Thousands killed in 1950 by US's Korean ally

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Bullshit. the Americans were conquering them and taking their land, not attempting to deliberately kill off an entire harmless race

Read that out loud once more. And don't forget that the Americans felt proud that they hadn't 'mixed their blood' like Spaniards did with mesoamericans. Racial purity in both hemispheres.

[ThreeEyesOni]

Actually, they're a rather large difference. Americans (by and large) during that time were stupid asshats; though it should be noted that this was (unfortunately) not significantly moreso than a good portion of the rest of the world at the time. The Nazis, on the other hand, were willfully killing people on the basis that they saw them (for various reasons) as just plain not human; not because they wanted land (that was what the tanks were for) but simply to exterminate them. I'm not saying that there wern't similar tendancies during american colonization, but it certainly wasn't the norm. I'm also aware of a hell of a lot more "colonist/native american falls for native american/colonist and live happily ever after" than "ss officer falls for prison camp detainee" stories.

The same goes for the "racial purity". I could go into about a billion reasons as to why the invasions of the two continents differed in the ammount and methods of not so much "co-operating" but "blending" the way south america did as opposed to north america. Oh, and considerig the fact that most of the "racial blending" was the cause of out-and-out **** in south america, I'm not sure how much that falls into the plus or minus catagory.

I'll wholely agree with the horrible factors of US history (in fact, I believe I just did several posts back), but I think you're wholely wrong in some of the grouped catagorizations (or labeling these as "superior crimes") in comparison to other countries/cultures/time periods.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by ThreeEyesOni

I'll wholely agree with the horrible factors of US history (in fact, I believe I just did several posts back), but I think you're wholely wrong in some of the grouped catagorizations (or labeling these as "superior crimes") in comparison to other countries/cultures/time periods.

But if we're talking about the exact same time period in the exact same circumstances, then we go back to Stalin.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Read that out loud once more. And don't forget that the Americans felt proud that they hadn't 'mixed their blood' like Spaniards did with mesoamericans. Racial purity in both hemispheres.

Yep, and the Indians reacted in pretty much the same manner. One of the major policies of the Indians living under Tenskatawa and Tecumseh's leadership was never to "Mix their blood" with the white man's. They were told never to marry, never to trade, and never to wear white clothes or adopt white mannerisms. This is what happens sometimes when culture's clash. I don't like it anymore than you do, but it's a fact; and regardless the sentiment does not equal nazism.

On another note I'd just like to point out that when you simply quote and argue one paragraph of my statement; then you're ignoring my entire argument in it's proper context. If you disagree with my ideas argue with them, don't try to pick out one tiny piece and try to defeat that. If you re-read my post you'll find that those two statements that you took out of context from my last two posts were only a minor part of my whole thesis.

Indians were not meek victims lead to the slaughter by the evil American overlords, they were freaking badasses who ultimately lost a long series of wars hundreds of years ago. And it's intellectually dishonest to compare the number of deaths over 20 years in germany to all the deaths ever caused by america in our 200+ year history.

[KontanKarite]

Anyone else notice they're trying to sell native american ring tones?

Also, you can meet black singles in the banner ads.

[ThreeEyesOni]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

But if we're talking about the exact same time period in the exact same circumstances, then we go back to Stalin.

Wait, where did you take the jump from any of that to Stalin?

As for the topic of Stalin, I'd argue that even he's not the worst of his time. He took a huge and varied nation made up of mostly medieval-ages living conditions and jumped it up to what was likely the most finely tuned industrial state of the day. The handships and turmolt that is to expected with any major politica and economic upheval were compounded by the fact that Russia is perhaps one of the most inhospitable habited areas in the world. He was a terribly brutal individual, but even after he cranked that up in the 30s-40s there was still a sense of "professionalism" in it; he wasn't doing terrible things for the sake of doing terrible things, he was doing terrible things because they were the most coldly efficient methods available. A gulag is a terrible way to perform an ethnic cleansng or deal with public perception; it is a great way to get nigh-impossible labor dealt with while also doing something other than putting a bullet in somone's head.

Compare this to Hitler, who at roughly the same time period (during the later periods at that) who managed a much more limited industrial revolution (focused on military production much more so than russia, to almost the point of exclusivity) and pretty much existed on the public method of "let's kill everyone else and rule the world forever." A gulag shows (at the least) that you're interested in some kind of goal to achieve. A prison camp oven is plain and simple extermination. Not to mention that while Stalin attracted a crowd that was as scarrily cold as him, a great portion of the german leadership under him cannot be termed as anything other than "sadomasochistically insane."

So if you want to play "who's the biggest monster of 1900-1950", then I will quite easily go with Hitler and the Nazi party. Followed by Stalin, with fascist Italy in a distant 3rd. The USA is somewhere in the lower end of the top 10 at that point, arguably able to be pushed back in to the top 20. Dropping two nukes will get you on there, though helping to fight off Nazi Germany & Friends would count much more in our favor if we had jumped in a few years earlier.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by ThreeEyesOni

Wait, where did you take the jump from any of that to Stalin?

The point is that ethically, Hitler wasn't the worst human ever, and Germany wasn't the worst nation ever, and we can be comparable to it; and numerically, Hitler wasn't even close to Stalin and, as Corpsey mentioned, Mao.

[ThreeEyesOni]

The worst human ever? No, likely not. I'm pretty secure with putting him as the most evil individual I'm aware of in the past 100 years. I'm sure there are some that I'm not aware of (or anyone is aware of, more to the point), but shoving retarded people, crippled folks, jews, the elderly and a good smattering of other people into ovens and gas chambers makes someone pretty damned evil. Employing folks in positions of power who's common predelictions were allong the lines of making things out of human skin and using twins to cut apart an put back together does not help.

Then there is the matter that unlike Stalin, Hitler continues to influnce (the word "spawn" is what I use in my head there) many more sick little puppies to this day.

And everything is comparable, especially in ethics. But if you want to compare the United States of that period to Nazi Germany of the same, then we're not even in the same bloody ballpark. Top 10, top 20 sure, but America was just a competitor of the Olympics of Evil during that time while the Nazis made away with gold freakin medal.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Corpsey

Don't forget the Ho-chi-minh trail!

People are still dying daily from mines left over from the unlawful bombing of Laos during the Vietnam war.


Mao bet him last time I checked with having the worst famine in recorded history. I'll have to check my resources first.

ThreeEyesOni,

http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1...americans.html

That should suffice but I'm assuming Jil has half a dozen more resources up his sleeve that will be slightly clearer than that one.

Ah, thanks Corpsey for reminding us of old green teeth. Yes, the most corpulent mass murderer in history.

[CptSternn]

Wow, actual good discussion that hasn't devolved into name calling and childish attacks on the posters.

The reason I posted this was to point out this is another bit of American history that America has tried to conceal. That bothers me. Germany doesn't hide it's history. Neither does Russia. Well, I"m sure on some levels they do gloss over a bit of the truth, all societies do, but America seems to do it like its a job. They intentionally leave this bit out of text books and keep it off the news and out of the media.

That sort of thing bothers me. It bothers me because it creates a false image of the nation. I of course understand why they do it, but it doesn't make it right. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. If you hide the atrocities your people have been involved in and the root causes of those atrocities, you can bet that the next generation will repeat them again and again.

I think if American schools taught a bit more about the negative aspects of war and the effects on society as well as showed in detail the horrible ugly face of conflict that you would have less people out there supporting war of any sort.

You also might be able to curb violence in daily life as well. People that revel in war and conflict tend to live in societies with high violence rates.

[Corpsey]

Originally Posted by HumainePain

Ah, thanks Corpsey for reminding us of old green teeth. Yes, the most corpulent mass murderer in history.

I apologise if you thought it was meant towards you or your relatives who may have served in that war, it was more or less directed at anyone trying to vindicate American war efforts. It's a bit personal for me becausemy father has spent a significant part of his life trying to make de-mining operations around the world self-sufficient and a lot of them have been centred around that area of the world. He's currently getting ready to be deployed to some farming lands in Vietnam to make them safe for use once again.

Originally Posted by ThreeEyesOni

The worst human ever? No, likely not. I'm pretty secure with putting him as the most evil individual I'm aware of in the past 100 years. I'm sure there are some that I'm not aware of (or anyone is aware of, more to the point), but shoving retarded people, crippled folks, jews, the elderly and a good smattering of other people into ovens and gas chambers makes someone pretty damned evil. Employing folks in positions of power who's common predelictions were allong the lines of making things out of human skin and using twins to cut apart an put back together does not help.

Then there is the matter that unlike Stalin, Hitler continues to influnce (the word "spawn" is what I use in my head there) many more sick little puppies to this day.

And everything is comparable, especially in ethics. But if you want to compare the United States of that period to Nazi Germany of the same, then we're not even in the same bloody ballpark. Top 10, top 20 sure, but America was just a competitor of the Olympics of Evil during that time while the Nazis made away with gold freakin medal.

ThreeEyesOni, do you mean you've seen a larger bunch of wackos support him than those of others that we've and he's recieved more negative publicity than the others? That doesn't necessarily mean that he's worse than those who are less mentioned in the press or Time Magazine.

You haven't suggested it yet, but don't think that the German people are still anywhere near as negative as they once were. They changed a lot during the Hippie movement.

[ThreeEyesOni]

Originally Posted by Corpsey

ThreeEyesOni, do you mean you've seen a larger bunch of wackos support him than those of others that we've and he's recieved more negative publicity than the others? That doesn't necessarily mean that he's worse than those who are less mentioned in the press or Time Magazine.

You haven't suggested it yet, but don't think that the German people are still anywhere near as negative as they once were. They changed a lot during the Hippie movement.

Oh, I don't suggest or imply anything like that about the current German population. While there's a tiny slice of politicians I'm aware of who are from dangerously close to that side of the political system (I can think of 3, total), it's certainly not anything to comment about here. In fact, I can't remember if it was here or elsewhere, but to restate; you can't hold a country fully accountable for things done by the people over two generations ago. There's absolutely nothing that anyone of the currently existing generation could have done about it.

As for my saying that Hitler wins the prize, I'm taking the full context into consideration. Judgeing from the people he surrounded himself with, his motivations (or lack thereof at times) and methods, it's personally fairly cut and dried. Killing millions is bad enough. Designing what was essentially "hell on earth" to hold all the people you just don't like until you can find a new way to finish them off (or they just plain starve) goes a long way.

As for influence on moder day... how many nutters do you hear about who kill a family and then carve a hammer and scythe into thier forehead? How many people do you hear about reading Marxist theory and then going out to lynch someone? I dual-majored in political history, so I'm certainly aware of plenty of other horrible people. I'm just not aware of any who existed as such a full-rounded evil.