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.
Printable View
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Randarkmaan
P.S.
The Japanese were worse than the Germans in WWII.
You can buy some of mine. I've got a bunch but some of them won't learn any tricks. :juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.
Don't forget the Jews massacred in Europe by Crusaders!Quote:
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?
I stronly object. While I do consider the Japaneses to have been extremly brutal I don't think that they can rival Nazi-Germany.Quote:
P.S.
The Japanese were worse than the Germans in WWII.
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.
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.
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.
True indeed. Many horrific things have all but been forgotten by history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
Like other Genocides
- Armenians
- Hutu's and Tutsi's in Ruanda
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.
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.Quote:
Like other Genocides
- Armenians
- Hutu's and Tutsi's in Ruanda
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.
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
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.
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.
I would agree. Pol Pot and gang were probably the most bloody thirsty of all. I mean the numbers are just astounding.Quote:
Originally Posted by KARTLOS
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 .Quote:
I would agree. Pol Pot and gang were probably the most bloody thirsty of all.
I would call that bloodthirsty.
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.
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.
Good point WakizaI'mnotgoingtoattempttospelltherestofyournamebutIknowrealisethatthishastakenmuchmoretimethanact uallycheckingyournamethereforeIapologiseforthisincovenience.
the romans, they viped put several tribes and people.
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.
probably would have been quicker to copy and paste.Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishArmenian
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.
Yeah I agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
Are you a Jew? I am about 2% Jewish. Give me an air five!:2thumbsup: :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Yes, Baba the Wizard is Jewish.
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.