Print Page | Close Window

Do you love an evil historical person/figure?

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: WORLD HISTORIA COMMUNITY
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Description: For role playing and mock battles
URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=124662
Printed Date: 14 Dec 2019 at 09:45
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Do you love an evil historical person/figure?
Posted By: egyptian goddess
Subject: Do you love an evil historical person/figure?
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 11:42

Hey guys.

I was wondering who else out there likes, or maybe even loves a person from history, who has been endowed with an "evil" of "villainous" image or persona. I'd be a little concerned if anyone voted Hitler, but hey the guy may have had some loveable attributes, who knows?

 

So to start things off, a historical figure who I just can't seem to hate is no one but Hitler's right hand man: Albert Speer. I studied him for a while and was just really drawn to his persona. For those who don't know him or of him, he was Hitler's chief Architect and then later Minister for Armaments. He is assumed to be the only guy who ever ostensibly formed a close relationship with Hitler, which I think adds a little more ominous mystery to the image of Albert Speer. Essentially, as it turned out Albert Speer was tried at the Nuremburg Trials, along with the other Nazi officials and he was so good at manipulation (some would say) that he managed to escape the death penalty, and a sentence of life imprisonment for his complicity and knowledge of the Jewish holocaust and was only sentenced for 20 years. In that 20 years he wrote a fascinating diary, called the "Spandau Diaries" and following his release he wrote another book called "Inside the Third Reich", whereby he provided an insider's account of the Nazi regime and as a result became a phenomenal celebrity. Till his death he has claimed that he did not know about the mass murdering of the Jews, stating "one could have known if one wanted to know... I only had a vague notion", however recent evidence released following his death has suggested that he did have a knowledge of these disgraceful events.

So who else can't help liking an ominous historical figure, I'd love to hear about them Smile??




Replies:
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 17:37
interesting thread Egyptian goddessThumbs Up Truly there are a number of figures throughout history who though I find them to be morally reprehensible fascinate me no less for that. I have always found it rather easy to admire ability and brilliance in those from times past, regardless how they chose to use these gifts.

Genghis Khan in particular comes to mind, a brilliant politician, tactician and strategist, charismatic and possessed of a strength of will that makes Iron seem soft. According to such sources as the Secret history of the Mongols (which should be taken with more than merely a grain of salt) Temujin (later known as Genghis Khan) was born to a powerful tribal chief named in the harsh world of the Mongol steppe, when he was still young however his father died and Temujin's tribe, abandoned him and his family to fend for themselves, thus Temujin went from steppe nobility while still a child to the lowest of the low, tribeless in the harsh world of the Mongol Steppe his nobility now a curse as his father's powerful enemies sought some final revenge by pursuing his son. According to some sources he was even captured and used as a slave for a time before escaping his captors.

Despite all this adversity Genghis Khan clawed his way to greater and greater power in the Steppes largely through his own abilities and then proceeded to conquer a larger empire than Alexander the Great.

To me It is one of the greatest stories of triumphing against adversity regardless of what that triumph meant to the inhabitants of China and Central Asia.

Regards, Praetor.


Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 18:52
Ah thank goodness - I thought Praetor might have taken my guy! Smile But then again, I should have guessed that he'd go with Genghis first of all. Anyway.

Sulla.

To me, he is one of the most evil and cunning figures in Roman history. Both in the political arena and on the battlefield, he had an uncanny knack of twisting the situation to his selfish advantage. Sulla's enigmatic life is riddled with instances of twisted brilliance, ranging from his web of dykes and trenches leading to a massacre at the battle of Orchomenus, to the way he dealt with rival populares, or just anyone he didn't like in general! I say his life is enigmatic, because it his motives, whilst superficially appearing obvious, if looked at more closely can be quite cryptic to an observer.

To cement his evil character, is his most well known bust. It just screams evil genius.



PS. I have moved this thread to a historical subforum, rather than the Mead Hall.

Regards,

- Knights -



-------------


Posted By: egyptian goddess
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 19:40
oh right. yeh I wasn't sure where it belonged.
 
I have suprisingly heard of both of them, and I think the most important thing is that while we love these figures, we still openly aknowledge their evil natures.
 
Hope the posts keep on comming, love to hear about more evil historical figures :)


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 20:39

While Stalin might be one of the worst dictators to ever walk the earth (he is 3rd place after Mao and Hitler). He none the less did a marvelous job transfering the largely distroyed and backward USSR because of famine and civil war and then WWII into an industrial, economical and scientific giant... twice. His policies lead to 20-30 million deaths but also made education and healthcare a right not a privilage.

Al-Jassas


Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 20:56
Egyptian goddess I agree wholeheartedly with your last post, Al Jassas and Knights believe it or not Genghis, Stalin and Sulla were the three people I thought of in quick succession (not necessarily in that order) when beginning my reply to Egyptian Goddess's initial post (I decided Alex would love to mention Sulla so I chose not to mention him), it seems great minds think alikeWink.

Regards, Praetor.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 22:31
Maybe one can also put Mao on this list. He did some very evil deeds but at the same time he shaped a new China that after a bath of steal would grow and who will become the next number one power in the world.
One can say that he in some way liberated the masses of China from the rather stagnant state they had been cought in after many years of Qing rule. He also managed to unite a nation that had become a playground for foreign forces and interests. And one shall not forget that he to some degree ended the subjugation of women in Chinese society. Now the women could step up and become the equal of men and do things that the women of old China could never have dreamt of.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2009 at 01:50
I don't believe there is such a thing as good and evil. I do know what most people today consider good and evil, and by contemporary standards I feel as if most of the historical characters I admire were "evil". 

-------------
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2009 at 04:08
Nicolo Machiavelli. I've always found him fascinating and am yet to be convinced that he was actually 'evil'!

-------------
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2009 at 04:42
I don't "admire" any of them, but I do have a fascination with certain figures; mostly gangsters and dictators with criminal backgrounds
 
- Gauis Marius (Roman populist, responsable for one of the greatest massacres within the city of Rome)
- Joseph Stalin
- Pancho Villa
- Raphael Trujillo (Dominican Republic)
- Lucky Luciano (American gangster)
- Meyer Lansky (American gangster)
 
 


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2009 at 04:58
As to why the Florentine politician should be considered evil is rather disingenuous, Parnell, but the directive behind this thread does call for such inversions, first because it is demanding a moral judgment in terms of politics and thrusting forth a rather Sanhedrinical connundrum: Is it not better that [some] should suffer rather than the entire nation perish? [John 11:50 in paraphrase]
 
Questions of expediency are always political and, if viewed in terms of human nature [the actual versus the ideal], who carries the greater blame the actor or the people that set the stage? Evil personified is always interesting, yet in all fairness, was not Machiavelli entirely correct in all of his assumptions as to the function and danger of power? Likewise, who the greater criminal, the initiator or the abettors, who certainly by their greater numbers have the better ability to control "evil", lest they be just as maniacal as their font of power?
 
It is interesting that none have approached judgment of this issue in terms of Nietzschean logic as encapsuled in this dictum: "Insanity in individuals is something rare, but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule". To observe the human condition and comment upon its circumstances, as did Machiavelli, says little about his own person in terms of individual morals and ethics. For example, here is a blunt declaration from The Prince:
 
Anyone who would act up to a perfect standard of goodness in everything must be ruined among so many who are not good. It is essential therefore for a prince to have learnt how to be other than good and to use, or not to use, his goodness as necessity requires.
 
Is this an abstraction or, instead, a presentation of how things are?


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2009 at 05:21
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

- Pancho Villa
 
 
ConfusedConfusedConfused
 
 
Who said fellow Pancho was evil?
 
Besides being a little bit unconventional in morals.... Or perhaps a sort of rolling stone, he isn't a good example of evil. Rather he was just a romantic bandit kind of guy.
 
And I admire him. After all he was the only man that has ever invaded "evil" United States... LOLLOLLOL


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2009 at 06:27
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

As to why the Florentine politician should be considered evil is rather disingenuous, Parnell, but the directive behind this thread does call for such inversions, first because it is demanding a moral judgment in terms of politics and thrusting forth a rather Sanhedrinical connundrum: Is it not better that [some] should suffer rather than the entire nation perish? [John 11:50 in paraphrase]
 
Questions of expediency are always political and, if viewed in terms of human nature [the actual versus the ideal], who carries the greater blame the actor or the people that set the stage? Evil personified is always interesting, yet in all fairness, was not Machiavelli entirely correct in all of his assumptions as to the function and danger of power? Likewise, who the greater criminal, the initiator or the abettors, who certainly by their greater numbers have the better ability to control "evil", lest they be just as maniacal as their font of power?
 
It is interesting that none have approached judgment of this issue in terms of Nietzschean logic as encapsuled in this dictum: "Insanity in individuals is something rare, but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule". To observe the human condition and comment upon its circumstances, as did Machiavelli, says little about his own person in terms of individual morals and ethics. For example, here is a blunt declaration from The Prince:
 
Anyone who would act up to a perfect standard of goodness in everything must be ruined among so many who are not good. It is essential therefore for a prince to have learnt how to be other than good and to use, or not to use, his goodness as necessity requires.
 
Is this an abstraction or, instead, a presentation of how things are?


I see you take the literal approach to the interpretation of The Prince! I for one am undecided whether he wrote as a great satirist or as you say, the great political scientist objectively reporting facts. Instead his work stands as a warning of the perils of tyranny and an examination of a rational extension of power by autocrats. His is a cautionary work, no? It certainly doesn't compute when compared with his discourses, or his previous political career in Florence.

I don't think the whole 'evil genius' thing stands up. As you say, if he was writing literally, then what he wrote was merely a presentation of facts to his Prince. It makes him a highly intelligent, though pretty obvious decipherer of the contemporary political system.

P.S- One could also see it as an inherently anti-anarchism work. If one presumes that a state exists and that a certain degree of evil must exist for the greater good to prevail, then it is difficult to pin him down as a proponent of tyranny. One might argue that tyranny is a prequisite for liberty, in some form or other.


-------------
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2009 at 07:17
I quite enjoy the way how a lot of the German Army and Navy (plus the political) staff held themselves in the Wars, and they'd be considered 'evil' by 'today's standars'... Göring, Keitl, Jodl... Dönitz. Von Lettow-Vorbeck. Ribbentrop.
 
Also, the Japanese chaps who were at the head of the Navy appeal to me (can't remember any names but a 'Tojo' though... the time's taking it's toll).


Posted By: Craze_b0i
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2009 at 22:43
Hernando Cortes. A highly intelligent entrepreneur who led one of the greatest 'business ventures' of his time. He was also cruel, dishonest and manipulative. And ultimately responsible for destroying a whole civilistion.
 
On the Machiavelli question, I took it as him saying the end justifies the means. Without a strong-handed prince there can be no peace. He ultimately wanted strong leaders in Italy who could unite the Italian peoples against what he regarded as the foreign invaders, France and Spain.


Posted By: egyptian goddess
Date Posted: 01 Sep 2009 at 09:53
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

I don't believe there is such a thing as good and evil. I do know what most people today consider good and evil, and by contemporary standards I feel as if most of the historical characters I admire were "evil". 
 
I do agree. thats why I thought I'd say in initiating this post of whether anyone liked a figure who has been "endowed with an "evil" of "villainous" image or persona". Of course any conception of evil is based on a specific set of values or standards, so we cannot say anything was really or anyone was inherently evil, but by our standards and societies standards its easy to say that a lot of the historical figures mentioned in this thread are considered "evil".
 
wow. love the responses this thread is getting, interesting to see the different variations. keep them coming :)


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 01:01
The fact that Imperialism per se is considered reasonably bad and evil these days makes me rather evil myself as well. Not sorry about it though. Tongue


Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2009 at 18:32
Alexander the Great is my favorite historical character by a large margin, I don't consider him evil, but there are those who do/would.  I have an interest in historical characters that were rather Machiavellian in personality/action, I think its because they were able to rule/live without letting morals or romanticism get in the way of their objectives.  (its the iron will/determination which I find fascinating)  Philip Augustus, Louis XI, Augustus, some of the WWII German Generals etc.  

-------------
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11 Sep 2009 at 16:57
"Little Boots" is not exactly my favorite evil figure, more of an enigma to me. Was he a diseased incestuous psychopathic cold-blooded killer? Or was he a modern day sarcastic, politically incorrect manipulative despot? Inquiring minds want to know!


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 11 Sep 2009 at 18:39
Don't know what 'evil' is, but

Justinian II

The way that crazy noseless bastard retook the throne after being exiled in Cherson is an awesome story.


Posted By: Knives
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2009 at 20:10
I think Vlad Tepes is an awesome guy. Hearing the stories of him rounding up people and impaling them or trapping them in burning buildings makes me well, impressed. 

The man was hailed as the savior, the messiah, the anti-christ, the tyrant, the nation hero, theres so many different sides to him, so many stories he just ends up being this mystical and prestigious figure. I read about the way he uses superstition in warfare, and its just no wonder that such a enigmatic figure ended up being thought to be a vampire, not human, immortal. 

To go into further detail about this infamous man, well he was the prince and ruler of Wallachia, he was named formally Vlad III Dracula, son of Dracul, he is called Vlad the Impaler or Vlad Tepes in Romania and is a man hailed as a defender of the Christian faith against Turkish expansionism. He also has been listed as one of the most evil people of all time and the biggest tyrant of his time, but well, he is also considered a national hero in Romania so he can't be all that bad right? 

I prefer not to label people evil or good, i'd not even try that on Hitler, I can't understand what goes on in peoples heads and evil is judged on a cultural level with conditioned ideas so its just not a factual thing. I put him in here because thousands if not hundreds of thousands say he was evil. 


Posted By: Pabbicus
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2009 at 07:32

I would have to say, while the stories of his authorizing capital punishment for certain lesser crimes are a bit iffy, he did have the entire romanian nobility killed and replaced, which allowed him to make far more drastic changes than any rulers of the region before him, and his strategic placement of his victims had saved Wallachia from more than a few invading armies, who were so horrified by the sight that they simply dropped their weapons and fled.

He also made more than one startling defeat of superior Ottoman forces in his time, and of course saved the country from sharing the fate of the Bulgarians under Ottoman occupation.



Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2009 at 18:23
As a barrister, I have always found Hitlers oratory abilities facinating.


Posted By: Pabbicus
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2009 at 18:29
I find some of his ability to inspire the masses is derived from his putting on of a much more rural, "working class" sort of "accent" or bent to his voice. He very much attempted to speak as similarly in manner as the industrial and agricultural working class as possible, though in private conversations several people have claimed he dropped this and spoke in a much more educated, intelligent tone. I'm not entirely sure, though.


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2009 at 18:35
As far as I know (and I am not an authority on German accents) his accent was always "working class" another reason he was disliked by the usually aristocratic generals.


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2009 at 22:22
Well speaking of Hitler I have always found him admirable, not for what HE DID, but for how from NO ONE he become THE ONE. The will power of this person is something to be appreciated, though is actions were against any form of humanity but I guess when you taste Power you forget what humanity is. I mean he was not the first person or the last to kill in the name of race or religion.
 
Beside Hitler I am very much found of El Che Guevara whose mostly considered an evil in US and other western countries but for me he was just another person fighting for rights.
 


-------------




Posted By: Pabbicus
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 07:12
Even though his "fight for rights" resulted in the "mysterious disappearance" of half of his countrymen, and the people he purposely inspired to attempt revolution in south america, as a result of his powerfully inspiring words(to the latin american peasants, at any rate,) nearly all died in brutal military backlashes after failed coup d'etats.


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 09:18
@ Pabbicus
I don't know if you are talking about El Che or someone else but if it's about El Che I would say that Fidel Castro from first day till end of Che's life wasn't a worthy friend or campanion, it was Che who would go in front lines, it was Che who won Cuba for Castro and at end he was not even allowed to get back to Cuba (while escaping Africa) instead was asked to go to Bolivia and start a revolution by Castro, where he was captured and murdered.
Now the main question that rises is "How in the world Felix Rodriquez got the tip on Che's location (though it's stated that the Bolivian Army encountered them but the fact is what were BA doing there in the Forest if they didn't have a tip)?"
 
Though it may sound stupid to some but I guess Castro did not fullfil his part of friendship and champanionood.


-------------




Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 09:19
I can only agree with Omar on the topic of Justinian II. To personally strangle the two men sent to kill you, and to cling so tightly to your survival that you and a group of followers steal a fishing boat to go and attempt a coup - well it is a stark contrast to someone like Emperor Maurice. It is just a same that after he regained the throne he did not redirect that energy and determination into something other than hell bent fury.

Hitler is another one who must receive grudging admiration. He came from nothing, ended up living on the streets, and yet through his own willpower, charisma and intellect he managed to make himself supreme leader of an important nation. Most people back then (and today still) tended to come from a background with power and money behind it if they wanted to achieve great political power. He was the son of an abusive minor bureaucrat and by his early 20s was living on the street with nothing and no one to help him.


Posted By: SPQR
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 10:21
I would have to say Roman Emperor Caligula, the guy had a big boat built in a land-locked lake.

-------------
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein


Posted By: Pabbicus
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 10:55
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

I can only agree with Omar on the topic of Justinian II. To personally strangle the two men sent to kill you, and to cling so tightly to your survival that you and a group of followers steal a fishing boat to go and attempt a coup - well it is a stark contrast to someone like Emperor Maurice. It is just a same that after he regained the throne he did not redirect that energy and determination into something other than hell bent fury.

Hitler is another one who must receive grudging admiration. He came from nothing, ended up living on the streets, and yet through his own willpower, charisma and intellect he managed to make himself supreme leader of an important nation. Most people back then (and today still) tended to come from a background with power and money behind it if they wanted to achieve great political power. He was the son of an abusive minor bureaucrat and by his early 20s was living on the street with nothing and no one to help him.

If you've read his auto-biography, and can sift through the very thick propaganda covering up the actual personal information, you begin to see his situation differently from what most people understood. It was not only himself he had to support while living on the streets of Vienna, taking any of the few temporary jobs available to scrap together a life for himself and his younger sister, while attempting to gain for himself a level of higher education on top of it, that shows his determination in the face of overwhelming odds.

I give him more than grudging respect for his capability as a politician and force of will to reclaim Germany from a situation that was threatening to permanently end even it's noteworthiness. I don't respect all of his political views, but in the midst of all the things he is reviled for by many people, he did greatly improve the lives of those citizens whom his government deemed "worthy," who were, I must say, the vast majority.(With the generally accepted numbers, two or three million residents of Germany were victims of lethal persecution, while the remainder of the 85 million or so saw a great improvement in all areas of their lives, except perhaps their liberties, though given the circumstances of near constant war, and the general secrecy of the world at the early time of his reign, one can only make assumptions based on the available evidence as to how the German Nation would have continued in peace time.)

With this in mind, and I know a thousand people are going to jump onto this thread and squeal "NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI JEW HATER!!" I would say he is worthy of much more respect than he is given in history. Especially considering reports of american brutality towards prisoners of war and even citizens of those nations they were at war with during the second world war, there are very few people capable of making any accusations against any nation without condemning them all. Even Britain, the supposed "good guys," are known by people who bother to look it up, for the horrendous atrocity that was the "Betrayal of the Cossacks." I don't, as well, believe I need to mention the nuclear attacks against primarily civilian targets, though it appears I have at any rate. Blast me and my confounded mind!



Posted By: Knives
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 14:54
Just new this forum would move in the direction of Hitler (Sigh) 

Try not to romanticize his time in poverty. It was for the most part of his own construction, and he'd likely still be in it if not for how much prestige he earned in the first World War. 


Posted By: Pabbicus
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 15:43
The prestige from his experience in the Great War was hardly existent before it was played up by himself and his party while campaigning for office.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 15:47
Do not blame the Forum, but rather those with an interest for the macabre. The truly honest men of the 1920s and 30s well understood the evils facing their world and did not romanticize it in the least. For later generations to do so simply means they have failed to learn from history. The horror behind the Hitler narrative was not how evil the Fuhrer was but just how "respectable" his supporters were...

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Knives
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 17:00
Well, I for the life of me can't hate Otto Skorzeny, does that count? 


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 17:10
Originally posted by Knives Knives wrote:

Just new this forum would move in the direction of Hitler (Sigh) 

Try not to romanticize his time in poverty. It was for the most part of his own construction, and he'd likely still be in it if not for how much prestige he earned in the first World War. 
Hitler was charasmatic, perhaps the greatest Orator of the twentieth century, politically and physcially couragous, a fantastic politician. He would not have achieved what he did had he not had those qualities.
 
The thing about evil men is not that they lack admirable qualities, indeed they usually possess them in abundence, but how they use their talents.
 
Lots of people were anti-semetic, unfortunatly he was in a position to do something about it.


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 18:47
I find Stalin much more fascinating that Hitler, as he had led a far more interesting life both in his youth and as a Soviet leader.

To begin with, he was a Georgian in Imperial Russia, a member of a subject nationality under the domination of the Russians.
As a child, he had aspired to become a priest and studied at the seminary; but during his spell at the seminary he converted to Marxism, and for organising several rebellions against the priests, was expelled. However, in his early years his ideology was still unclear divided between international communism and Georgian nationalism.

During his years as a revolutionary, he led a parallel life as a gangster; engaging in bank robberies, trade union extorsion, piracy, kidnappings, and intimidation to raise funds for the revolution; yet he was no mindless brute that alongside with the muscles he also had the brains and the ideas, converting hundreds of workers to the Marxist ideology through propaganda.
He was also in charge of hunting and excecutint Tsarist Okhranna agents infiltrated in the ranks of the Bolsheviks; and was as brutal to all those suspected of treason as he later was to dissidents in the USSR. Before 1917, he had been arrested and sentenced to exile more than 3 times, yet every time he managed to escape. As a man with an extraordinary ability to attract women; at almost every city where he set foot he had fathered a child.
In his 30s, he had already become in all definitions one of the most powerful and feared gangsters in the Transcaucasus; probably no less than American mobsters like Dutch Schultz or Lucky Luciano during the prohibition years.

During the Russian civil war he led the Red Army to fight against the Whites in the Transcaucasus where he committed large-scaled massacres on the peasants who refused to cooperate... and burnt the countryside to terrorise the peasants into submission.
These crimes..., of course, were relatively trivial compared to what was to be commited during the era of the great purges in the 1930s...




Posted By: Birddog
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2009 at 19:50
Question, would Octavian/Augustus be considered evil?
 
He killed alot of Knights and Senetors on the way to the top (along side Mark Anthony). He kept Rome under his control for over 40 years while maintaining the illusion of Republic. He was a master of propoganda, and had no problems ordering exercutions or exile for his enemies. He ended a long string of civil wars, and ruled Rome during a time of relative peace and prosperity. (I know someone will jump on all the wars his armies fought in Germany and Spain etc, but these were fought on the boarders of empire, not within the empire itself like the five civil wars that occured during the last hundred years of Republic.) He was not a nice man, and I find him facinating, but can he be considered evil?  


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 24 Oct 2009 at 12:41
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Do not blame the Forum, but rather those with an interest for the macabre. The truly honest men of the 1920s and 30s well understood the evils facing their world and did not romanticize it in the least. For later generations to do so simply means they have failed to learn from history. The horror behind the Hitler narrative was not how evil the Fuhrer was but just how "respectable" his supporters were...
 
I guess it depends on the eye of the viewer, how he/she looks at it. As I said neither was he the first to kill thousands in the name of religion or race nor was the last.
Now it depends on how you portray his character, not putting yourself in the shoe of the oppressed but in oppressor.
 
I mean if any of my fellow Afghan read following lines, they will label me a traitor and an agent but the fact could not be concealed.
 
Zia ul Haq the person who brought the Mujahideen into existance and who was responsible for supporting the American backed Mujahideen in killings of 1000s of Afghans and establishing an environment in Afghanistan that is still not stable, maybe known as an EVIL for the Afghans but for sure he was the person who constructed today's Pakistan, though he established Pakistan with the blood of Afghans but what matters is YOUR OWN COUNTRY.
 
Same goes to Musharaf he too betrayed the Taleban and joined hands with Americans in their invassion of Afghanistan, another EVIL in eyes of Afghans but a hero to Pakistanis.
 
I admire both of the leaders for their service to THEIR own Nation but for sure hate them when I think as an Afghan.
So there are things regarding leaders and people which to some looks an Angel but to others an Evil, take the example of legend Mike Tyson they person who ON RECORD said "I will eat your childern".
I wish you got my point.


-------------




Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 24 Oct 2009 at 12:47
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

I find Stalin much more fascinating that Hitler, as he had led a far more interesting life both in his youth and as a Soviet leader.

To begin with, he was a Georgian in Imperial Russia, a member of a subject nationality under the domination of the Russians.
As a child, he had aspired to become a priest and studied at the seminary; but during his spell at the seminary he converted to Marxism, and for organising several rebellions against the priests, was expelled. However, in his early years his ideology was still unclear divided between international communism and Georgian nationalism.

During his years as a revolutionary, he led a parallel life as a gangster; engaging in bank robberies, trade union extorsion, piracy, kidnappings, and intimidation to raise funds for the revolution; yet he was no mindless brute that alongside with the muscles he also had the brains and the ideas, converting hundreds of workers to the Marxist ideology through propaganda.
He was also in charge of hunting and excecutint Tsarist Okhranna agents infiltrated in the ranks of the Bolsheviks; and was as brutal to all those suspected of treason as he later was to dissidents in the USSR. Before 1917, he had been arrested and sentenced to exile more than 3 times, yet every time he managed to escape. As a man with an extraordinary ability to attract women; at almost every city where he set foot he had fathered a child.
In his 30s, he had already become in all definitions one of the most powerful and feared gangsters in the Transcaucasus; probably no less than American mobsters like Dutch Schultz or Lucky Luciano during the prohibition years.

During the Russian civil war he led the Red Army to fight against the Whites in the Transcaucasus where he committed large-scaled massacres on the peasants who refused to cooperate... and burnt the countryside to terrorise the peasants into submission.
These crimes..., of course, were relatively trivial compared to what was to be commited during the era of the great purges in the 1930s...

s
You forgot to include another of his great (for the WEST) accomplishment Shocked, that of DESTROYING the mainstream Communism and bringing up a neo-Communism aka Stalinism or a Red Fascism (stated by US).
 


-------------




Posted By: Pabbicus
Date Posted: 24 Oct 2009 at 12:57
In my opinion, Stalin wasn't really a communist at all! He simply used the ideology and it's mass of ignorant, brainwashed radical followers to build the USSR into a modernised and powerful nation, and along with that, himself into an even more powerful man.

-------------
Fool! My Magikarp is immune to other Magikarps' splash attacks!


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 24 Oct 2009 at 13:24
@ Pabbicus
Totally agreed upon, I too count him as the first person who demolished communism from Russia and was more like Alexander, a power and territory hungry guy who didn't follow/care for any law or idealogy.


-------------




Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2009 at 04:39
Originally posted by Gharanai Gharanai wrote:

@ Pabbicus
Totally agreed upon, I too count him as the first person who demolished communism from Russia and was more like Alexander, a power and territory hungry guy who didn't follow/care for any law or idealogy.


Was Alexander a hypocrite though? As far as I know he never preached freedom, love and happiness to justify his wars, and his only ideology was his naked ambition.


-------------
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey


Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2009 at 09:13
 
@ Reginmund
You are right with the naked ambition of Alexander and I guess that's way no one (or maybe so little people) call him an evil leader, as he was what he looked and say.
But still his hunger for power was way more than Stalin may have ever thought of (IMO) so that's why I matched him with Alexander as both of them were power hungry people with no respect to any code of conduct or idealogy.


-------------




Posted By: Pabbicus
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2009 at 13:10
The thing about the ancient world, in my opinion, is that it allowed people to have much larger ambitions than the modern world, perhaps due to the comparative ignorance in the world around them. For example, Stalin wanted to be the leader of the most powerful and feared nation on earth, I can assume. Alexander, however, wanted to be the ruler of the entire world and everyone in it, and as far as he knew, after defeating persia he was very close to that.

-------------
Fool! My Magikarp is immune to other Magikarps' splash attacks!


Posted By: Harburs
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2009 at 14:03
Vlad the impaler.


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2009 at 01:46
Originally posted by Suren Suren wrote:

Vlad the impaler.

you love him!! really??




-------------


Posted By: cahaya
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2009 at 02:30
Wu Zetian.

She was cruel enough for me. Killed her own baby just to frame her rival.


-------------


Posted By: Pabbicus
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2009 at 02:56
Originally posted by azimuth azimuth wrote:

Originally posted by Suren Suren wrote:

Vlad the impaler.

you love him!! really??


He might have done some nasty things, but he kept the Turks out and made sure nobody could undermine his rule.



-------------
Fool! My Magikarp is immune to other Magikarps' splash attacks!


Posted By: Seko-
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2009 at 03:50
Seems that the Turks throughout history have made a whole bunch of tyrants larger than life to this very day.

Do I love an evil Historical figure? That all depends on which side of the subjective fence I sit on. I would like to say no, for evil is just plain evil. But, taking into consideration that war is full of atrocities and leaders have knowingly led men to commit them than yes, I do have a few favorities.

I must put on my thinking cap to pick out a few.


Posted By: Harburs
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2009 at 04:14
Originally posted by azimuth azimuth wrote:

Originally posted by Suren Suren wrote:

Vlad the impaler.

you love him!! really??


I don't love the guy, but I like the mystery around him and his cruel justice.Wink


Posted By: Scourge
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2009 at 07:38
I choose Reinhard Heydrich though I do not see him as evil I just placed him here. Though I think his significance is outstanding and what he achieved few can claim.As Reichsprotector of the bohemia and moravia he actually did a surprisingly effective at his assigned job and he was effective at running the part of the world from a National Socialist and day to day view. Truly a great man; he was considered by the allies as the most dangerous man in the Reich and many in Germany said yeah Himmler's got a brain its called Heydrich. He was also key in bring down the SA as he drew up the fake homosexuality and the fake "Rebellion".


Posted By: Ziegenbartami
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2009 at 08:14
Originally posted by Scourge Scourge wrote:

I choose Reinhard Heydrich though I do not see him as evil I just placed him here.

You do realize that he chaired the Wannsee Conference in 1942, where it was decided that all European Jews would be worked to death or killed outright, don't you? Not to mention he was in charge of the Einsatzgruppen that killed countless thousands of Jews, Gypsies, etc. in occupied Soviet Union.


-------------
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)


Posted By: Scourge
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2009 at 10:55
Originally posted by Ziegenbartami Ziegenbartami wrote:

Originally posted by Scourge Scourge wrote:

I choose Reinhard Heydrich though I do not see him as evil I just placed him here.

You do realize that he chaired the Wannsee Conference in 1942, where it was decided that all European Jews would be worked to death or killed outright, don't you? Not to mention he was in charge of the Einsatzgruppen that killed countless thousands of Jews, Gypsies, etc. in occupied Soviet Union.
Yes I do realize all of these things Ziegen but it still doesn't change the fact that the guy was a German and a National Socialist hero, an effective leader and effective at his job. He fought for what he believed in I think had he lived the outcome of the war would have been different. He fought hard for what he believed in and was a great man in my personal opinion. He was a family man, loyal, tough, a warrior and a good politician. He may have orchestrated the holocaust and ran the einsatzgruppen but that in my opinion is a testament to his character rather than him being this evil mad man.


Posted By: Ziegenbartami
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2009 at 01:01
Originally posted by Scourge Scourge wrote:

Yes I do realize all of these things Ziegen but it still doesn't change the fact that the guy was a German and a National Socialist hero, an effective leader and effective at his job. He fought for what he believed in I think had he lived the outcome of the war would have been different. He fought hard for what he believed in and was a great man in my personal opinion. He was a family man, loyal, tough, a warrior and a good politician. He may have orchestrated the holocaust and ran the einsatzgruppen but that in my opinion is a testament to his character rather than him being this evil mad man.

How would the outcome of the war have  been any different? After the invasion of the Soviet Union in June of 1941, it was only a matter of time until the massive weight of Soviet industry could be brought to bear upon the Third Reich.
Furthermore, had he survived the war, he would've hung on the gallows along with von Ribbentrop, Keitel, and the rest for his role in the Holocaust.


-------------
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2009 at 01:28
No, I detest every single person who willfully inflicts suffering and pain on others regardless of when he or she did it.  And I think people who use 'historical context' and similar bullsh*t to excuse their admiration for such individuals might be a little neuropathic or worse, psychopathic to overlook such crimes.


Posted By: Scourge
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2009 at 01:30
Heydrich was so effective at destroying partisans that everywhere he went they were virtually destroyed and his next destinations were France and Russia. Lets say Heydrich got transferred to France in the early spring of 43 and starts working on destroying the French resistance and running the SS and SD in the region. He would have effectively destroyed the French resistance that did everything it could to ensure D-Day happened. With Heydrich also running things when the D-Day invasion happening. He could have effectively destroyed the French resistance and took command and directed troops in the beginning initial hours of the battle when they got no orders. So yes he could have changed the outcome of the war and yes history would have been different. Don't ever look back at history and under estimate the man. If you ever wanted to learn how to effectively run a killing squad or hunt down enemies of the State hes the man you read about. Thats all he did.

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

No, I detest every single person who willfully inflicts suffering and pain on others regardless of when he or she did it.  And I think people who use 'historical context' and similar bullsh*t to excuse their admiration for such individuals might be a little neuropathic or worse, psychopathic to overlook such crimes.


To say I'm a psychopath is a little crazy in my opinion. Whats neuropathic anyways? Though on a side note I'm not looking over anything. I understand full well what Heydrich did it still doesn't mean he wasn't a great man.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2009 at 01:38
The epitome of evil is the packaging of an abomination as Joe Swellfellow! All of this blather about Reinhard Heydrich would be hilarious were it not reflective [not in the sense of thought but in terms of mirroring] of some distasteful personal attributes. What next confession of nazi tatoos!?!
 
Heydrich was a cold, calculating womanizer with a rather petty character...he's lucky the Czechs got to him quickly.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Scourge
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2009 at 01:40
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

The epitome of evil is the packaging of an abomination as Joe Swellfellow! All of this blather about Reinhard Heydrich would be hilarious were it not reflective [not in the sense of thought but in terms of mirroring] of some distasteful personal attributes. What next confession of nazi tatoos!?!
 
Heydrich was a cold, calculating womanizer with a rather petty character...he's lucky the Czechs got to him quickly.

I'm not a Nazi though some of the socioeconomic and job building projects were actually decently ran. As well was there stance on unions. Though I do not believe in the ideas of racial superiority nor do I have distasteful attributes. What I did what not packing Heydrich as a great guy nor was it the epitome of evil.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2009 at 01:51
And Mussolini made Italian trains "run on time" (NOT!)!!!  If anything, Heydrich was the personification of Mass Man in action..."building projects decently ran"! TAURUS FOECES!

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Scourge
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2009 at 01:53
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2009 at 02:11
I didn't read what you or anyone else wrote prior to my own post, I was answering the question posed in the thread header.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2009 at 02:13
Originally posted by Scourge Scourge wrote:



Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

No, I detest every single person who willfully inflicts suffering and pain on others regardless of when he or she did it.  And I think people who use 'historical context' and similar bullsh*t to excuse their admiration for such individuals might be a little neuropathic or worse, psychopathic to overlook such crimes.


To say I'm a psychopath is a little crazy in my opinion. Whats neuropathic anyways? Though on a side note I'm not looking over anything. I understand full well what Heydrich did it still doesn't mean he wasn't a great man.


My bad, I meant http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=psychoneurosis&db=luna - neurotic.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2009 at 02:47
"The evil that men do lives after them, the good is often 'terred with their bones"...but in this instance you'd be hard put to find any good much less greatness in the likes of a Heydrich. Himmler liked children and little dogs but such are hardly the sterling qualities of greatness, should we eulogize him as a misunderstood genius? Please, Scourge (and you are no Attila by the way) spare us all of these neurotic contentions before they do become evidence of sociopathy!

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Scourge
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2009 at 07:31
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

"The evil that men do lives after them, the good is often 'terred with their bones"...but in this instance you'd be hard put to find any good much less greatness in the likes of a Heydrich. Himmler liked children and little dogs but such are hardly the sterling qualities of greatness, should we eulogize him as a misunderstood genius? Please, Scourge (and you are no Attila by the way) spare us all of these neurotic contentions before they do become evidence of sociopathy!

Way to be astute enough realize where I got scourge from. Though I never said I was Atilla though you did. I am not a sociopath and they aren't neurotic contentions. They are truths in my opinion. No matter what you say it still doesn't change his effectiveness.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2009 at 10:13
His "effectiveness"...you've got to be kidding.
 
The only truth here can be summarized by his murderous CV!
 
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/biographies/heydrich.htm - http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/biographies/heydrich.htm
 
He was a disgusting being to which the adjective "human" is entirely unapplicable.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Scourge
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2009 at 15:45
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

His "effectiveness"...you've got to be kidding.
 
The only truth here can be summarized by his murderous CV!
 
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/biographies/heydrich.htm - http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/biographies/heydrich.htm
 
He was a disgusting being to which the adjective "human" is entirely unapplicable.

Denying him human is inhuman in itself and a underestimation of the human character and spirit.


Posted By: Ziegenbartami
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2009 at 00:33
Originally posted by Scourge Scourge wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

His "effectiveness"...you've got to be kidding.
 
The only truth here can be summarized by his murderous CV!
 
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/biographies/heydrich.htm - http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/biographies/heydrich.htm
 
He was a disgusting being to which the adjective "human" is entirely unapplicable.

Denying him human is inhuman in itself and a underestimation of the human character and spirit.

"Underestimation of the human character and spirit"? What character and spirit? The character of a ruthless, criminal thug and the spirit and willingness to kill countless innocent people? He deserved what he got on the streets of Prague in May 1942.


-------------
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)


Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2009 at 01:23
Its simple really, we can't judge the past by our standards. Thus Atilla isn't an evil savage in my mind, the Romans who at least thought of themselves civilized were doing the same thing for centuries, and did not stop doing it when their powerbase was crumbling either.

WW2 happened mid-20th century at a time when we already had a semblance of univeral rights, respect for human life, etc. Thus there is no way you can call a Heydrich a great man. Well you can, but you'd be playing into your own delusions.

I think that Dr Gonzaga summed it up well.   

-------------
http://postimage.org/" rel="nofollow">
http://postimage.org/" rel="nofollow - adult photo sharing


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2009 at 03:41
Well that works both ways then.  If you can't judge them by today's standards then you can't admire them by today's standards either.  Simples.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2009 at 03:45
'Love' is a very neurotic emotion in this context.  Who would as such 'love' a historical figure?


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2009 at 03:57
Originally posted by egyptian goddess egyptian goddess wrote:

So who else can't help liking an ominous historical figure, I'd love to hear about them Smile??
 
Hmmm... I'll have to consult the ritual statues I keep in my shrine...
 
O great Chariman Mao, together with the Fuhrer and comrade Stalin! Do I like ominous or evil historical figures?
 
*deep rumbling answer in an ancient tongue*
 
No, apparently I do not.
 
-Akolouthos
 


Posted By: Scourge
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2009 at 09:53
Originally posted by Ziegenbartami Ziegenbartami wrote:

Originally posted by Scourge Scourge wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

His "effectiveness"...you've got to be kidding.
 
The only truth here can be summarized by his murderous CV!
 
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/biographies/heydrich.htm - http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/biographies/heydrich.htm
 
He was a disgusting being to which the adjective "human" is entirely unapplicable.

Denying him human is inhuman in itself and a underestimation of the human character and spirit.

"Underestimation of the human character and spirit"? What character and spirit? The character of a ruthless, criminal thug and the spirit and willingness to kill countless innocent people? He deserved what he got on the streets of Prague in May 1942.


That is ridiculous the guy is a German hero. He fought against the enemies of the Reich with a soberness and toughness not exhibited by many and was a great family man at the same time. He fought for what he believed in even when he was dying he still drew his pistol and tried valiantly to hang on and live. There should be a statue of him in Berlin or at least a memorial.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2009 at 11:11
Scourge, you are either a fool or a batard! Talk such as the above declaration is considered criminal activity in the Deutsche Bundesrepublik.

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Scourge
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2009 at 11:16
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Scourge, you are either a fool or a batard! Talk such as the above declaration is considered criminal activity in the Deutsche Bundesrepublik.


Probably not but its illegal to say things like Sieg Heil or Meine Ehre heiße Treue or Heil Hitler but I doubt its illegal to suggest that. Though who cares what the laws are in Germany. Its not my fault they can't honor their past and betrayed their own country in 1945 when all of a sudden there were 65 million communists or social democrats traitors. Having an opinion that isn't politically correct doesn't make somebody a fool or a bastard in fact it means they are a little bit more open to the truth and are able to see the greatness in men that are other wise vilified.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2009 at 12:44
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

Originally posted by egyptian goddess egyptian goddess wrote:

So who else can't help liking an ominous historical figure, I'd love to hear about them Smile??
 
Hmmm... I'll have to consult the ritual statues I keep in my shrine...
 
O great Chariman Mao, together with the Fuhrer and comrade Stalin! Do I like ominous or evil historical figures?
 
*deep rumbling answer in an ancient tongue*
 
No, apparently I do not.
 
-Akolouthos
 


LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL and... LOL



Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2009 at 13:40
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Well that works both ways then.  If you can't judge them by today's standards then you can't admire them by today's standards either.  Simples.

I didn't say that you could. 


-------------
http://postimage.org/" rel="nofollow">
http://postimage.org/" rel="nofollow - adult photo sharing


Posted By: Ziegenbartami
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2009 at 14:43
Originally posted by Scourge Scourge wrote:

Its not my fault they can't honor their past and betrayed their own country in 1945 when all of a sudden there were 65 million communists or social democrats traitors.

Actually it was the National Socialists who betrayed Germany, by instigating a war of aggression with genocidal intent, which ended in the destruction of Germany, the deaths of millions of German citizens (not to mention the dead throughout Europe), and the subjugation of East Germany to stifling communist rule, the economic effects of which are still being felt today. Because of the atrocities committed by the Nazis in Eastern Europe (including by this so-called "German hero" of yours, Heydrich), the Soviet Union and other eastern European states retaliated by forcibly expelling, under inhumane conditions, 15 million ethnic Germans from their homelands, and killing 2 million more. These people had the Nazis to thank for this treatment.

As for his assassination, had I been a Czech under Nazi occupation, I would have done everything I could to kill him and anyone else who sought to oppress me, so kudos to the brave men who did. They're the real heroes.


-------------
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2009 at 20:51
It is inconceivable - at least I would have thought it was - that anyone would equate the Third Reich with Germany. Heydrich may be a Nazi hero, but he certainly isn't a German one.

-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 20 Dec 2009 at 02:35
Having an opinion that isn't politically correct doesn't make somebody a fool or a bastard in fact it means they are a little bit more open to the truth and are able to see the greatness in men that are other wise vilified.

 
Since when is a blunt declaration in favor of morality and ethics considered little more than "political correctness"! You are a fool Scourge and anyone with an inkling of decency would simply tell you to go!


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Scourge
Date Posted: 20 Dec 2009 at 04:31
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Having an opinion that isn't politically correct doesn't make somebody a fool or a bastard in fact it means they are a little bit more open to the truth and are able to see the greatness in men that are other wise vilified.

 
Since when is a blunt declaration in favor of morality and ethics considered little more than "political correctness"! You are a fool Scourge and anyone with an inkling of decency would simply tell you to go!


Heydrich showed the most important traits a human could have. Traits which many in today's society do not possess due to what the media portrays him as; I mean you could just sit around and let him be forgotten into the pages of History as something hes not; or you could read the truth about him and see the loyalty he had for his country and his beliefs and how he proud of man he was.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 20 Dec 2009 at 06:52
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It is inconceivable - at least I would have thought it was - that anyone would equate the Third Reich with Germany. Heydrich may be a Nazi hero, but he certainly isn't a German one.


Clap

That's perspective.


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 20 Dec 2009 at 10:13
Originally posted by Scourge Scourge wrote:

the loyalty he had for his country and his beliefs and how he proud of man he was.

Loyalty to one's country and pride are not positive character traits as all, and Heydrich is an exellent illustration as to why they are so bad.


Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 20 Dec 2009 at 16:46
Originally posted by Scourge Scourge wrote:

 

That is ridiculous the guy is a German hero. He fought against the enemies of the Reich with a soberness and toughness not exhibited by many and was a great family man at the same time. He fought for what he believed in even when he was dying he still drew his pistol and tried valiantly to hang on and live. There should be a statue of him in Berlin or at least a memorial.

He is a German heroe? Where? In the heads of lunatic Neo-Nazis or even in those of the die-hard nazis?

He isn't a German heroe, believe me, i should have heared of it!


-------------
http://imageshack.us" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 20 Dec 2009 at 18:05
Hello Scourge
 
While I do agree that Heydrich was an effective military commander he is definitely not a hero.
 
A hero, a real hero, is a person who sacrifices himself for the right cause not for a cause. The guy betreyed his own roots (he was after all part jew) to lick the Nazi boots and sucked up to Hitler and Himmler faithfully just like any slave sucking up to his master and if you think this is admirable then you really have a problem.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Scourge
Date Posted: 21 Dec 2009 at 05:37
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello Scourge
 
While I do agree that Heydrich was an effective military commander he is definitely not a hero.
 
A hero, a real hero, is a person who sacrifices himself for the right cause not for a cause. The guy betreyed his own roots (he was after all part jew) to lick the Nazi boots and sucked up to Hitler and Himmler faithfully just like any slave sucking up to his master and if you think this is admirable then you really have a problem.
 
Al-Jassas


Your wrong; he wasn't Jewish. That is a lie and propaganda. Heydrich was not Jewish and he did not suck up to Hitler and Himmler like slaves. That is wrong and a lie. You are seeing this wrong completely.


Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 22 Dec 2009 at 10:48
I think you're partaking in the sucking up to a degree that prevents you from seeing that. 

-------------
http://postimage.org/" rel="nofollow">
http://postimage.org/" rel="nofollow - adult photo sharing


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 22 Dec 2009 at 14:49
There is nothing likeable or heroic about any figure that inverts societal norms and engages in criminal activity under the guise of responsibility in support of these inversions or better stated, perversions. If anything, Heydrich is the epitome of the untermensch given free rein to act out his psychopathy so as to efficiently carry out the herd mentality at its most vulgar level.

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Harburs
Date Posted: 22 Dec 2009 at 15:11
My favorite Evil e-character is drgonzaga!Big smile < id="gwProxy" ="">< ="jsCall;" id="jsProxy" ="">


-------------
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.


Posted By: Scourge
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2010 at 05:04
That is ridiculous though I guess it all comes down to perspective. So nobody else is gonna change their minds nor will I. So the argument is void to be honest a situation where agreeing to disagree is better than debating morality and who considers what great.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2010 at 07:37
Sir, I do not agree that any disagreement exists here for your utterance of a rather disagreable supposition has run into an agreed upon well merited chastisement.
 


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2010 at 12:50
Not sure what "evil" actually means but I admire Napoleon Bonaparte. I admire his imagination and confidence and his excited childish nature.

I also admire Tamer the Lane; he would built towers from skulls but still, he was such a capable general and statesman. He would have converted the Chinese to Islam if he had lived longer. I wonder what would have happened then!


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2010 at 15:07
Originally posted by Batu Batu wrote:

Not sure what "evil" actually means but I admire Napoleon Bonaparte. I admire his imagination and confidence and his excited childish nature.

I also admire Tamer the Lane; he would built towers from skulls but still, he was such a capable general and statesman. He would have converted the Chinese to Islam if he had lived longer. I wonder what would have happened then!
 
No problem with either figure Batu because in a sense these identifications stand at the bottom of the original proposal for the thread. In terms of contemporary Europe in the years 1790-1815, both the French Revolution and the career of Napoleon Bonaparte were looked upon as evils threatening civilization. Certainly, Napoleon was no saint in his personal relationships (although he was always kind to his mother because he was scared of the old girl anyway). Besides, much the same can be said of Attila. Likewise Timur Khan (or the Lame, if you wish) was not the embodiment of intrinsic evil--even with the head episode [which I always find humorous since it is sort of a throwback to ancient times as with the Egyptians piling the penises of their enemies in a heap as trophies)Evil Smile. That we were thrown into a tizzy by someone throwing Heydrich into the discussion should not act as a discouragement since all proposals need to stand upon evidence that substantiates the reason for admiration. People admire Thomas Jefferson although as a human being he was both cad and hypocrite!


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2010 at 20:58
I don't see the problem with Scourge's admiration for Heydrich within the context of this thread. Seeing as this is a thread about "evil" historical figures, he couldn't very well proclaim his love for Mother Theresa. If you put aside morality it's obvious Heydrich was both committed and highly competent in his job; extermination. If he worked for a different cause or the Nazis won the war I'm convinced he'd be remembered as a German hero today.
 
Second the moral self-righteousness that erupted in this thread with Scourge's posts is quite pathetic. I don't know anything about Heydrich's personal commitment to Nazism, but if he worked hard and competently for a cause he believed in I don't think we should be so absorbed in our own perspectives we can't appreciate the efforts of those who differ. This at least is how I relate to people who are in opposition to my own ideals but who still deserve some recognition for their level of skill and dedication, like the Nazis, the Soviets, Muslim terrorists and a number of other groups.


-------------
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2010 at 21:52
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

I don't see the problem with Scourge's admiration for Heydrich within the context of this thread. Seeing as this is a thread about "evil" historical figures, he couldn't very well proclaim his love for Mother Theresa. If you put aside morality it's obvious Heydrich was both committed and highly competent in his job; extermination. If he worked for a different cause or the Nazis won the war I'm convinced he'd be remembered as a German hero today.
 

Second the moral self-righteousness that erupted in this thread with Scourge's posts is quite pathetic. I don't know anything about Heydrich's personal commitment to Nazism, but if he worked hard and competently for a cause he believed in I don't think we should be so absorbed in our own perspectives we can't appreciate the efforts of those who differ. This at least is how I relate to people who are in opposition to my own ideals but who still deserve some recognition for their level of skill and dedication, like the Nazis, the Soviets, Muslim terrorists and a number of other groups.

I'd rather use the opposite argument: there is no light side to Heydrich because he was dedicated to his job and beliefs, but rather does Heydrich shows what a horrible dark side dedication had. Personally I distrust anybody who is extremely committed to a cause, even if it is a cause I agree with.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2010 at 22:26

"Light" and "dark", "good" and "evil", these concepts are religious in nature and have no existence beyond how people prefer to define them. For the Nazis, the people Heydrich killed were the "horrible dark side" and his actions were morally sound. My point however was that if we ignore such moral dualism, which is always tendentious whether used by the Nazis or our contemporaries, it's possible to appreciate a skilled individual for his/her competence regardless of the cause.



-------------
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey


Posted By: Voltage
Date Posted: 17 Mar 2013 at 05:02
He is second At 60 million of his own not counting those who fell in his amry due to poor leadership



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net