If you had to choose most evil regime of the 20th century?

Question

I know it is hard to define “evil”, so I will put it this way:

You find a jinni, and he gives you a special weapon, which would allow you to go back in time and magically end one of the following regimes.
Base your decisions ONLY ON MORAL reasons, not strategic or political.
Which one would you want to take out from the list:

Nazi Germany / Hitler
The Khmer Rouge / Pol Pot
USSR / Stalin
Afghanistan / Taliban
The DPRK (North Korea) / the Kim family
PRC / Mao
Iraq / Saddam
Imperial Japan / Emperor Hirohito

And why?

Ya, I know it is a silly question, but have fun with it.

HothmanMember since: June 20, 2007
Total points: 886 (Level 2)
Points earned this week: 209
5% Best answer
324 answers
Hothman - that is silly, try to be a bit real about it, thanks
Jerry Falwell has never had a "regime" or a systematic genocide.

oh, that was odd, I just cut pasted your name for that (I'm lazy) and all that came up) sorry about that.

Interesting answers.
I wonder why nobody picked
Imperial Japan / Emperor Hirohito


that was my choice

Answer 1

My machine only goes back a month, but I just got him for ya, Hothman

You know you are going to get "Theocracy Wannabe / Bush" so why leave it out?

Answer 2

That's a tough one - there are lots of different morals. Was Hitler worse because he didn't even have a single one of the right reasons for his genocide, or Stalin (yes, communism was bad - but in theory it's not) because he killed more?

I think maybe it's easier to rule regimes out - not Afghanistan or Iraq, they weren't brilliant but there are much worse. Sadam was a petty dictator with some pretty black marks against his name (i.e. gassing the kurds) - and the Taliban are also very opressive, but not a whole lot more so than kingdoms in Europe in the middle ages. Not Mao's China or North Korea - again, they weren't nearly as bad as the others.

It's definately a toss up between the Khmer Rouge, Nazism and Stalinism, because of the sheer number of people that were killed.

But based on pure brutality/morality I think Pol Pot - he murdered people because they wore glasses, let alone were from the wrong racial group.

Answer 3

Well, since I'd then know it was 'over', what would I have to lose? I'm saved, and I never have thought that getting up each day to shop, get in traffic, pay bills, struggle to pay rent or mortgages, hear about crime, be on the watch constantly for fraud, crime, pushy people....never DID find that 'paradise'. No, paradise is where there would be no sin, no misery, no one en-FORCING anyone, yet a place where love and caring reigned. So, back to your question. Since I'd know it was over, and I now could speak up and say whatever I felt like, I would find this very freeing. I've heard it said that people are very serious....on death row. So, it would be death row. I would then have no TROUBLE at all witnessing to others, looking to see the miracles that God would bring through me. When it's over, and we know this, something snaps, all those fears, and polite ways, gone. You know the martyrs sang hymns while being burnt to the stake, don't you. And apparently they didn't sound scared and had lovely voices. As a Christian, you see, we're already DEAD to self, so what's a little more then?

Answer 4

I'm tied between The Khmer Rouge / Pol Pot and Afghanistan / Taliban and Nazi Germany / Hitler.

I'd say Pol Pot is worse than Hitler for the simple fact that he is still killing people due to the landmines that are still in Cambodia. Hitler was bad but some of actual tortures, like DR Mangler, were worse.
The Taliban misinterprets religion but they feel what they are doing is moral and they aren't trying to exterminate a group(s) of people.

I'll say The Khmer Rouge / Pol Pot

Answer 5

If the question is about which regime was responsible for the largest total amount of evil, maybe Mao's PRC, because I think he killed the most people.

But if the question is about which regime had the highest concentration of evil, then it might be Saddam's Iraq. Mao was semi-well intentioned. A lot of the deaths under Mao were a result of mismanagement of the food supply, which caused starvation. Saddam tortured a lot of political dissidents and their families, which is not quite as well intentioned. Plus Saddam made his country into a much worse place to live than most other places.

Answer 6

I would agree that the Nazis were bad, but you left out a few from your list.

The Carlyle Group
The Project for a New American Century
Halliburton
Exxon
The Republican Party
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Bill O'Reilly
Bushco, Incorporated

Answer 7

Stalin by far. He once stated, "One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."

Stalin caused a lot of statistics.

Stalin was far worse than Hitler, and even conducted some murders that until recently rested on the Nazi's back, i.e. Katyn Forrest.

Oh, well. The theory was that if we simply treat Uncle Joe like a member of the club, he will start acting like one.

Answer 8

i think the nazi's were they brought deat to a level where it was an industry and the experiments they did on people were horrific the japs too were about the same level, but out of history im thinking the aztecs for killing 80,400 people in a 4 day religous ceremony, every year they would sacrifice 250,000 people to include about 20,000 children they thought the babies tears would bring rain for crops

Answer 9

I'd wipe out the Nazis, although I'd probably be wiping myself out in the process. If my mother's family hadn't fled Germany, she never would have met my father, and I wouldn't exist. Some paradox, huh?

Answer 10

I have one number for you all. 11 million. That the number of Jews and other races exterminated for the "supreme race". Bush is no where near as evil (though I still don't like him) as hitler.

Answer 11

By jinni I assume you mean genie. I would take out Nazi Germany. If I had time, I'd keep Bush from ruining the United States.