|
Hitler has the industrial scale genocide crown but you really can't dismiss Pol Pot's plucky underdog story of killing off one out of every four people in his country through complete and utter insanity. No world conquest motivations, no religious beliefs, no enforced isolation for the somewhat rational reason of building up a leadership cult, nah let's just shoot people wearing glasses for being too smart. The somewhat scary thing is neither of them are likely to be in the top thousand of all time, we just don't have good records for most of the rest. Easter Island literally nearly wiped itself out because they chopped down every tree on the island to ferry their giant stone heads around.
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
Also, when Ho Chi Mihn defeated the south vietnamese, the communists instituted concentration camps on a scale North Korea can only hope they're capable of matching. We faught in Vietnam to prevent genocide. Unfortunately, the American people lost their will to stop genocide.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Fortunately the Vietnamese did it for us after Pol Pot followed up his brilliant internal management by attacking a country ten times Cambodia's population and a thousand times its industrial base despite repeated warnings at the point of a gun telling him not to.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Yeah this. Just a reminder that Wolfowitz is on Jeb Bush's election team as an advisor. edit: Just to drive the point home, let's take a trip down memory lane http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/his-own-mans-man-jeb-bush_b_6733442.html Like this thread, this article suffers from a bit of hyperbole ("Greatest failure in American History?" Well there was reconstruction...) but the broad strokes are correct. twerking on the railroad fucked around with this message at 19:49 on May 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:I guess we got YouTube, widespread WiFi, smart phones and saw Janet Jackson's left tit during that time, tho . Which also happened at the worst moment possible because we had right wing fundies with a significant amount of power at the time... quote:The Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show broadcast on February 1, 2004 was noted for an incident in which Janet Jackson's breast was exposed by Justin Timberlake for less than a second. The controversy surrounding the show led to an immediate crackdown on perceived indecency in broadcasting. Managers of radio and television stations prompted tighter control over content, which led to Stern feeling "dead...inside" creatively.[62] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission_fines_of_The_Howard_Stern_Show#2004.E2.80.9305:_Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_aftermath Not saying Stern was some sort of artist or anything, but his feeling that he's echoing also seems to mirror how mainstream music, film and television felt at the time. FuzzySkinner fucked around with this message at 20:37 on May 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Valhawk posted:He did set up the EPA and helped the Clean Air Act and OSHA get passed. Al Gore
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Also, when Ho Chi Mihn defeated the south vietnamese, the communists instituted concentration camps on a scale North Korea can only hope they're capable of matching. There were already concentration camps in the south.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:There were already concentration camps in the south. migf is immune to facts 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:There were already concentration camps in the south. Those were refugee camps. North Vietnamese operated political extermination camps. When we impeached Nixon outta office, we damned millions to torture and lost our moral way.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Those were refugee camps. North Vietnamese operated political extermination camps. When we impeached Nixon outta office, we damned millions to torture and lost our moral way.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Miltank posted:they were torture camps. The North Vietnamese or the UNRWA camps?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
Chwoka posted:imo caligula or hitler depending on your definition of worst Without Hitler, there would be no Danger 5, so I guess Caligula wins the Race to the Bottom.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
Adar posted:Easter Island literally nearly wiped itself out because they chopped down every tree on the island to ferry their giant stone heads around. They've shown those giant heads were moved by rocking them side to side while pulling forward, moving them with tiny pivots. They lost all the trees from vanilla over harvesting and the introduction of invasive rats which ate the seeds.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
I don't really think this deserves its own topic but I'd like to ask a serious question. I have a woefully incomplete knowledge of history but I'm doing my best to learn and I do enjoy discussions like this because they offer up a lot of variety. My question is, di great leaders who accomplish stuff only so long as they live still count as great leaders? It's a fascinating subject I've been doing my best to research. It all started with a little game called Fallout New Vegas and everyone online bitching about how the Legion will fall apart the instant Caesar died. Being nerds, they cited real life history.. Apparently Alexander the Great is the biggest example but it's hardly a phenomenon exclusive to him. These "Great Men" go and make their empire or whatever and then they kick the bucket and everything they created implodes. Does that fact negate their qualifying as great leaders? 'cuz it seems to me that the surest mark of "objective greatness" is when you make something that endures. Literature, architecture, the things that stand the test of time are almost universally revered even in this crazy world of contrasting opinions. If Alexander or whoever else you care to mention could not build something to last, then maybe they kinda sucked.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 10:48
|
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:Without Hitler, there would be no Danger 5, so I guess Caligula wins the Race to the Bottom. Caligula only ruled for four years. Commodus ruled for twelve, and was nearly as insane.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 10:58
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I don't really think this deserves its own topic but I'd like to ask a serious question. "Great Leaders" are only a thing because of how people used to write history (to flatter the super-rich people like Caesar, Alexander the Great, etc.) The effect of a single person is typically much less than is typically portrayed. For instance, Nazi Germany was not solely a creation of Hitler and if you smothered him in his crib there would be some other disaffected person from greater Germany who would have fallen in love with social Darwinism and risen to power.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 11:11
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I don't really think this deserves its own topic but I'd like to ask a serious question. Alexander and other empire builders are effectively praised for being great generals and sometimes good administrators, but the skillset for those things is very different from the one for preventing your heirs from backstabbing each other after you're dead. For anyone before the Renaissance you're also talking about news taking three months to go from one end of the empire to the other (and that's just the spoken word - taxes can't gallop so they take six months). Any empire enduring under those conditions is a historical accident.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
eh, exceptional individuals do make long-term impacts on the world - it is difficult to see the mongols doing their thing without a unifying figure in ole Temujin, for one. it's just that the general course of human history is not driven by these guys' efforts - industrialisation would have occurred regardless of any individual inventing this or that gadget, for instance, or without this or that particular programme. the british policy of land enclosures may have hastened the process of primitive accumulation and helped make britain the center of early capitalism, but capitalism would likely have developed in that rough period in europe even without it. saying "nazi germany was a historic inevitability" is overselling it, i think. the weimar republic was not a stable regime, but you could just as well have seen a military dictatorship or a communist revolution IMO
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
Adar posted:Alexander and other empire builders are effectively praised for being great generals and sometimes good administrators, but the skillset for those things is very different from the one for preventing your heirs from backstabbing each other after you're dead. For anyone before the Renaissance you're also talking about news taking three months to go from one end of the empire to the other (and that's just the spoken word - taxes can't gallop so they take six months). Any empire enduring under those conditions is a historical accident. If you don't mind my curiosity, why did the Roman Empire last for as long as it did? Is it because it was a republic that got turned into a dictatorship? Or is that too much of a loaded question? There is a thread in A/T about Roma history I think...maybe I should take it there. V. Illych L. posted:eh, exceptional individuals do make long-term impacts on the world - it is difficult to see the mongols doing their thing without a unifying figure in ole Temujin, for one. it's just that the general course of human history is not driven by these guys' efforts - industrialisation would have occurred regardless of any individual inventing this or that gadget, for instance, or without this or that particular programme. the british policy of land enclosures may have hastened the process of primitive accumulation and helped make britain the center of early capitalism, but capitalism would likely have developed in that rough period in europe even without it. I believe in Great Men, personally. Charisma is a real thing and even if it defies logic or rationality or quantification, it will still overpower all of those. The one man with the force of will and the ability to get people to flock to him can accomplish so much more than a person with greater wealth or education or anything else you care to mention. It's the enigmatic "It Factor."
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I believe in Great Men, personally. Charisma is a real thing and even if it defies logic or rationality or quantification, it will still overpower all of those. The one man with the force of will and the ability to get people to flock to him can accomplish so much more than a person with greater wealth or education or anything else you care to mention. It's the enigmatic "It Factor." There is logic in describing how people do not behave rationally and flock to whoever is loudest (and most charismatic).
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 12:17
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
NikkolasKing posted:If you don't mind my curiosity, why did the Roman Empire last for as long as it did? Is it because it was a republic that got turned into a dictatorship? Or is that too much of a loaded question? There is a thread in A/T about Roma history I think...maybe I should take it there. There's no single answer to this. A few big reasons: -during its early days, it had a string of enemies that were strong enough to bind it together without being strong enough to overthrow it -culturally, it was more inclusive than any kingdom around it and there was a clear path to becoming Roman; many of the men from recently conquered tribes and kingdoms would wind up serving in the legions and assimilate (sometimes this would backfire, a la the Teutonic forest massacre I'm forgetting the name of, but not often), which minimized the number of internal rebellions for a long time -the Roman bureaucracy and roads were both far ahead of their time, so their logistics were good enough that a legion could actually march from one end of the empire to the other and get fed locally the whole way (this is super important) -the empire happened to be located on a sea that made transport easier than it would be anywhere else -a string of mostly very good emperors between Caesar and Marcus Aurelius None of that had to happen, though; if Rome had lost the Punic Wars we'd probably all be speaking linguistic descendants of Phoenician today. Well, more than we are already 
Adar fucked around with this message at 15:19 on May 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The North Vietnamese or the UNRWA camps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program#Allegations_of_torture
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
I believe that it was the battle of Teutoburg forest or some such and hilariously the guy who sold out the Romans had been raised as a Roman for his entire life so he was forever distrusted by the Germans as a Roman weirdo and they killed him not long after that.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 17:47
|
|
