Why would anyone consider Rasputin to be one of the most evil people in history?

Question

A while ago, I read Miranda Twiss' book on the most evil men and women in history. Not surprisingly, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin made the list (so where the heck was Mao?). So did Ilse Koch and Elizabeth Bathory.

What surprised me was that Gregory Rasputin made the list. After reading about the Romanovs and majoring in history in college, I am stumped that anyone would consider him evil enough to stand among the ranks of nasty dictators and bloodthirsty femme fatales.

Sure, he was evil and creepy but as to why he would be considered one of the most evil people in history has me scratching my head in confusion. I normally thought of him as some crazy bum that thought he was some sort of prophet. I guess the act of bringing down the 300-year-old house of Romanov would be considered evil (would the royal house fall regardless of whether or not Rasputin came in the picture?).

Fellow history majors, buffs, historians, etc., please enlighten me on this.

And why do you think someone like Mao Tse Tsung and Saddam Hussein should be left off of Twiss' "list?"

Answer 1

I wouldn't. I don't think he was good, in fact I think he was evil. But how can he even compare to guys like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Husein or Mao. They killed Millions (collectively) Rasputin, doesn't have the body count. Yes the Romanovs were going down with or without Rasputin. In fact Rasputin had very little if anything to do with the fate of the Romanovs. He may have even helped them to some degree. All he did was make them look bad amongst the elites, but the people planning the revolution didn't give a damn what they elites thought. They were still going to overthrow the government and kill the Romanovs

To IamCount:
And by the way Sadam is not iffy. He killed and tortured about 1,000,000 men women in children, he had thousands of children in prison, many children buried in mass graves. He had paid rapists on his payroll to rape the wives and children of those he saw fit. He used to have people fed into plastic shreaders feet first while they were still alive! He had a stash of videos of tortures that he had his men do. He used to watch them for amusement. He killed about 1,000,000 people men women and children. That doesn't sound to iffy to me. and you are clearly a moran if you think should be on the list! It was war dumbass! It's suposed to be brutal. Part of war is breaking the spirit of the enemy. Grant didn't target civilians, he didn't torture people! Even Sherman didn't do this. Were there atrocities commited under Sherman's command, yes, but he did not condone them and he tried to reign his men in when they got out of hand. Pick up a history book next time before you shoot your mouth off!

Answer 2

With or without Rasputin, the House of Romanov would have fallen unless he was able to influence battlefield decisions which resulted in multiple disasterous losses for imperial Russia, which he didn't.

Mao not being on there was an oversight. His 5 year plans of steel instead of agriculture killed millions and threw the whole country back 50 years in development of which they are just now starting to recover.

Saddam is an iffy. Yes, he did kill part of a town and gas some Kurds, however, there are many more candidates who have done even worse.

Personally, I think Useless Grant should be on the list ahead of Saddam. His 'attrition' strategy killed more lives needlessly (possibly hundreds of thousands certainly tens of thousands) than needed. I would consider that evil.

Answer 3

I remember reading once that Rasputin seduced and ruined a number of young women, including an Orthodox nun. He was also accused of rape. Other than that, he was certainly a con man and a fraud, but I agree that none of these things are bad enough to warrant a spot on the "most evil" list. To his credit he tried to keep Russia out of World War I, which would have saved millions of lives and prevented the Russian Revolution. The author probably just wanted an excuse to retell the story of his assassination in order to make the book more interesting.

Answer 4

It is extremely difficult to get actual facts about Rasputin as contemporary accounts are mostly written by political enemies. To make a case that he belongs in the "Most Evil" category one would have to subscribe to the idea that his influence over Alexandra was strong enough that her decisions influenced by Rasputin caused the economic ruin that eventually spawned the Bolshevik rebellion.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that he doesn't belong in the book at all.

Answer 5

The only thing I can figure is the sway he held over the Czar's family (particularly his wife). Perhaps it was the people's contempt for their relationship - and the gosip attending said same, that was an additional factor in the communist revolution.

Frankly, while I wouldn't consider him light and bunnies, I wouldn't call him the most evil either.

Answer 6

Because people talked against him get sent to Siberia. And healers were not understood at that time so they assumed him to be evil.