Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I stumbled across a terrific documentary on PBS about the history of the Kims of North Korea - but I didn't realize it's a whole series. It doesn't seem to be getting much publicity, but it's very good, and definitely worth a look. Most recent one was Mussolini.
I stumbled across a terrific documentary on PBS about the history of the Kims of North Korea - but I didn't realize it's a whole series. It doesn't seem to be getting much publicity, but it's very good, and definitely worth a look. Most recent one was Mussolini.
I like that they dispensed with the top two obvious choices of Hitler and Stalin. They are exceptional (and fascinating) examples, but are so well known as such that they might overshadow the rest of this rogues gallery. Kim, Mussolini, Hussein and Franco are all terrific subjects.
However, I think Manuel Noriega was a weak choice, and Idi Amin is borderline. As alternatives, I'd have gone with Tito and/or Augusto Pinochet, or perhaps Muammar Gaddafi - though this last one is just personal preference and not one I think is inherently stronger than any on the list.
I'm assuming this is limited to "bad dictators"' There have been some whose citizens were perfectly happy and prosperous with them, like in Brunei and Jordan, which are monarchies, and Singapore.
Mussolini was an interesting show segment. He gets eclipsed by Hitler but he started it all in the 1920s.
Many of the economic policies put in place in Italy in the 1922-1939 period outlasted the war, were pillars of the Italian economy for at least four decades afterwards, and remnants of them are still standing today, for better and for worse.
As you allude to, his biggest mistakes were attempting foreign expansion, stepping on British toes, and allying with Hitler; if he had emulated Salazar and Franco instead he would have lasted another couple of decades at least.
I'm assuming this is limited to "bad dictators"' There have been some whose citizens were perfectly happy and prosperous with them, like in Brunei and Jordan, which are monarchies, and Singapore.
And Bhutan, which is so unique that it is worth learning about. They only recently converted from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy, so they probably should really be mentioned in a conversation about dictators.
In Bhutan they actually measure Gross National Happiness.
I'm assuming this is limited to "bad dictators"' There have been some whose citizens were perfectly happy and prosperous with them, like in Brunei and Jordan, which are monarchies, and Singapore.
An element of dictatorship is absolute power on the part of the dictator. Power in both Jordan and Singapore, while disproportionately in the hands of the King and the Prime Minister, respectively, is still checked in part by legislative and judicial branches with real power. Though those countries are hardly manifestations of liberal democracies, they're not dictatorships. Freedom House lists both as 'partly free'. Brunei fits much better into the dictatorship category, but this is only a six-episode series and is thus limited to history's more interesting regimes of this nature. Brunei is a microstate that behaves itself internationally (as microstates must) and lacks compelling drama - no March on Rome, no videotaped purge, no significant cult of personality, etc. Featuring it would make for a very boring episode.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.