Who is/was more evil? Hitler, Stalin, or Bush?

Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President

Edit: Also check out "All the President's Men"

It has little to do with the education system and a lot to do with the fact that people are living with one of these guys and the other two are long dead.

Notice even the question says "is/was". The only answer if you ask yourself who "IS" the most evil is Visa or Bush. If you say who "was", then you have two other choices.

It's like when they ask who the greatest president is/was. Many people always answer with Clinton and/or Reagan. Why? Because those two guys are the ones who have directly (not indirectly) affected the lives of the people being asked the question.

This has little to do with education and everything to do with human nature.

much higher body count than Hitler...

he was more efficient I guess...

Not to mention Stalin was in power 30+ years and Hitler only for like 12 or so.

Ahhh the morons of GFY.....

To compare an elected leader to a dictator is just retarded and stupid.

Stalin killed millions of his own people, and Hilter exterminated 6 million Jews.

Bush will be out of office next year, so how anyone can say that he will be or is evil is plain stupid and completely assinine!!

Just to add a little fun to the "morons" comment.

1933 - Hitler elected chancellor of Germany.

Exactly... and he got a much higher percentage of the vote than Bush did.

ChrisH is indeed the king of the morons.

1. hitler was elected. (though, yes after election he brought in some draconian laws( anti terrorist laws).

2. just because bush will be out of office next year in some round about way specifically means he's not evil?

3. what's wrong with comparing an elected leader to a dictator? tell us why it's "retarded and stupid" ( very insightful comments by the way.)

In truth, how far back in history do you want to look? There were far worse than Hitler and Stalin in this world I'm sure.

The mongolians enjoyed catapulting dead bodies into castles they were besieging and that's just touching the surface. Others improved on this technique and catapulted plague infested bodies into castles.

You've all heard of Vlad the Impaler I'm sure. He would impale all captured prisoners in front of the advancing turkish armies presenting a forest of impaled soldiers complete with the ravens and vultures picking at the sometimes still alive victims, poison all wells (with plague, mind you) and send lepers into the turkish camps at night, disguised as whores. Gory to say the least.

The aztecs kept an 'independent' county in the middle of their empire so they could raid them for sacrificial victims - usually removing their hearts at sunrise..while still alive.

But ultimately evil is still a matter of perspective, as the human mind can rationalize any act.

excellent points. but this thread seems to be asking us to compare the bush, stalin and hitler on the evil-o-meter not who was the most evil of all time..

gee golly


Can't we discuss porn ?

Go to bed, peasant.

Where did you learn that Sadam is killed milions?! From CNN?!!?

I think Bush is killed (and will kill) much more people.

The death of a few Americans must be worldwide tragedy, the death of Iraq mothers and children, assassinated in a bus is just a mistake....

Hitler did not take sole responsibility. That's why many of his high ranking officers stood trial after the war and many of his officers fled to escape execuction. 'Convince' the Germans is a pretty weak statement... On coming to power, his people thought him to be a great leader, even after his brainwashing of the children of Germany who were quite happy to turn their own parents in to be shot. Someone who can turn your own kids against you is trully evil. 'As for most of us would tell them to fuck off'... I doubt it. It's nice to look back and 'think' we've more sense and have superior intelligence, but if you lived in those times you would more than likely have the same opinion as those around you... one of surviving by keeping quiet.

Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Vlad, Ghengis and not forgetting Pol Pot were evil bastards. Bush is just a simpleton and can't and shouldn't be compared to these guys.

I would say because the people considered the most evil in history are considered such not only because of their temperment but because of their deeds and context. Would Hitler have been JUST as evil if he had been killed during World War I? One not only has to have a certain temperament but to act on it. Otherwise no one could know to what extent you are ?evil?. Evil thoughts, it seems to me, are not the same as evil deeds.

Of course, evil is in the eyes of the beholder. Osama is evil to some and the embodiment of good to others. I don?t really like the word ?evil?. Too many religious connotations and it?s vague. I would say if I were to call a world leader evil though, they would have to have committed inhumane acts on a grand scale and be viewed as in opposition to my world-view and political position.

I only added George Bush as a joke. I didn?t think anyone would choose him. I never thought anyone would rank the small-scale wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on the same scale as extermination and systematic genocide of tens of millions of people.

There is a recency factor as Mr. Fiction pointed out. That?s a great point. World War II is becoming ancient history. It?s veterans are dying off. But still, it seems like every other show on the History Channel is about Hitler and the bookstores seem to have their own Third Reich section. Fifty years from the now every other show on the History Channel is not going to be about George Bush?s Reich like every other show is about Hitler now. There is the difference. George Bush will have been just another president on the list. Hitler and Stalin were the pivotal figures of the twentieth century.