EVIL

[Mazzy]

as far as nazis go, Albert Speer's one of the more interesting. Hitler's architect, he also drew up the plan for working jews to death in munitions factories, and managed the war economy in spite of bombing raids, shortages, etc thus prolonging the war. among other things. but his real genius was being at Hitler's side almost wire to wire and claiming no substantial involvement in the nazi war crimes... and all but getting away with it, at Nuremberg.

I agree Speer was a most interesting character, a talented writer too. I'm not sure that I would call him evil though. He didn't intend to work anyone to death. Actually, he would have preferred to keep them healthy to increase the production rate. Point is, he was not evil, he just didn't care. Or, is that what evil is?

the thing is, his book has been debunked.

his trial? it was a con job. he was in the middle of the whole thing.

not only that, he pretty much got away with it.

Interesting article... but your reading of it is different from mine :

- his book has been debunked

No it hasn't. It is still considered by all serious historians has one of the best source on Hitler's Germany. Only the fact that Speer claimed ignorance of the final solution (Actually a rather small part of one of his book, he actually wrote 3 or 4) is being disputed. This is not new, it always was.

- his trial it was a con job, he pretty much got away with it

Yes his strategy did pay off and likely avoided him a death sentence. But I would hardly call 20 years of detention (served to the last minute) getting away with it. BTW the article mistakenly state that he is the only Nazi at the trial who escaped the death penality, this is complete BS (Von Papen and Schacht were the real fox in this trial. They got acquittedl although they both played a substantial role in Hitler's rise to power).

I'm not trying to defend the man, I believe he knew about what was happening and chose to ignore things because it suited his purpose. On the other hand he was a talented man, had a lot of guts and was a skilled writer. It is this duality of talent & selfishness that make Speer an interesting character.

[Yoi]

provide links to better sources pls, or at least names/authors of books.

Zeus,

it is not the best approach to reject arguments on supposed low quality of source of information. Wikipedia is not that bad source and it is usually a great starting point for any amateur research. Usually things work other way around - first correctness of arguments is to be examined and then source may be rejected, accepted or partly accepted. This way you can reject any source on ad-hominem base so I'm reluctant to play this game with you. There are many links to other sources in that article and there is Mr. Google waiting just around the corner. Anyway I'll give you 2 links.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/marshall/large/documents/index.php?pagenumber=1&documentdate=1947-02-28&documentid=24&studycollectionid=mp&nav=ok

http://www.serendipity.li/hr/bacque01.htm

[Yoi]

1. Morgenthau plan being about food. It never was. Read below.

2. All of the german population suffering from it. Eastern Germany? No Morgenthal there.

3. Millions dying because of Morgenthal. Between 12 and 14 million germans having to leave former german areas was the main cause. Millions starved in other european countries, India, China and Russia as well.

Pedrito,

you are focusing on unimportant instead of dealing with the essence. Morgenthau plan was not about food, it only intentionaly created sitation where large percentage of population would die from malnutrition. Morgenthau plan _was_ about whole population of Germany because it was created before Germany was defeated. And as you say it was rejected. Only that the essence of it was executed under JCS 1067. It is funny that actually Stalin treated Germans better than Americans until 1947.

None of this makes Morgenthau less evil so my nomination stays.

[Yoi]

Given that most people seem to object against killing innocent people I'm missing someone on that list, the guy who let the bomb go on Nagasaki.

I think Harry Truman was nominated and we can assign both bombs to him.

[zeusbheld]

Given that most people seem to object against killing innocent people I'm missing someone on that list, the guy who let the bomb go on Nagasaki.

I think Harry Truman was nominated and we can assign both bombs to him.

the fire bombing campaign killed far more than the atom bombs.

the architect of the entire bombing campaign was Curtis LeMay. and he was fully aware of what he was doing, even going so far as to say he would be tried as a war criminal if the war was lost (this according to Robert McNamara, in the interview documentary "Fog of War.")

[zeusbheld]

1. Morgenthau plan being about food. It never was. Read below.

2. All of the german population suffering from it. Eastern Germany? No Morgenthal there.

3. Millions dying because of Morgenthal. Between 12 and 14 million germans having to leave former german areas was the main cause. Millions starved in other european countries, India, China and Russia as well.

Pedrito,

you are focusing on unimportant instead of dealing with the essence. Morgenthau plan was not about food, it only intentionaly created sitation where large percentage of population would die from malnutrition. Morgenthau plan _was_ about whole population of Germany because it was created before Germany was defeated. And as you say it was rejected. Only that the essence of it was executed under JCS 1067. It is funny that actually Stalin treated Germans better than Americans until 1947.

None of this makes Morgenthau less evil so my nomination stays.

up against the likes of Pol Pot he's hardly very successful is he. Intentions are swell but results matter. Morgenthau. Meh. namby-pamby.

[zeusbheld]

as far as nazis go, Albert Speer's one of the more interesting. Hitler's architect, he also drew up the plan for working jews to death in munitions factories, and managed the war economy in spite of bombing raids, shortages, etc thus prolonging the war. among other things. but his real genius was being at Hitler's side almost wire to wire and claiming no substantial involvement in the nazi war crimes... and all but getting away with it, at Nuremberg.

I agree Speer was a most interesting character, a talented writer too. I'm not sure that I would call him evil though. He didn't intend to work anyone to death. Actually, he would have preferred to keep them healthy to increase the production rate. Point is, he was not evil, he just didn't care. Or, is that what evil is?

the thing is, his book has been debunked.

his trial? it was a con job. he was in the middle of the whole thing.

not only that, he pretty much got away with it.

Interesting article... but your reading of it is different from mine :

- his book has been debunked

No it hasn't. It is still considered by all serious historians has one of the best source on Hitler's Germany. Only the fact that Speer claimed ignorance of the final solution (Actually a rather small part of one of his book, he actually wrote 3 or 4) is being disputed. This is not new, it always was.

well from what *i* have seen, whether he was ignorant of the "final solution" is NOT in dispute--he wasn't. (, and i've read a few books on the subject (including Speer's autobiography, which is the book in question, and the one by Matthias Schmidt, listed at the end of the weakiepedia article). this is what i mean by his book has been 'debunked.' perhaps it's misleading to say the book has been debunked as parts of it are entirely useful--just not the ones where he meticulously whitewashes his role in the holocaust. however i don't think it's *too* misleading as we are specifically discussing whether or not he is guilty, and those are the relevant parts. btw of course the book is 'considered by all serious historians"!! it's written by a participant! even if it was ALL self-serving lies, it would have to be "considered."

there were a great many things Speer could not have missed.. nor could he have failed to understand the implications, involved as he was in moving jews around.

it is worth noting that the news article refers to primary sources (like this one, cited by the ever-controversial David Irving.) Look over the translation; Speer not only approves building materials for expansion of the camps but in a handwritten margin note even comments on the inspection of camps..

it's not new that his involvement is 'disputed'---what IS new (new, defined as after his death) is that primary source documents put him at the scene of the crime, with his hand on the smoking gun, and while i don't know these historians personally i'd have to say that to my knowledge few historians these days dispute that. history as a discipline is by its very nature acrimonious, but had there been this close to a consensus at Nuremberg, Speer would have been executed.

his trial it was a con job, he pretty much got away with it

Yes his strategy did pay off and likely avoided him a death sentence. But I would hardly call 20 years of detention (served to the last minute) getting away with it.

20 years of detention is a LOT better than execution, isn't it? Jodl on the other hand was executed. he was a nazi, but basically a military commander. far, far less implicated than Speer, who was involved directly in approving expansion of the camps and orchestrating various relocations of the Jews. hmmmmm looks to me like Professor Speer got away with quite a bit, although i suppose it's a matter of how you define 'getting away with it.'

BTW the article mistakenly state that he is the only Nazi at the trial who escaped the death penality, this is complete BS (Von Papen and Schacht were the real fox in this trial. They got acquittedl although they both played a substantial role in Hitler's rise to power).

and what did they do during the war? von Papen and Schatz were peripheral figures, not directly involved in the war, let alone the 'final solution'. they didn't have to feign ingnorance, they were marginalized by the nazis.

incidentally Karl Donitz was acquitted too--but he was too busy orchestrating the u-boat war (to great effect) to be involved in, or be aware of, the death camps. chain-of-command wise, his claims of knowing nothing are plausible, Speer's are absurd. Speer was one of Hitler's inner circle. Doenitz wasn't.

I'm not trying to defend the man, I believe he knew about what was happening and chose to ignore things because it suited his purpose. On the other hand he was a talented man, had a lot of guts and was a skilled writer. It is this duality of talent & selfishness that make Speer an interesting character.

what separates him from the rest of the nazis is that they were fanatics, he was a cold-blooded opportunist. not necessarily more evil but a more interesting, complex character.

[zeusbheld]

provide links to better sources pls, or at least names/authors of books.

Zeus,

it is not the best approach to reject arguments on supposed low quality of source of information.

actually if the argument is over matters of fact i find it to be a grand approach, perhaps the only approach worth considering.

Wikipedia is not that bad source and it is usually a great starting point for any amateur research.

weakiepedia can fill you in on the storyline but if the neutrality's in dispute then i can ignore your argument until you come up with more credible sources, yet still sleep soundly at night. weakiepedia is an incredible resource but bear in mind that it's written and edited by everyone. the mechanism that makes it comprehensive can make it VERY prone to bias when it comes to controversial subjects.

Usually things work other way around - first correctness of arguments is to be examined and then source may be rejected, accepted or partly accepted.

again: the validity of your argument is not even of interest, it's the FACTS that are in dispute. if you don't have facts why should i consider the argument?

This way you can reject any source on ad-hominem base so I'm reluctant to play this game with you. There are many links to other sources in that article and there is Mr. Google waiting just around the corner.

i think the googling is *your* job not mine, as *you* are the one making claims. quite possibly there is something to your claims but until you support your claims, they are just as possibly conspiracy-theory bunk.

Anyway I'll give you 2 links.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/marshall/large/documents/index.php?pagenumber=1&documentdate=1947-02-28&documentid=24&studycollectionid=mp&nav=ok

http://www.serendipity.li/hr/bacque01.htm

two comments on the links:

the first one is promising as it is a primary source but if your'e going to make claims based on it, it is *your* responsibility to sift through it and find the interesting bits for your reader. definitely on the right track though, assuming the interesting bits turn out to be interesting.

the second link? meh. possibly Mr. Baque has quoted some interesting sources, but his reputation as a historian is hardly enough to carry the day. aside from being controversial and transparently angling for a bestseller, he isn't even a historian by trade--he was a fiction writer by trade until he took on this (potentially bestselling) conspiracy. his motives are questionable, and his accuracy widely disputed. the careful observer will note that in talking about Speer, i linked to the ever-controversial David Irving's site. The aforementioned careful observer would certainly notice, however, that what i linked to is his translation of primary source documents.

in other words, if you want to persuade me, or any skeptic, you need more links like #1. and you need to point me toward the parts i'm supposed to read. and don't ask ME to google for you; asking the reader to do your homework only makes you look lazy and irresponsible.

[paulgh3rd]

the plans for the camps were also changed from the origional designs at the begging as I have understood when the "final solution" campaign began because german troops were being traumatized by mass shootings and other various execution methods. This lead to the mass gas chambers and human ovens in the camps being designed and built.

To lessen the trauama on german soldiers. Now that is pretty freaking evil!

[zeusbheld]

This way you can reject any source on ad-hominem base so I'm reluctant to play this game with you.

you imply ad hominem fallacy. however, an ad hominem fallacy is an irrelevant argument against the source.

if, like your link #2, the source stands to gain a lot from acceptance of the argument (in this case, sell books) thn the argument against the person is relevant---he has a strong motive to bullshit. which is not to say his book is necessarily incorrect--but if it is correct there ought to be better sources out there, especially for a historical event. otherwise, what did the author base his conclusion on?

your other link is to a primary source. that's good, that could be persuasive but if you're going to dump it on the reader and expect *them* to do your homework for you rather than highlight the relevant parts yourself, can you really be surprised if nobody bothers?

[Yoi]

in other words, if you want to persuade me, or any skeptic, you need more links like #1. and you need to point me toward the parts i'm supposed to read. and don't ask ME to google for you; asking the reader to do your homework only makes you look lazy and irresponsible.

Zeusbheld,

I think that there are some very good points in what you wrote here. Only that my intention was not to persuade you or anybody, I was only trying to defend myself from accusation that I was making things up. I also don't believe in persuading other people and I'm very surprised that you brought this out. People are free to choose their preferences and beliefs themselves. I don't need to be persuaded, I'm happy to be given something I didn't know. Nobody needs to be persuaded. On the other hand no argument can help you persuade people that don't want to accept arguments - you may be the world's best scholar and "still be denied tenure". I think you are exaggerating by calling me lazy and irresponsible for not supporting my case with stronger evidence because at the end of the day this subject is about whether the most evil person was Count Drakula or Adolf Hitler. It is just a game, though interesting one because we can see how other people think, share information etc. In my opinion most of these people are only brandnames, the most evil person in this world is actually that guy who came home two minutes ago drunk and is just starting to beat his wife.

[zeusbheld]

in other words, if you want to persuade me, or any skeptic, you need more links like #1. and you need to point me toward the parts i'm supposed to read. and don't ask ME to google for you; asking the reader to do your homework only makes you look lazy and irresponsible.

Zeusbheld,

I think that there are some very good points in what you wrote here. Only that my intention was not to persuade you or anybody, I was only trying to defend myself from accusation that I was making things up. I also don't believe in persuading other people and I'm very surprised that you brought this out. People are free to choose their preferences and beliefs themselves. I don't need to be persuaded, I'm happy to be given something I didn't know. Nobody needs to be persuaded. On the other hand no argument can help you persuade people that don't want to accept arguments - you may be the world's best scholar and "still be denied tenure". I think you are exaggerating by calling me lazy and irresponsible for not supporting my case with stronger evidence because at the end of the day this subject is about whether the most evil person was Count Drakula or Adolf Hitler. It is just a game, though interesting one because we can see how other people think, share information etc. In my opinion most of these people are only brandnames, the most evil person in this world is actually that guy who came home two minutes ago drunk and is just starting to beat his wife.

well it's obvious that if any of this stuff is made up it wasn't you who made it up. Bacque may have made it up or he may have good sources i dunno; but the idea's been out there for a while.

people are indeed free to choose their beliefs themselves---and based on what i see of how people choose their beliefs, *i* have come to believe most people are morons not for lack of the raw wattage of brainpower, but by choice. most people believe what they want to believe regardless.

in the case of your presentation: Hitler's crimes are widely accepted and hardly controversial, as are Mr. Tepes', H H Holmes etc. Speer's crimes are mildly controversial so i have provided some support for my allegations.

however, your allegations against Mr. Morgenthau are thoroughly controversial. obviously what you've seen has persuaded you and that's fine. given this is sort of a write-in election of the most evil for purposes of entertainment. it's almost certainly not worth the effort for you to find better sources and make a case that will actually persuade anyone, i doubt Mr. Morgenthau would want to win anyway.

as far as the guy beating his wife goes, there's a lot to be said for body count and he probably hasn't amassed that many. which is not to say i have any sympathy for the slimeball, just that John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy or Stalin or Pol Pot or Idi Amin Dada are more than pop cultural icons or brands.

[Mazzy]

there were a great many things Speer could not have missed.. nor could he have failed to understand the implications, involved as he was in moving jews around.

zeus - I really think we agree on the essential but since you are in a nitpicking mood:

Zbh : incidentally Karl Donitz was acquitted too.

No he wasn't. He got 10 years of detention in Spandau and served it to the last day.

Zbh : von Papen and Schatz were peripheral figures

Definitely not. Both played decisive roles in Hitler's rise to power. Von Papen literally gave him the chancellorship, and Schacht got him the money to finance his party and Germany's preparation for war. Without these two gifted, but unscrupulous men, Hitler would likely not have come into power and there would have been no Holocaust. The fact that Hitler lost interest in them after coming to power doesn't alleviate their guilt.

BTW - You seem to simplify the picture by reducing Hitler's guilt or evilness to the Holocaust. I don't dispute the fact that it was is worst accomplishment, but he did a lot more than that. Hitler (and the Nazi party) also commited war crimes, and crime against the German people (scorched earth policy, euthanasia, hostage shooting, etc.). This leads me to the case of Jodl. A smart military officer, one of the only one who managed to keep his head in Hitler's entourage. Nevertheless, he has been associated with several war crimes (see Nuremberg trial archives). I agree that a death sentence might have been a bit harsh, but make no mistake about it, he was guilty and knew it.

If you really want to continue this conversation. I would be happy to exchange PM's about it. But I'd rather not bore people with historical details they might have no interest in. I'm actually glad that this 'evil' forum generated some interesting debate and wasn't sidetracked too much so far...

[CiaranM]

Oliver Cromwell

[zeusbheld]

Zbh : von Papen and Schatz were peripheral figures

Definitely not. Both played decisive roles in Hitler's rise to power.

peripheral figures to war crimes, to be clear. they were not directly involved in 'the final solution to the jewish problem." Speer on the other hand negotiated the upgrade of the death camps.

Von Papen literally gave him the chancellorship, and Schacht got him the money to finance his party and Germany's preparation for war. Without these two gifted, but unscrupulous men, Hitler would likely not have come into power and there would have been no Holocaust. The fact that Hitler lost interest in them after coming to power doesn't alleviate their guilt.

well gee without the strict sanctions imposed on Germany after world war 2, Hitler would not have risen to power. yet strangely woodrow wilson et al were not on trial at nuremberg.

sorry but the fact that they were not directly involved in the crimes in question mitigates their guilt, yes. their sentence is proportional, is it not?

BTW - You seem to simplify the picture by reducing Hitler's guilt or evilness to the Holocaust. I don't dispute the fact that it was is worst accomplishment, but he did a lot more than that. Hitler (and the Nazi party) also commited war crimes, and crime against the German people (scorched earth policy, euthanasia, hostage shooting, etc.).

most of that was not done by combat units.

This leads me to the case of Jodl. A smart military officer, one of the only one who managed to keep his head in Hitler's entourage. Nevertheless, he has been associated with several war crimes (see Nuremberg trial archives). I agree that a death sentence might have been a bit harsh, but make no mistake about it, he was guilty and knew it.

point of mentioning Jodl is that he wasn't as deep in the mix as Speer, not saying he didn't deserve it.

If you really want to continue this conversation. I would be happy to exchange PM's about it. But I'd rather not bore people with historical details they might have no interest in. I'm actually glad that this 'evil' forum generated some interesting debate and wasn't sidetracked too much so far...

hardly worth continuing on PMs, i can read a book or something. wouldn't want to bore people by discussing facts! no sir, let's just continue the thread the usual, superficial TF way and have people (shrilly) post their opinions without backing it up in any way whatsoever. yeah that'll be more interesting for sure.

[Yoi]

Still your facts aren't accurate. Post war germany was a huge mess, pretty much everyone was missing loved ones, countless were homeless, all the big cities in ruins. Millions of german refugees were arriving each month from Polonia, Czechoslovakia and other places. The agricultura and the industry were broke and broken. Speak of diseases. Giving these circumstances, millions would have died anyways.

OK, I said that millions have died because of malnutrition and you responded by saying that many of them had died because of the mess. You may be right. But I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about intentional American attempt to punish and starve population that took place between 1945 and 1947.

You say I miss the essence?

I said that about those specific points you wrote, not about everything you write. Maybe it was too harsh statement... sorry. :-)

This is the essence for me:

I know that the allies could have done more to relief the situation, but it was not them who caused it.

I find this controversial. Allies were clearly commiting heavy war crimes by bombing raids over German cities that were aimed at civilian population (German industry mostly survived the war). And when they conquered Germany they actually intentionally made things worse.

Here is "Germany is our problem" document, authored by Morgenthau and forwarded to American officers in Germany ba Eisenhower in 1945.

http://ia341212.us.archive.org/0/items/GermanyIsOurProblem/MorgenthauHenry-GermanyIsOurProblem1945120P..pdf

It presents the concept I'm talking about:

- large parts of Germany were to be given to Poland and Russia (and smaller to France and Danmark)

- Germany was about to be partitioned into 3 parts

- heavy industry was to be transferred to other nations or destroyed

- Germany was to be changed into pastoral land where people would produce food by working with their hands (and then there is theory that it is possible to achieve without 25 million dying as suggested by some scientists)

In Hoover's report published in 1947 it is explained that base ration in Germany was 1550 calories per person per day while in neighbouring nations it has returned to pre war levels (i.e. 3000). This was caused by harsh repression that was brought on German people by Americans - because there was enough food around the world. It also means that there were many people dying because of malnutrition.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/marshall/large/documents/index.php?pagenumber=4&documentid=24&documentdate=1947-02-28&studycollectionid=mp&nav=OK

BTW IIRC general Patton didn't allow this policy in his sector.

They did not create the situation. If you think they are guilty of those deaths by starvation, I agree, but you would also have to nominate everyone who could save a kid in africa today from starving and doesn't.

No, I'm not talking about this kind of hypotetical "responsibility".

[Yoi]

in the case of your presentation: Hitler's crimes are widely accepted and hardly controversial, as are Mr. Tepes', H H Holmes etc. Speer's crimes are mildly controversial so i have provided some support for my allegations. however, your allegations against Mr. Morgenthau are thoroughly controversial.

Hitler, Tepes, Morgenthau... Interesting comparrision. Well, somehow I see Count Dracula as a freedom fighter (that's about our history that was heavily influenced by Turkish raids). Hitler seems like a brandname for evil but I never really read something he wrote. But I read what Morgenthau wrote and it seemed evil.

as far as the guy beating his wife goes, there's a lot to be said for body count and he probably hasn't amassed that many. which is not to say i have any sympathy for the slimeball, just that John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy or Stalin or Pol Pot or Idi Amin Dada are more than pop cultural icons or brands.

I think there are many Hitlers among us though only one of them is a brandname. Evil is not about what you did, it is mostly about potential.

[zeusbheld]

in the case of your presentation: Hitler's crimes are widely accepted and hardly controversial, as are Mr. Tepes', H H Holmes etc. Speer's crimes are mildly controversial so i have provided some support for my allegations. however, your allegations against Mr. Morgenthau are thoroughly controversial.

Hitler, Tepes, Morgenthau... Interesting comparrision. Well, somehow I see Count Dracula as a freedom fighter (that's about our history that was heavily influenced by Turkish raids). Hitler seems like a brandname for evil but I never really read something he wrote. But I read what Morgenthau wrote and it seemed evil.

freedom fighter or no, some *might* question Tepes' methods.

as far as the guy beating his wife goes, there's a lot to be said for body count and he probably hasn't amassed that many. which is not to say i have any sympathy for the slimeball, just that John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy or Stalin or Pol Pot or Idi Amin Dada are more than pop cultural icons or brands.

I think there are many Hitlers among us though only one of them is a brandname. Evil is not about what you did, it is mostly about potential.

to me potential is far less meaningful than what one actually does and why.

are you a catholic by any chance?

[Yoi]

freedom fighter or no, some *might* question Tepes' methods.

What methods? Please quote some contemporary sources.

to me potential is far less meaningful than what one actually does and why.

are you a catholic by any chance?

I diagree. Evil is about how evil you are, not about how you present it.

I come from a Catholic land... though my family was more like communist so I wasn't baptized.

[zeusbheld]

freedom fighter or no, some *might* question Tepes' methods.

What methods? Please quote some contemporary sources.

not interested enough in it to dig; i'll take your word for it, he was a saint.

to me potential is far less meaningful than what one actually does and why.

are you a catholic by any chance?

I diagree. Evil is about how evil you are, not about how you present it.

I come from a Catholic land... though my family was more like communist so I wasn't baptized.

and how does one measure how evil one is? personally i'd prefer something tangible. like body count and confessions.

[Yoi]

and how does one measure how evil one is? personally i'd prefer something tangible. like body count and confessions.

You can't just measure everything.

[zeusbheld]

and how does one measure how evil one is? personally i'd prefer something tangible. like body count and confessions.

You can't just measure everything.

obvously. but equally obviously, you can measure a lot of things.

besides what is character except action under pressure---how can you know someone is evil if they don't freakin' DO anything?

[Guest sandalwood]

and how does one measure how evil one is? personally i'd prefer something tangible. like body count and confessions.

You can't just measure everything.

obvously. but equally obviously, you can measure a lot of things.

besides what is character except action under pressure---how can you know someone is evil if they don't freakin' DO anything?

Jeez you're a hard man!

Ok so her body-count maybe won't fit your criteria but for pure Evil I'm personally looking forwards to pissing on Margaret Thatcher's grave.

(Assuming they don't cremate the ***** that is).

Failing that, it just has to be Robert Mugabe.

Now don't get me wrong boys, I don't condone violence as a rule, but after a decent kangaroo court, I'd happily be a witness at his hanging.

[zeusbheld]

and how does one measure how evil one is? personally i'd prefer something tangible. like body count and confessions.

You can't just measure everything.

obvously. but equally obviously, you can measure a lot of things.

besides what is character except action under pressure---how can you know someone is evil if they don't freakin' DO anything?

Jeez you're a hard man!

Ok so her body-count maybe won't fit your criteria but for pure Evil I'm personally looking forwards to pissing on Margaret Thatcher's grave.

(Assuming they don't cremate the b*tch that is).

Failing that, it just has to be Robert Mugabe.

Now don't get me wrong boys, I don't condone violence as a rule, but after a decent kangaroo court, I'd happily be a witness at his hanging.

for sure, ther'es more to evil than just body count. Thatcher may be a bit... controversial, depending on one's perspective.

now... back to body count.

certainly Mugabe's up there, in terms of both qulity and quantity. good call.... err.... evil call.

an interesting question, possibly: what KIND is more evil: a delusional, paranoid leader who kills and tortures relentlessly like Idi Amin Dada or someone who kills repeatedly for the pleasure of it like HH Holmes?

[Mazzy]

hardly worth continuing on PMs, i can read a book or something. wouldn't want to bore people by discussing facts! no sir, let's just continue the thread the usual, superficial TF way and have people (shrilly) post their opinions without backing it up in any way whatsoever. yeah that'll be more interesting for sure.

Zbh, this is turning into a rhetorical debate. Not something I have much interest in. With more than 15,000 + posts to your active, I have no doubt you can win it...

But for the record, I still disagree with you on point 1 & 2.

Schacht and especially Papen were guilty. Your point about the sanction, is a good one, but it doesn't excuse these two old foxes. Their sentence was not proportional, they were acquitted. Both were later found guilty by German denazification court but released shortly thereafter.

As for the second point "mostly done by combat unit". I completely disagree. The oral orders were given by Hitler and the written directives signed by the reich top generals (or top doctors in the case of euthanasia).

Nuff' said...