for his own selfish needs because his greed in creating the largest French empire as he continued the French Revolution and wars with Britain which eventually led to his downfall. If Napoleon didn't existed, you wouldn't have people like Hitler, Stalin, and all these other dictators. Does that not sound like a dictator to you or do I have to get it through your thick skull of yours?

Well, just in case you thought I was "too dumb to notice", I'm going to have to go ahead and show what a "know-it-all" I am and call bullshit on your entire statement, because it's evident you no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, Napoleon tried to take over Europe, but this is in no way an exception to the land-grabbing which makes up 95% of Europe's history. Furthermore, inferring personal motive from this not only a preposterous notion; it also leads to staggeringly inaccurate interpretations of history (see:above post). Claiming that Napoleon's motivation was simply "greed" and that the forces driving him were his "selfish needs" is something I'd expect to hear on an Animaniacs summary of history.

Additionally, accusing Napoleon of being responsible for inspiring Hitler, Stalin, and every modern dictator shows- in the politest way I can put it- an overly-naive voluntarist approach to history (And because I already know you don't know what it means, please look up voluntarist-in a comparative politics context-before you respond, it's an important vocabulary word). The move towards dictatorship this world has seen can be largely attributed to an increasing perception that authoritarian regimes will lead to quicker modernization and development. And in the cases when authoritarianism works, it does lead to quicker growths (see China's sustained 10% growth for the last couple years). However, I say this with heavy reservation because on a statistical scale despite the fact that almost all successful emerging states of the 20th century (Japan, China, USSR, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Chile, etc) were authoritarian, all of the wildly unsuccessful authoritarian regimes (see the rest of Latin America, most of Africa) basically make it break even in terms of success-rate. This trend towards increasing authoritarianism was set in motion when England and America became the first countries to modernize, and from then every country had to play catch up, using increasingly drastic measures the farther behind they fell, or the later they modernized (if you want a full account of this read Alexsander Gershenkron's Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective).

Now I'm not going to say relative-backwardness (another vocabulary word for you) is the only way to look at this, many other theories have been floated by this "thick-skull", but claiming that somehow all of modern history was formed by the actions of one man: that if Napoleon never existed there would never have been dictatorships, or Hitler, or Stalin, or any World Wars, etc, is simply, without-a-doubt, inexplainably wrong.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Black Knight

[Leonri]

Put these quotes together for the delicious irony. Let me understand this, so you're going to call Blacken out for making a perfectly understandable rhetorical statement pointing out the obvious contradictions someone presented, that just requires you utilize that walnut sized bundle of nerves between your ears for maybe 15 seconds to understand, and yet after calling him out you make an even more vague and unsupported statement within the same breath?

The first part was a simple joke. I find it hard to take Serenes Forest seriously in a debate like this. As, you know, the pointless flaming indicates.

"Obvious contradictions"? Perhaps I missed something, but the guy seemed to be saying that Guantanamo Bay was a blatant breach of UN Declaration of Human Rights (not binding, but still) , US law and plain standard human morality. The Bay is an evil place, where the prisoners have no rights or help, may have not committed any crime, treated to barabrous punishments, and conducted in total secrecy by the American government.

The post I was replying to merely said "lol, no your wrong!"

I find this pretty unacceptable in a serious discussion, though again I must remeber Serenes Forest is a different kind of place

[Kintenbo]

If you think "Hitler" killed the Jews "because of their religion", you need to do a lot more research on the subject (as well as just understand that being Jewish is an ethnic identity that encompasses religion among many other factors). It's a subject a lot deeper than one man's random prejudices, and in reality spans back centuries in Europe (and even longer globally).

I know some people from eastern Europe that would very much disagree with this statement.

Yeah, I can see how it's more than the religion itself. With the Nazis portraying them with big noses and such. Still, Hitler was a jerk!

Wasn't it Khrushchev that was beginning the spread of communism, or at least the leader at the time while America was trying to stop it's spread. I would say that Stalin died sometime shortly after World War 2, but I don't remember.... Meh, whatever, we don't need to worry about the Soviet Union nowadays, since it exists no longer.

[Blacken]

No, but you could blow up military and not innocent people. And waiting 4 days for a surrender back in the 1940s wasn't enough by any means.

There are no innocents in a culture built around total war. Not a hard concept.

[Dies Mori]

Wasn't it Khrushchev that was beginning the spread of communism, or at least the leader at the time while America was trying to stop it's spread. I would say that Stalin died sometime shortly after World War 2, but I don't remember.... Meh, whatever, we don't need to worry about the Soviet Union nowadays, since it exists no longer.

Irrelevant who the leader is at the time, the laws of communist spheres are complex, but finite. Take for example, the situation Korea fell in, splitting directly between North and South where incidentally, it was Communist vs. Capitalist. Clearly, if you were to take a look at a certain map many have stored away, we have part of it colored Blue and the other red; these, one and all, can be considered as spheres of influence, done by dealing, corrupt meeting and an indirect choice to secure peace while indirectly building your power. However, what happens when both sides attempt to absolve one certain part to their influence simultaneously? The Korean War, and since China felt like they wanted to join in at a particular point, why not split between North and South while we're at it.

You may ask what the point of the above was; simply that such things as Communist or Capitalist influence (and fuck Capitalism, it's still feudal design to me) are pre-ordained and quite easy to follow along, so there's no doubt that Stalin, Molotov and all the other Crimson fish in the sea could have indirectly been originators of such an accosting attempt.

"Obvious contradictions"? Perhaps I missed something, but the guy seemed to be saying that Guantanamo Bay was a blatant breach of UN Declaration of Human Rights (not binding, but still) , US law and plain standard human morality. The Bay is an evil place, where the prisoners have no rights or help, may have not committed any crime, treated to barabrous punishments, and conducted in total secrecy by the American government.

The post I was replying to merely said "lol, no your wrong!"

I find this pretty unacceptable in a serious discussion, though again I must remeber Serenes Forest is a different kind of place

Have you been whacked upside the head with a frozen fish (and one with bad grammar at that)? For one, never bring the UN into any sort of serious debate whatsoever, they are a walking debacle, whereas Guantanamo Bay is more than a survival zone for those accosted to its chambers. "US Law?" Your president (who cannot be considered a dictator, as much as you little nuances seem to think) is keeping methods of torture (waterboarding, as some of you on FESS may remember) legal, among other such instances. "Standard Human Morality?" I see no violation of human rights or simple ethics brought into view, especially considering they are being saved from immediate execution and provided with the highest rated health care, all for one amazing consequence: remaining there.

Also, I don't know where you obtained this deluded sensation you may be placed in a high class, secured estranged penitentiary if they hadn't at least high suspicion, if not assurance, that you had committed a horrendous crime; Sarposa, nor the human conduct, for example, weren't thought up as simple prisons either.

[Inactive Account]

Bush is worst at *being* a dictator. -dodges the revenge of those who hate lame jokes-

[Blacken]

The post I was replying to merely said "lol, no your wrong!"

That would be because it should be quite obvious why I would say that. Obviously it was to Black Knight and, presumably, the other, brighter readers.

I find this pretty unacceptable in a serious discussion, though again I must remeber Serenes Forest is a different kind of place

I find about ninety-five percent of the posters here unacceptable in a serious discussion, you included. We all have our cross to bear.

[quanta]

"Obvious contradictions"? Perhaps I missed something, but the guy seemed to be saying that Guantanamo Bay was a blatant breach of UN Declaration of Human Rights (not binding, but still) , US law and plain standard human morality. The Bay is an evil place, where the prisoners have no rights or help, may have not committed any crime, treated to barabrous punishments, and conducted in total secrecy by the American government.

O.k. A) They have rights, a few of them have some of the best lawyers working pro bono for them; even when they want to confess guilt so they can become martyrs by being executed, their lawyers work on insanity pleas. B) Whether or not they have committed any crime, their own countries don't want them back, since it seems rather likely they have and releasing them onto U.S. soil would be the height of stupidity. In fact, to think that their own countries would even bother with a fair trial is laughable. C) The waterboarding is regrettable, but it pales in comparison to what every other person on this list could be held responsible for.

[Dies Mori]

I would like everyone to look at the case of German spies a mere few weeks ago and what transpired whence they returned to Germany. Now add the death penalty to that.

Still think Guantanamo's unjust?

[Blacken]

C) The waterboarding is regrettable, but it pales in comparison to what every other person on this list could be held responsible for.

Calling waterboarding torture is like calling my dick the Mona Lisa. Sure, it's unpleasant (and my dick is amazing), but it's not torture (and my dick's not high art).