Most bloodthirsty history?

[Mooks]

Which empire, nation, city-state whatever in history was the most bloodthirsty and warlike? The most savage and frequent wars, best trained soldiers, and comebacks.

[Kagemusha]

Thats a very broad question,but if we talk about Bloodthirsty i would say Aztec Empire.Their Gods were truly hungry for blood.

[Gurkhal]

I agree that the Aztecs probably stand in a good position. But it also about how ones defines "bloodthirsty and warlike". The Mongols might also be a good candidate.

[Archayon]

The Mongols might also be a good candidate.

Didn't the Mongols spare anyone who surrendered without fighting?


Thats a very broad question,but if we talk about Bloodthirsty i would say Aztec Empire.Their Gods were truly hungry for blood.

Didn't the aztecs reject bow and arrow, because of the possibility of killing people in combat? (they wanted to take captives, for gaining honour, slavery and indeed ritually cutting their hearts out to keep the sun rising every day)


In my opinion it is difficult to "blame" a whole nation being bloodthirsty. Only persons or maybe some battles can be called bloodthirsty, at least somehow it's more fair than labelling a whole nation.


Some candidates:
- Stalin
- Napoleon
- emperor Ashoka (Maurya empire, North and Central India: one day he let so many be killed - like 100,000 - it shook himself, and he promptly converted to buddhism. At least, that's what the legend says)
(edit: mind he lived during the 4th century BC!)


:idea2:

Arch

[Innocentius]

Not very bloodthirsty really, but the British Empire and most other colonial nations have been pretty cruel and warlike through the ages.

[Archayon]

Leopold II Von Saxen-Coburg, king of Belgium, during the 19th century in Congo...


you should read "red rubber"


(i keep remembering those mountains of piled black hands that are cut off ... :dizzy2: )



:idea2:

Arch

[Conqueror]

Timur & Friends. :skull:

[Mooks]

Byzatines were pretty bad. Granted, they had a stable goverment and generally peace within their borders. They had non-stop wars all thoughout their history.

[Randarkmaan]

The Assyrians were quite nasty... The interesting thing with them is that all the horrible things they did were mostly what they themselves told/wrote about, not what their enemies or other states wrote about them.

One account details the capture of a town, and describes it roughly like this: After defeating them we slaughtered the people like lambs, those we did not kill we captured and from amongst them we selected some whose cheeks we pierced, bound a rope through and made guard dogs for the others. One king boasts this: "Many of my enemies I burned, others I let live. On some of them I cut of hands or arms, on others noses or ears, and on many I poked their eyes out"
Their laws were also brutal, the most common death punishment was impalement (like Vlad Tepes did) others were skinned alive.
An example of a law: If a woman commits adultery and her husband discovers it he has the right to kill her and the one which she has commited adultery with or if he prefers he can cut off the nose of the woman and castrate the man and mutilate (right word?) his face. And so on and so on. When one comes to think of it most people throughout history are terribly cruel to eachother at times or in certain situations, but the Assyrians were proud of it.
It's also a bit interesting to note that the first state with a largely professional army was such a cruel one.

[Watchman]

The more warlike "barbarian" cultures of Antiquity certainly tried very hard as well. The Celts had a major fixation on severed heads, some Germanic tribes didn't allow young men to cut their hair before they'd killed a foeman in battle, and both regarded raiding and similar small-scale warring as a perfectly normal pasttime if not an outright necessity. Had some pretty interesting religious ideas concerning sacrifices as well, if contemporaries are to be believed.

And that's just the ones we know a bit of. Not a few others all around the world at roughly comparable stages of cultural and technical developement seem to have been just as pugnacious.

The various steppe nomads were also notoriously warlike - one reason they made so good soldiers was the way they got so much practical combat experience in their endless little skirmishes and raids against their neighbours, both settled and nomadic. Most are also infamous for regarding sedentary populaces as barely human and treating them accordingly; the amount of sheer devastation they could inflict was something else, although the Mongols at their more ruthless phases (some parts of Khwarimzam apparently never recovered demographically) and Timur & His Hitmen were probably the worst.

The Assyrians are another strong contender; not that warfare around those times tended to be very restricted anyway, but they made a point of being blood-curdling. Romans ought to rank fairly highly as well actually - once they got going they really took a liking to this whole conquering business, were notoriously rapacious victors and big believers in messy cautionary examples.

The Aztecs were an essentially military state with a somewhat peculiar religion that pretty much obliged them to constantly capture people for sacrifice - although besides the industrial-scale human sacrifice thingy they AFAIK weren't actually all that bloodthirsty. After all, they were after prisoners, subjects and tribute, not burning ruins stacked with corpses. Some of the other South American high cultures may have been a whole lot more ruthless warmongers in their heyday.

[Ibn Munqidh]

The European settlers on the east coast of the "new world". They did wipe out an entire nation didnt they?

[Watchman]

That'd really be just the ones in the North, and only after their little Civil War. The Iberians didn't really intend to wipe out the South and Central American natives - they needed them to work after all - but with all the new diseases running rampant, well...

[Innocentius]

Just realised no one (no, not me either) mentioned Nazi-Germany yet. Can't think of a more "bloodthirsty and warlike" nation.

[Watchman]

Well, they were kinda brief y'see.

[Julian the apostate]

are we talking Machievellian Brutality or like completely unessessary and brutal killings.
I would say King Ferdinand and Isabella, Hitler and Stalin (Katyn Forest)Tamurlame, I forgot who lead the crusade that took Jeruselem but i'll pin him 2. Albiet sometimes its not the leader but the troops like in most post-siege sackings from the begining of time right up to 1850-1900.

I just finished a book on THe MOngels, If you fought they would kill all of the elites typically and spare the peasants. It seemed a good system as opposed to the typical oppisite.

[Mooks]

are we talking Machievellian Brutality or like completely unessessary and brutal killings.
I would say King Ferdinand and Isabella, Hitler and Stalin (Katyn Forest)Tamurlame, I forgot who lead the crusade that took Jeruselem but i'll pin him 2. Albiet sometimes its not the leader but the troops like in most post-siege sackings from the begining of time right up to 1850-1900.

I just finished a book on THe MOngels, If you fought they would kill all of the elites typically and spare the peasants. It seemed a good system as opposed to the typical oppisite.


Who was the first lord of jerusleam....ummm *thinks deeply*

King baldwin comes to my mind. He wasnt really a king, heres a quote that Im doing from memory "Do not call me king where the king of kings was born. Nor shall I wear a crown where my savior wore one of thorns" Pious guy , and a lucky one at that (The fact that the crusades captured anything was pure luck).

One modern nation that I think excelled at war were the germans. They were said to be cool-headed and treated war as a business, not a passion. They almost defeated 3 nations in ww1 almost by themselves and defeated France in 1 week alone in ww2.

[Tribesman]

They almost defeated 3 nations in ww1 almost by themselves and defeated France in 1 week alone in ww2.

That appears to be a rather strange view of history there .:inquisitive:

[ajaxfetish]

Wasn't Godfrey given the head position in Jerusalem before it passed to Baldwin? Anyway, it'd be hard to identify any one person as the man 'who lead the crusade that took Jerusalem' as leadership was so decentralized in the Christian army.

Ajax

[cegorach]

I would add Russia too. The state was PERMANENTLY at war - the reason was that it was always hungry for goods necessary to keep rewarding Tzar's servants.
One war fuelled another and the wars stopped the country was in crisis.:book:

[Mooks]

That appears to be a rather strange view of history there .:inquisitive:

Maybe so. But they pretty much kicked ass.

And im probaly wrong about the first king of jerusleam. Wait wait, Godfrey of Bullion. Thats his name.

[Randarkmaan]

Wasn't Godfrey given the head position in Jerusalem before it passed to Baldwin? Anyway, it'd be hard to identify any one person as the man 'who lead the crusade that took Jerusalem' as leadership was so decentralized in the Christian army.

Right, also the massarcre of Jerusalem wasn't exactly planned but they didn't try to prevent it either. In some ways it is "understandable" why the crusaders did what they did. They were in a sort of religious ecstasy, maybe they even believed that this was the end-times and that the capture of this city would lead to it or something, also it was widely believed that you gained remission for all your sins by participating and by killing the so-called infidel. And last the garrison at Jerusalem had defended it self pretty well, for a bout four months I think (it may have been less, but I think it's something like that) and had constantly battered the crusaders with catapults, ballistas arrows, rocks, naphta grenades and all that hell. Not to mention that before reaching the city they had been harassed by Turks and been dieing of thirst and hunger and probably at some points eaten eachother. So when they got inside the city many had probably lost a lot of their comrades maybe even their relatives and were very keen to discharge their anger at everyone in sight. Also some crusaders, mostly Southern Europeans, tried to take prisoners but this did mostly not work out very well.

[King Henry V]

Byzatines were pretty bad. Granted, they had a stable goverment and generally peace within their borders. They had non-stop wars all thoughout their history.
However, most of those were defensive; one of the Empire's greatest strengths, her place as the crossroads between East and West was also one of her greatest weaknesses in that she always had to wage war against some state on either of her borders.

[Justiciar]

A fair few post-Colonial African nations could be said to have bloodthirsty histories, however short, and not (in some cases, at least) necessarily their fault.

[Cangrande]

For sheer brutality it has to be the Germans of the early and mid-20th century.

The Crusaders might be worth a dis-honourable mention too.

The Assyrians? I think the reason they wrote these horror stories was to cow their enemies and put-off potential rebellion.

The north American colonists of the C19 who carried-out genocide on the indigenous population.

Finally, all the European colonial powers...except the Brits, who were nice and cuddly really :laugh4:

[King Henry V]

All nations have had a bloodthirsty history, heck, even Switzerland was one of the most feared powers in Europe during the XVth century until the battle of Marignano.

[Innocentius]

Finally, all the European colonial powers...except the Brits, who were nice and cuddly really :laugh4:

You got a point there...It's hard to imagine some sophisticated, tea-drinking, cricket-loving, bowler hat-wearing, pipe-smoking, moustached men going out to enslave half a continent.

[Fisherking]

I don't know, the encounter with history was a bit brief but the most disgusting culture I have read of…and that is only one account…is the Tunica Indians somewhere along the southern Mississippi River. It seems like they sacrificed captives like the Aztecs but also to move up in social standing they ritually sacrificed their own children. Or so the story went...

[Marquis of Roland]

Right, also the massarcre of Jerusalem wasn't exactly planned but they didn't try to prevent it either. In some ways it is "understandable" why the crusaders did what they did. They were in a sort of religious ecstasy, maybe they even believed that this was the end-times and that the capture of this city would lead to it or something, also it was widely believed that you gained remission for all your sins by participating and by killing the so-called infidel.

Wait, you're saying its "understandable" what the crusaders did because they were in a religious fervor? Does this make them good people that had an acceptable lapse into bad behavior because their religion said it was ok? If this was the case do we blame the Papacy for turning innocent people into killers?

And even if the Pope authorized killing infidels as a path to heaven, was it understandable for the crusaders to kill all the original Christians in Jerusalem too? They also massacred the population of Antioch when they took that. Since it was the Pope who insinuated the idea, we should probably nominate the papacy as a historically bloodthirsty faction. After all, it did authorize all of the crusades and the Spanish inquisition too (the ironic thing about the crusaders were that the more time they spent around the muslims, the more they saw them as actual people instead of "infidels").

I guess what I'm saying is even if you think you have a good reason to be bloodthirsty doesn't mean you're excused from being accused of committing atrocities or from being called a bloodthirsty faction.

[Randarkmaan]

I didn't say what the crusaders did was justified I said it is possible to understand why they did what they did. And I should probably have written "infidel" rather than so-called infidels maybe?
was it understandable for the crusaders to kill all the original Christians in Jerusalem too? Yes, first of all they probably couldn't tell them apart, and second I think it's reasonable to assume that the Crusaders just unleashed their (religious, maybe) fury on anyone in sight when they got inside the city, however understandable it does not the lessen the tragedy of the event and I'm not at all saying it was justified. You should not always just feel sad for the ones murdered, but for the murderers as well.

[Sarmatian]

except the Brits, who were nice and cuddly really :laugh4:

I've always wanted to get one for a pet but mom and dad didn't allow me :laugh4:

[Kralizec]

Bartix!

Seriously though, WW2 Japan. I'm not sure if I'd put them on equal level with the Nazis, but they certainly deserve an honourable mention.

[Marquis of Roland]

I didn't say what the crusaders did was justified I said it is possible to understand why they did what they did. And I should probably have written "infidel" rather than so-called infidels maybe? Yes, first of all they probably couldn't tell them apart, and second I think it's reasonable to assume that the Crusaders just unleashed their (religious, maybe) fury on anyone in sight when they got inside the city, however understandable it does not the lessen the tragedy of the event and I'm not at all saying it was justified. You should not always just feel sad for the ones murdered, but for the murderers as well.

Ok, I see what you were getting at now, before when you said "understandable" I got the impression you were saying it was justified in some way. Thanks for clearing that up. :yes:

P.S.
The Japanese were worse than the Germans in WWII.

[Innocentius]

I've always wanted to get one for a pet but mom and dad didn't allow me :laugh4:

You can buy some of mine. I've got a bunch but some of them won't learn any tricks. :juggle2:

[Justiciar]

Please, sponsor a Briton. Britons like King Ragnar. His owners abandoned him for his far-right outbursts. He was so grief-stricken that he refused to drink tea for a whole year, and nearly starved. Or perhaps BKS. He was disowned and left to die for being a hippy. He became so ill-groomed that his hair grew to arse-lenth. Duke Malcolm was strangled and beaten, because he was just too Scottish. But you can help stop the cruelty. For just €2 a month, you can bring sanctuary to such pitiful ex-Imperial islandfolk. Your sponsored Briton will write to you weekly, and you can come and visit whenever you wish. Just €2 a month. Thank you.

[Cangrande]

If this was the case do we blame the Papacy for turning innocent people into killers?

And even if the Pope authorized killing infidels as a path to heaven, was it understandable for the crusaders to kill all the original Christians in Jerusalem too?


Don't forget the Jews massacred in Europe by Crusaders!

[Gurkhal]

P.S.
The Japanese were worse than the Germans in WWII.

I stronly object. While I do consider the Japaneses to have been extremly brutal I don't think that they can rival Nazi-Germany.

[King Henry V]

Oh really?
"It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians [i.e. Soviet citizens]; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers — and, in the case of the Japanese, as [forced] prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4 % chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30 %."- Chalmers Johnson

While Johnson says that there is not point in comparing, I believe Japan was the worse perpetrator of atrocities. While Nazi Germany has probably the edge on the numerical count, the intensity in brutality of the Japanese far outdid the Nazis, IMO. The activities of Unit 731 (vivisection without anesthesia, giving sweets laced with anthrax to the local children, freezing of prisoners limbs proceeded by amputation, testing of flame throwers on humans etc.) almost makes Joseph Mengele look like a caring doctor. Furthermore, for the Germans, the emphasis was more on killing people in the quicest and most efficient manner. I have not heard of accounts comparable to the Rape of Nanking, where the population was systematically raped, tortured and murdered.

[Gurkhal]

I still disagree. To the Sovjets and Jews killed one also have to include Poles, people from the Balkans, Western Europe and the like killed. Secondary, the pertentage of prisoners survival chance is not by far a good teller. Western prisoners were most often treated better by the Germans than by the Japanese. But you don't acount on the millions of Sovjet PoW who were killed either outright, or most often put into prison camps with the sole purpose of dying. Or indeed just shipped off to a death camp right away.

Secondly, while I could recognise that the Germans and Japanese may have had much different brutality metods, I don't see who machine-like efficency in killing vast numbers without more thought being put into it than, say scrap cars would be more human than passionated violence. But were ruthless and brutal in different ways, but if I would say who I think was the scariest would be the Germans still. Note that I do not in any way feel, or say that the Japanese war crimes were not horrible and portrays humanity's near unlimited potential for evil (using a "poetic language"). All in my own opinion. Of course.

[Bijo]

Also take into consideration that the Holocaust of Jews received more attention throughout the time (media, Hollywood, etc.), if I'm not mistaken. It still receives much attention today even if many brutalities have happened throughout history.

[Gurkhal]

True indeed. Many horrific things have all but been forgotten by history.

[Archayon]

Also take into consideration that the Holocaust of Jews received more attention throughout the time (media, Hollywood, etc.), if I'm not mistaken. It still receives much attention today even if many brutalities have happened throughout history.



Like other Genocides

- Armenians
- Hutu's and Tutsi's in Ruanda

[Incongruous]

The Qin?
Or the Romans. Possibly millions died at their hands.

I would on the basis of most people killed, go for the perhaps the Russian Empire, it was fueld by carrion.

[Randarkmaan]

Like other Genocides

- Armenians
- Hutu's and Tutsi's in Ruanda

The second one I can agree with as being forgotten, but the first is not forgotten at all, it's brought up all the time to alienate/demonize Turks and was very probably the results of war (and a sort of civil war/chaos in the Ottoman Empire), famine and disease rather than a state-organized effort to rid the country of Armenians, one indicator of this is that the Armenians outside the immediate war-zone survived the war. But I strongly agree that there are way too many massacres, genocides and wars that are simply ignored, most notably in Africa there have been numerous that most don't even know anything about.

[CaesarAugustus]

I would aslo say Nazi Germany, the concentation camps alone killed more than 10 million people (or something like that).

However, the Mongols come in a close second. Although Genghis Khan (and subsequent khans) did spare any cities who surrendered immediately, he was also known to accept bribes to leave a city alone and then sack, rape and pillage anyway.

At one point, if I'm not mistaken, Genghis Khan was actually considering the depopulation of northern China, to provide grazing land for his horses. He didn't because their tax money was too valuable. Still, thinking about killing hundereds of thousands of men, women and children for grazing land seems just a little bloodthirsty.

[KARTLOS]

the khmer rouge were prity shocking. i think they killed something like 1/3 of the population of their own country in just 4 yrs

[IrishArmenian]

Call me controversial, but I think past Popes have been quite bloodthirsty, especially for men of God.
Timur the Lame and his band of miscreants were pretty bad.
Soviet Union had brutal methods to solving simple problems.
Many Roman leaders were cruel.

[Derfasciti]

Sparta perhaps? Their entire society was based on warfare.

The Soviet union by far has killed more, directly and indirectly, than any other nation I believe. A deliberate famine killed 5,000,000 peasants alone.

[King of Atlantis]

the khmer rouge were prity shocking. i think they killed something like 1/3 of the population of their own country in just 4 yrs

I would agree. Pol Pot and gang were probably the most bloody thirsty of all. I mean the numbers are just astounding.

[Tribesman]

I would agree. Pol Pot and gang were probably the most bloody thirsty of all.
They were not really that bloodthirsty , it is just that they had a strange idea about fertilising the soil for their agricultural revolution by using peoples blood .

[IrishArmenian]

I would call that bloodthirsty.

[Lorenzo_H]

All known Bronze age civilizations sacrificed humans so I guess they are all candidates. The Mongols were pretty warmongering.

Plus a lot of Regimes were really bad, like Stalin and Mao Tse Tsung.

[Samurai Waki]

People are also forgetting perhaps one of the largest Genocidal Efforts ever concieved in history, and that was the good ol' US of A's atrocities against the Native Americans. What makes the USAs genocide different and perhaps more menacing was that they would give the Natives something and then slowly take it back. Hope had been utterly crushed, and although Jews, Tutsi's, and so forth still live on today, there were many Native American cultures that just ceased to exist, wether by integration into a larger tribal confederation (think Sitting Bull and the Sioux) or just outright Massacre.

[IrishArmenian]

Good point WakizaI'mnotgoingtoattempttospelltherestofyournamebutIknowrealisethatthishastakenmuchmoretimethanact uallycheckingyournamethereforeIapologiseforthisincovenience.

[Sirex1]

the romans, they viped put several tribes and people.

[nokhor]

for me the most bloodthirsty have been 2 of the more powerful ancient civilizations. i don't include the modern civilized mass murderers of the 20th century who killed in the tens of millions but lasted roughly a century or less. and i don't include the illiterate barbarians of history primarily because you could argue they didn't know any better. but the expansionistic wholesale slaughter by the qin and the republican romans. the qin not only for diverting their whole culture to military expansion with campaigns and battles involving hundreds of thousands of troops but their legalistic philosophy of death for the silliest of infractions like lateness. and their complete obliteration of their enemies, not just militarily and politically but also historically by destroying the written records of thier foes and almost successfully rewriting history as if nothing existed before them. they were a totalitarian state in every sense of the word with the only exception being their being created 2000 years too early and not having the technology to maintain it.

it only dawned on me within the last couple of years that the romans probably killed more than the mongols. and i'm not just talking about their expansionistic slaughter of opposing city states, after all that was the norm of their day. i'm talking about a roman governer in spain ordering the conquered spanish tribes to assemble at a certain date, and when they complied he massacred them just for their booty. i'm talking about selucia revolting from the parthians and peacefully surrendering to the emperor trajan, but the romans sacking and slaughtering it just the same. i'm talking about the romans kicking their enemies when they were down and were no longer a serious military threat, like the sack of capua, corinth, and carthage, the disembowelment of macedonia in 4 little kingdoms that were forbidden even commercial ties with each other. i'm talking of caesar creating his own little gallic civil war by using the romanized gauls of cisalpine and transalpine gaul as legions for his conquest and depopulation of the gaul proper. and thats not even counting the barbarian hordes of several hundred thousand that would pop up several decades on so on the fringes of the empire which would commence another bloodletting until a few thousand survivors would be brought to the empire as slaves. and of course the people the romans killed most of all were other romans in their incessant bloody civil wars over who would get to rule their state.

[Lorenzo_H]

Good point WakizaI'mnotgoingtoattempttospelltherestofyournamebutIknowrealisethatthishastakenmuchmoretimethanact uallycheckingyournamethereforeIapologiseforthisincovenience.
probably would have been quicker to copy and paste.

[The Wizard]

Japan has a pretty bloody (recent) history.

Israel and the Jewish people at large, as well. Much bloodletting and much violence has followed my people over the past millennia.

[Lorenzo_H]

I would agree. Pol Pot and gang were probably the most bloody thirsty of all. I mean the numbers are just astounding.
Yeah I agree with this.


Israel and the Jewish people at large, as well. Much bloodletting and much violence has followed my people over the past millennia.

Are you a Jew? I am about 2% Jewish. Give me an air five!:2thumbsup: :yes:

[IrishArmenian]

Yes, Baba the Wizard is Jewish.

[Gurkhal]

I don't think that the Jews were ever really at the front among bloodthirsty nations. Sure they did some pretty nasty stuff. But never really out of the norm and kept basicly (I think) on the same level as their neighbours.

[The Wizard]

I'm mostly talking about the bloodiness of Jewish history. For such a small people, we caused a whole lot of violence (whether it was our fault or not isn't very interesting for this thread).


Are you a Jew? I am about 2% Jewish. Give me an air five!

Looking at your sig -- you're everything! ~;p

Also, perhaps, relatively, Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge were the bloodiest ever... a fact oft forgotten in the West. But in sheer numbers (as well as in percentages), I'd say the Big Three (ol' Adolf, Stalin and Mao) are even worse.

[Gurkhal]

I understood it as the people who had been responsible for most bloodshed. Hence the word "bloodthirsty" in the title.

[Fisherking]

Bartix!

Seriously though, WW2 Japan. I'm not sure if I'd put them on equal level with the Nazis, but they certainly deserve an honourable mention.

For blood lust I go with the Japanese.

The Germans did systematic killing of selected groups and were practicing genocide but not shear bloodlust.
Stalin killed 20,000,000 of his own people to keep himself in power.

The Japanese did it from shear contempt of life and contempt for their enemies. What was done in China and all the areas they occupied was just shear brutality and served little if any purpose. They were much more brutal than the Nazis and were not very selective in how they practiced it. I have never seen documented evidence of German civilians eating captured enemies while the military looked on or took part in it as I have with the Japanese.
I have not seen reports of the type of things which went unchecked in Nan-king being permitted or sanctioned by other nations in that war.

Evil is evil…tell me who has more blood lust.

[Veho Nex]

Admiral Karl Donitz started one of the biggest slaughters in history. Most of what he did was unknown unless you lived on the east coast during ww2 especially around cape hateras

[The Wizard]

Actually, we here in the Netherlands do know. By far the largest part of our war dead consists of merchant sailors.

[Kralizec]

Admiral Karl Donitz started one of the biggest slaughters in history. Most of what he did was unknown unless you lived on the east coast during ww2 especially around cape hateras

To be fair, it has to be mentioned that Donitz didn't do anything that the Allies didn't.

[Veho Nex]

To be fair, it has to be mentioned that Donitz didn't do anything that the Allies didn't.


i see what did we do? i havnt read about that.

but doenitz started a massive slaughter of enemy and neutral alike during pakenschlaug

[IrishArmenian]

Yes, they belong with the rest of the way-far-back-reaching ethnicities.

[Kralizec]

i see what did we do? i havnt read about that.

but doenitz started a massive slaughter of enemy and neutral alike during pakenschlaug

Unrestricted submarine warfare. For the US, that would be in the pacific.

[Veho Nex]

ohhh yeh but didnt the japs also handg around mexico unless im mistaken?

[Fisherking]

If it is just about numbers then no one is going to top ol' Joe Stalin now are they? You not only have his purges and gulags and his half of sending men into battle with a couple of wars but you have the killing of the Polish prisoners that he tried to pin on the Germans…as if they needed to be bloodier…and offing his wife to boot.

[Randarkmaan]

and offing his wife to boot.

I don't think he did that, from what I've read it was a suicide, which sounds likely because she effectively had a mental breakdown; first Stalin loved her, then he got drunk and flirted with some other women, then he thought her irritating and stupid and so on and so on. Ofcourse I may have thought of the wrong wife...
But there's no denying that he was a cruel bastard.

Still I think that some of the most sick stuff I've read about is what the Assyrians did.

[Veho Nex]

Hmmm nifty well doing some studying there are bloodier wars in history and I'm sure there are many more to come