Talk Elections

Obviously most people's first instinct would be to say "Nazi Germany". But the more I think of it, the more accurate this list seems to be:

10. The Ottoman Empire
9. The Spanish Empire
8. The People's Republic of China
7. Confederate States of America
6. Belgium (under Leopold II)
5. Democratic Kampuchea
4. Soviet Union
3. Imperial Japan
2. Nazi Germany
1. The British Empire

The criteria were:

• Body counts, of course, but not just the numbers. The percentage of a population killed and the reasons for doing so also counted
• The reasons for founding the particular entity; this probably boosted the CSA, for instance.
• Wars of aggression, including their scale and motivation.

A nation is neither good nor evil. It's really the regime and the rulers which matter.

Democratic Kampuchea is clearly number one.  When you kill so many people even other evil nations turn against you, you realize that even evil has standards.

As for the CSA, that shouldn't even make the top fifty.  Slavery isn't the worst of evils, and the form of slavery practiced in the CSA wasn't  the worst, tho it wasn't the best either.

Okay, regimes.

The CSA was on there entirely because it was formed for the sole purpose of keeping slavery alive.

And a bit surprised at the lack of a sh**tstorm over my #1 choice. :P

I'd write something abusive, but this thread is so mind-numbingly stupid that there's really no point. Please delete yourself from the internets.

Ah, I knew I'd piss off a Brit.

Where's the Ottoman Empire?

This is a terrible thread.

No, it is an evil thread.

Dammit.

North Korea? 2000-Present United States?

I'd put Mao's China up high.

This thread is bad and you should feel at least as bad as John Wayne Bobbitt.

You didn't piss off a Brit, you pissed off Al.

Uzbekistan. They boil people. Then the U.S. pays them lots of money, the U.S. can use their airport to invade other nations ending in -stan, and they can buy larger man-boiling pots. Wonderful cycle.

The Assyrian Empire.

THEY ATE BABIES!

Freedom empire.

I'm completely baffled how anyone could say the British Empire was worse than Nazi Germany, especially using the criteria you used. If I were a cynic I would say you just did that to try and get an enraged reaction, because I can't see any other plausible reason.

()

500 years of conquest and slaughter>6 years of conquest and slaughter.

Who invented concentration camps? The British, in their conquest of the Boer states.

Okay, hell, I'll bite.

First, the British didn't invent concentration camps. Before the Boer war, the Russians used similar strategies to deal with Polish rebels; the Spanish used them in Cuba; the United States used comparable camps when relocating Native Americans and definitely used outright concentration camps in the occupation of the Philippines.

However, the comparison of these concentration camps (though they were atrocious in themselves) to Nazi Germany's nation-wide system of facilities explicitly intended to conduct murder on a massive scale is simply disingenuous.

Furthermore, while British colonial policies were pretty bad in a lot of ways, I don't see how it compares in the slightest to Nazi Germany's utterly evil nature. Come on: blatant genocide, horrible oppression, ambitions to eventually enslave or murder every single person who wasn't a regime-supporting Aryan. Sure, the British Empire has some bad marks, but what did they do that is anywhere nearly as bad as that?

Not that I want to get involved in this thread in anything other than a sneering capacity, but note that the use of 'concentration camps' in the context of the Holocaust is a euphemism. And a disgusting one, actually.

Obviously not a fan of the British Empire but this is pretty laughable. While facets and some actions were evil by today's standards and a smaller number by the standards of the time, a lot of the "evil" results came from neglect, disease, commercial exploitation, and a sharply crafted divide and conquer strategy that made the subjected complicit in their own demise. There were also quite a few positive develops from the Empire. What did the Nazis do good at all, the Autobahn?

Comrade Al Sibboleth, I know you do want to stick around the muck here, but your mention of the euphemism made me curious.  Growing up in history class I never remember hearing about extermination camps or really even death camps. It was only taught as concentration camps. Any idea when these more accurate (for Auschwitz, Sobibor etc) terms gained traction. 

The State.  Not really important what it chooses to call itself.

If nothing else, the fact that the British Empire nearly singlehandedly killed the transoceanic slave trade in the early 19th century should keep them off the top stop.

I agree entirely

Some thoughts:

- North Korea belongs on the list, given that it basically is Oceania from 1984 in real life.

- Even the Stalin-era USSR wasn't as bad as Democratic Kampuchea

- The British Empire may have been evil, but it was nowhere near as evil as the Nazis, and the implication that you would have rooted for the Nazis in the North African theatre of World War II but for the Soviets on the Eastern front would be disturbing if it weren't so mind-boggling that I can't quite wrap my head around it. The British Empire really wasn't any worse than any of the other contemporary European colonial empires, and they were actually better in some respects. What makes it so much worse than Belgium under Leopold II, for instance? For that matter, what makes it worse than the Roman Empire? The Romans certainly weren't above committing genocide against troublesome conquered peoples, and gave us the phrase, "make a desert and call it peace."

Haha, it's almost as if this was posted on Yahoo Answers.

Any country educating its young citizens to be so dumbly obscene as to pose such a dumbly simplistic question would have to figure fairly high on the list.

The timespan isn't really relevant to how evil something is, although there wasn't an empire in 1460, and no one is denying that the British Empire did some evil things but as others have said the concentration camps in South Africa were not really similar to Auschwitz, and were certainly far less evil.

But actually looking at your criteria:

Body Counts- Well Nazi Germany started World War 2 which killed tens of millions and impoverished many more, while nothing the British Empire did came close.
Motivation- This isn't even worth explaining.
Reasoning- Well the British Empire (I'm not entirely sure, so correct me if I'm wrong) was founded to gain international dominance and to make money, whereas Nazi Germany happened because Hitler wanted a German empire. I'd say this one is less clear cut, as both seem to have happened due to a desire for more power, but then I'd also say that the reason for the founding of a regime aren't particularly important in comparison to the actual actions of said regime.
Wars of Aggression- World War 2. That is all.

Isn't it obvious which regime is worse?

Let me put it this way Snowstalker:

British Empire: Well, there were a couple of British Empires (according to wikipedia) so I'm going to assume that you're talking about the concept of British Empire as a whole going all the way back to 1497 when the Brits first started looking for colonies outside of the Plantations of Ireland or whatever else land the Brits held.
In that case, sure the British were evil, but that is to be expected from an empire that existed for nearly 430 years.

Nazi Germany: Existed for 12 years and was defined by acts of pure evil and the supermajority of it's death counts came in the last SIX YEARS of it's existence.

Not justifying the British Empire or saying I believed it was good, but comparatively speaking Nazi Germany was much eviler in nature.  But, I'm more of the mind of Ernest and others here who put Democratic Kampuchea as the most evil nation on here.  You can't really measure "evil" in body counts, but more in the whole intent and proportionate scale of it.  Before anybody brings up the death count argument, keep in mind that the Khmer Rogue ruled for four years in Cambodia, FOUR F***ING YEARS MAN.  And look at what they accomplished!  Even the goddamn Vietnam government was outraged at Pol Pot enough to invade the country.  Yes, you read that right one evil regime invaded another evil regime to SAVE PEOPLE.

The 1979 Invasion of Cambodia is the definition of the Trope  "Even Evil Has Standards" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasStandards).

Again, no love/hate for current USA?

*Puts on nationalist hat* The British Empire couldn't have existed in 1497 because there was no Britain, it would have just been England *Takes off nationalist hat*

But I'd probably agree as well that as hard as it is to quantify evil, whatever definition it is Democratic Kampuchea is right up there.

Oh it could probably be included on here, if we are willing to put the British Empire down as evil.  I mean given that our nation has the same motivations as they did.

Not entirely sure, but probably started in the 1980s when you had all the various debates on the subject (some of which were... er... rather more edifying than others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historikerstreit)) many of which spilled over into the 90s. A lot of re-examining of the morality of old assumptions went on afterwards (even if not as a direct consequence).

A euphemism started by the nazis themselves IIRC. Would need to look that up. Thing is of course that the nazis had had "real" (if on the vicious side even by the standards of the term) concentration camps of their own before they had the extermination places. And Auschwitz, of course, owes its particular fame to the fact that it, and it alone, was both. Meaning it has incredible numbers of dead and considerable numbers of eyewitness survivors. Few eyewitness accounts of Belzec...