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 would have to say Mao would be first in line, estimated deaths due to direct or indirect policies, 50 million. Then Stalin, estimated deaths due to direct or indirect policies, 20 million.
However, death tolls due to policies, the winner would be WWII, 66 million deaths.
I would have to say Mao would be first in line, estimated deaths due to direct or indirect policies, 50 million. Then Stalin, estimated deaths due to direct or indirect policies, 20 million.
However, death tolls due to policies, the winner would be WWII, 66 million deaths.
Nothing in modern times even comes close to many ancient empires. What about the Aztec government regularly seizing and sacrificing tens of thousands of it's citizens, or any one of several Ancient Chinese dynasties (especially this guy: Qin Shi Huang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
There isn't a government on the planet in the modern age that could pull that kind of mind-boggling cruelty and direct control over the lives and deaths of vast numbers of people without any limit or question whatsoever.
I would have to say Mao would be first in line, estimated deaths due to direct or indirect policies, 50 million. Then Stalin, estimated deaths due to direct or indirect policies, 20 million.
However, death tolls due to policies, the winner would be WWII, 66 million deaths.
They most tyrannical regime ever wasn't necessarily one that had a billion subjects, so didn't necessarily rack up big numbers of victims.
There's a difference between the most tyrannical regime, and an ordinary tyrannical regime that had China's population to victimize.
A king of an island with 100 people, who kept them all in chains and forced slavery, and meticulously kept them all alive for his own pleasures, would be much more tyrannical than Mao, with zero deaths.
Oh, you can't have this kind of thread without bringing up Stalin, "The Butcher in Blood." He ordered the forced starvation of 6 million Ukrainians, besides instituting the Gulag and the Purges. No one knows how many died under Stalin, but 27 million of his countrymen dead from his policies is a reasonable estimate.
I think Stalin takes the cake. I think his paranoia was unmatched by anyone. If a subordinate worked hard to impress Stalin by coming up with some new idea--Stalin would take the idea and have the subordinate killed because in his mind this person was a threat.
As you said, no one killed as many as Stalin. He and Hitler were the worst human beings in recent history.
They most tyrannical regime ever wasn't necessarily one that had a billion subjects, so didn't necessarily rack up big numbers of victims.
There's a difference between the most tyrannical regime, and an ordinary tyrannical regime that had China's population to victimize.
A king of an island with 100 people, who kept them all in chains and forced slavery, and meticulously kept them all alive for his own pleasures, would be much more tyrannical than Mao, with zero deaths.
Huge difference between someone who can be a tyrant over 1 billion and one who controls 100. How can you even think this? The tyrant of a billion is obviously the most tyrannical no matter how you spin it.
Huge difference between someone who can be a tyrant over 1 billion and one who controls 100. How can you even think this? The tyrant of a billion is obviously the most tyrannical no matter how you spin it.
Really? If there are five people in my family and I go on a spree and kill them all, am I more or less a murderer than someone who does the same with a ten member family? Would I deserve a death sentence only half as much as the other person? Am I only 50% as horrible?
Nothing in modern times even comes close to many ancient empires. What about the Aztec government regularly seizing and sacrificing tens of thousands of it's citizens, or any one of several Ancient Chinese dynasties (especially this guy: Qin Shi Huang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
There isn't a government on the planet in the modern age that could pull that kind of mind-boggling cruelty and direct control over the lives and deaths of vast numbers of people without any limit or question whatsoever.
How could I forget the ancient Chinese? You are very much correct in this post. I do not know much about the ancient Aztec society, but the Qin Dynasty was definitely up there on the top tyrannical regimes.
In modern times I have to give the nod to Stalin because much of Mao's deaths were due to ineptitude as opposed to tyranny.
The Aztecs were an excellent selection. Funny how people bemoan the evil europeans coming to modern day mexico as if they wrecked some sort of utopia straight out of a disney movie or Avatar. lol.
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.
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.
