The Wrong Nations Won WW2

2

Comments

  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    They were lynching negroes and locking up ? while Germany was doing what they were doing. Jim Crow was in full effect before Germany created their version. The trail of tears was similar to the treatment jews got when they were displaced into concentration camps (reservations). Germany actually learned a lot from America and turned it up a notch..
    uh... why do people think Germany started doing bad stuff in WWII? do yourselves a favor a Google "Herero"
    Regarding France, it's a top 7 nation for sure when it comes to evil histories.
    seems like it should do better, but people seem to mysteriously care less about its colonies. actually, we can probably say the same about Japan.
    Russia I give top 10, not top 5 because so many eastern Europeans were supporting what Russia did and for the most part it stuck to its general area (kinda). The nations in my top 5 were more widespread with their evil but its a good topic because arguments can easily be made one way or the other
    so a country's crimes are mitigated by people supporting them? because then you should probably reduce the complaints about everything on the above list.

    also, it seems like "bothering more people" tops "intense body count" which is a little weird to me

  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    janklow wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    They were lynching negroes and locking up ? while Germany was doing what they were doing. Jim Crow was in full effect before Germany created their version. The trail of tears was similar to the treatment jews got when they were displaced into concentration camps (reservations). Germany actually learned a lot from America and turned it up a notch..
    uh... why do people think Germany started doing bad stuff in WWII? do yourselves a favor a Google "Herero"
    Regarding France, it's a top 7 nation for sure when it comes to evil histories.
    seems like it should do better, but people seem to mysteriously care less about its colonies. actually, we can probably say the same about Japan.
    Russia I give top 10, not top 5 because so many eastern Europeans were supporting what Russia did and for the most part it stuck to its general area (kinda). The nations in my top 5 were more widespread with their evil but its a good topic because arguments can easily be made one way or the other
    so a country's crimes are mitigated by people supporting them? because then you should probably reduce the complaints about everything on the above list.

    also, it seems like "bothering more people" tops "intense body count" which is a little weird to me

    Ok I'm listening, where should France be on my list. And where should Russia be? I should probably do more research on the histories of both nations but as someone whose half Haitian, I'm very aware of the evil of France's history. I know French soldiers used to behead slave rebels in front of their families in Haiti and Napoleon's empire was pretty large and ? . But we don't hear about French atrocities the way we do say, German and American ones. People in the media tend to portray the French as weaklings so maybe that's why so many underestimate how horrible France's history is.

    Russians did horrible things, I know Stalin starved 20 million Ukranians to death to take Ukranian food and feed the Russians, and what Russians did to the Asians around its borders is despicable. But Russia's bloodshed tended to stay in its own sphere, so its evil wasn't as widespread and destabilizing to the world compared to western Europeans and America.
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    They were lynching negroes and locking up ? while Germany was doing what they were doing. Jim Crow was in full effect before Germany created their version. The trail of tears was similar to the treatment jews got when they were displaced into concentration camps (reservations). Germany actually learned a lot from America and turned it up a notch..
    uh... why do people think Germany started doing bad stuff in WWII? do yourselves a favor a Google "Herero"
    Regarding France, it's a top 7 nation for sure when it comes to evil histories.
    seems like it should do better, but people seem to mysteriously care less about its colonies. actually, we can probably say the same about Japan.
    Russia I give top 10, not top 5 because so many eastern Europeans were supporting what Russia did and for the most part it stuck to its general area (kinda). The nations in my top 5 were more widespread with their evil but its a good topic because arguments can easily be made one way or the other
    so a country's crimes are mitigated by people supporting them? because then you should probably reduce the complaints about everything on the above list.

    also, it seems like "bothering more people" tops "intense body count" which is a little weird to me

    Ok I'm listening, where should France be on my list. And where should Russia be? I should probably do more research on the histories of both nations but as someone whose half Haitian, I'm very aware of the evil of France's history. I know French soldiers used to behead slave rebels in front of their families in Haiti and Napoleon's empire was pretty large and ? . But we don't hear about French atrocities the way we do say, German and American ones. People in the media tend to portray the French as weaklings so maybe that's why so many underestimate how horrible France's history is.

    Russians did horrible things, I know Stalin starved 20 million Ukranians to death to take Ukranian food and feed the Russians, and what Russians did to the Asians around its borders is despicable. But Russia's bloodshed tended to stay in its own sphere, so its evil wasn't as widespread and destabilizing to the world compared to western Europeans and America.

    Even before napoleon, Charlemagne was ? ? up..
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    janklow wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    They were lynching negroes and locking up ? while Germany was doing what they were doing. Jim Crow was in full effect before Germany created their version. The trail of tears was similar to the treatment jews got when they were displaced into concentration camps (reservations). Germany actually learned a lot from America and turned it up a notch..
    uh... why do people think Germany started doing bad stuff in WWII? do yourselves a favor a Google "Herero"
    Regarding France, it's a top 7 nation for sure when it comes to evil histories.
    seems like it should do better, but people seem to mysteriously care less about its colonies. actually, we can probably say the same about Japan.
    Russia I give top 10, not top 5 because so many eastern Europeans were supporting what Russia did and for the most part it stuck to its general area (kinda). The nations in my top 5 were more widespread with their evil but its a good topic because arguments can easily be made one way or the other
    so a country's crimes are mitigated by people supporting them? because then you should probably reduce the complaints about everything on the above list.

    also, it seems like "bothering more people" tops "intense body count" which is a little weird to me

    Ok I'm listening, where should France be on my list. And where should Russia be? I should probably do more research on the histories of both nations but as someone whose half Haitian, I'm very aware of the evil of France's history. I know French soldiers used to behead slave rebels in front of their families in Haiti and Napoleon's empire was pretty large and ? . But we don't hear about French atrocities the way we do say, German and American ones. People in the media tend to portray the French as weaklings so maybe that's why so many underestimate how horrible France's history is.

    Russians did horrible things, I know Stalin starved 20 million Ukranians to death to take Ukranian food and feed the Russians, and what Russians did to the Asians around its borders is despicable. But Russia's bloodshed tended to stay in its own sphere, so its evil wasn't as widespread and destabilizing to the world compared to western Europeans and America.

    Even before napoleon, Charlemagne was ? ? up..

    I've gotta read up more on him, how many people did his empire ? off you think?
  • caddo man
    caddo man Members Posts: 22,476 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This ? here. Let me be the selfish one to say that (y)our black ass ancestors were not going to be high on anyones list. Japan, Germany, Italy or whomever could have easily added African Americans to there list of massacres.

    Just be happy with the history as is cause the alternative could have been far worst.
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    janklow wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    They were lynching negroes and locking up ? while Germany was doing what they were doing. Jim Crow was in full effect before Germany created their version. The trail of tears was similar to the treatment jews got when they were displaced into concentration camps (reservations). Germany actually learned a lot from America and turned it up a notch..
    uh... why do people think Germany started doing bad stuff in WWII? do yourselves a favor a Google "Herero"
    Regarding France, it's a top 7 nation for sure when it comes to evil histories.
    seems like it should do better, but people seem to mysteriously care less about its colonies. actually, we can probably say the same about Japan.
    Russia I give top 10, not top 5 because so many eastern Europeans were supporting what Russia did and for the most part it stuck to its general area (kinda). The nations in my top 5 were more widespread with their evil but its a good topic because arguments can easily be made one way or the other
    so a country's crimes are mitigated by people supporting them? because then you should probably reduce the complaints about everything on the above list.

    also, it seems like "bothering more people" tops "intense body count" which is a little weird to me

    Ok I'm listening, where should France be on my list. And where should Russia be? I should probably do more research on the histories of both nations but as someone whose half Haitian, I'm very aware of the evil of France's history. I know French soldiers used to behead slave rebels in front of their families in Haiti and Napoleon's empire was pretty large and ? . But we don't hear about French atrocities the way we do say, German and American ones. People in the media tend to portray the French as weaklings so maybe that's why so many underestimate how horrible France's history is.

    Russians did horrible things, I know Stalin starved 20 million Ukranians to death to take Ukranian food and feed the Russians, and what Russians did to the Asians around its borders is despicable. But Russia's bloodshed tended to stay in its own sphere, so its evil wasn't as widespread and destabilizing to the world compared to western Europeans and America.

    Even before napoleon, Charlemagne was ? ? up..

    I've gotta read up more on him, how many people did his empire ? off you think?

    I don't know but i do know that he laid the foundation for the Holy Roman Empire (even though Otto is the direct cause) and ruled a good percentage of europe. ? considered the Holy Roman Empire to be the 1st ? . Part of the blame is laid on Rome, but the germans took up the mantle long ago..

    640px-Partage_de_l%27Empire_carolingien_au_Trait%C3%A9_de_Verdun_en_843.JPG

    The German war mongering spirit is old.. The hate for Jews also predated ? even though he morphed it into a whole nother level of hatred. As @janklo pointed out. Germans were already getting their massacre on even before ww2..
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Russians did horrible things, I know Stalin starved 20 million Ukranians to death to take Ukranian food and feed the Russians, and what Russians did to the Asians around its borders is despicable. But Russia's bloodshed tended to stay in its own sphere, so its evil wasn't as widespread and destabilizing to the world compared to western Europeans and America.
    alright, so you know how you complain about America running around doing crazy stuff? during the Cold War era? who was the other half of that Cold War?

    gonna make my list:
    01. Germany (Nazis for the win)
    02. Spain/Portugal tag team
    03. Russia (like the Nazis, body count + desire to expand it exponentially)
    04. eh, why not Britain
    05. ? you FRANCE

    NO PLACE ON IT FOR ? 'S AMERICA
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    janklow wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    They were lynching negroes and locking up ? while Germany was doing what they were doing. Jim Crow was in full effect before Germany created their version. The trail of tears was similar to the treatment jews got when they were displaced into concentration camps (reservations). Germany actually learned a lot from America and turned it up a notch..
    uh... why do people think Germany started doing bad stuff in WWII? do yourselves a favor a Google "Herero"
    Regarding France, it's a top 7 nation for sure when it comes to evil histories.
    seems like it should do better, but people seem to mysteriously care less about its colonies. actually, we can probably say the same about Japan.
    Russia I give top 10, not top 5 because so many eastern Europeans were supporting what Russia did and for the most part it stuck to its general area (kinda). The nations in my top 5 were more widespread with their evil but its a good topic because arguments can easily be made one way or the other
    so a country's crimes are mitigated by people supporting them? because then you should probably reduce the complaints about everything on the above list.

    also, it seems like "bothering more people" tops "intense body count" which is a little weird to me

    Ok I'm listening, where should France be on my list. And where should Russia be? I should probably do more research on the histories of both nations but as someone whose half Haitian, I'm very aware of the evil of France's history. I know French soldiers used to behead slave rebels in front of their families in Haiti and Napoleon's empire was pretty large and ? . But we don't hear about French atrocities the way we do say, German and American ones. People in the media tend to portray the French as weaklings so maybe that's why so many underestimate how horrible France's history is.

    Russians did horrible things, I know Stalin starved 20 million Ukranians to death to take Ukranian food and feed the Russians, and what Russians did to the Asians around its borders is despicable. But Russia's bloodshed tended to stay in its own sphere, so its evil wasn't as widespread and destabilizing to the world compared to western Europeans and America.

    Even before napoleon, Charlemagne was ? ? up..

    I've gotta read up more on him, how many people did his empire ? off you think?

    I don't know but i do know that he laid the foundation for the Holy Roman Empire (even though Otto is the direct cause) and ruled a good percentage of europe. ? considered the Holy Roman Empire to be the 1st ? . Part of the blame is laid on Rome, but the germans took up the mantle long ago..

    640px-Partage_de_l%27Empire_carolingien_au_Trait%C3%A9_de_Verdun_en_843.JPG

    The German war mongering spirit is old.. The hate for Jews also predated ? even though he morphed it into a whole nother level of hatred. As @janklo pointed out. Germans were already getting their massacre on even before ww2..

    THOSE ? GERMANS!!!!!!

    It seems every time I read about them, I'm discovering a new level of bloodshed. And it's amazing how big that empire grew, perhaps a million lost their lives cuz of Charlemange. Very underrated conqueror, I'm definitely gonna do some more reading on him. Also there's an interesting program on WW1 these days on the history channel you may be interested in. It's called WW1 The First Modern War, lots of talk on those wicked Germans
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    janklow wrote: »
    Russians did horrible things, I know Stalin starved 20 million Ukranians to death to take Ukranian food and feed the Russians, and what Russians did to the Asians around its borders is despicable. But Russia's bloodshed tended to stay in its own sphere, so its evil wasn't as widespread and destabilizing to the world compared to western Europeans and America.
    alright, so you know how you complain about America running around doing crazy stuff? during the Cold War era? who was the other half of that Cold War?

    gonna make my list:
    01. Germany (Nazis for the win)
    02. Spain/Portugal tag team
    03. Russia (like the Nazis, body count + desire to expand it exponentially)
    04. eh, why not Britain
    05. ? you FRANCE

    NO PLACE ON IT FOR ? 'S AMERICA

    Pretty good list all things being considered, but why isn't Britain number one???? They had the biggest empire in history.

    Also, didn't America ? off way more then France's empires did? I mean as bad as France was, Americans did commit genocide against the natives on a widepread scale and basically almost took a whole continent. I understand many of those killings weren't sanctioned by the American govt but the killings did eventually. Not to mention America has been waging ? conflicts all over the world for an amazingly long time. With Russia you used body count and desire to expand, so America should fit the bill in your top 5 list somewhere. Some sources say an estimated 20 million natives were killed by Americans (another 50 million by Europeans who came before or weren't Americans yet)

    And no mention of Italy? Roman Empire less brutal then the French ones?
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    janklow wrote: »
    Russians did horrible things, I know Stalin starved 20 million Ukranians to death to take Ukranian food and feed the Russians, and what Russians did to the Asians around its borders is despicable. But Russia's bloodshed tended to stay in its own sphere, so its evil wasn't as widespread and destabilizing to the world compared to western Europeans and America.
    alright, so you know how you complain about America running around doing crazy stuff? during the Cold War era? who was the other half of that Cold War?

    gonna make my list:
    01. Germany (Nazis for the win)
    02. Spain/Portugal tag team
    03. Russia (like the Nazis, body count + desire to expand it exponentially)
    04. eh, why not Britain
    05. ? you FRANCE

    NO PLACE ON IT FOR ? 'S AMERICA

    Pretty good list all things being considered, but why isn't Britain number one???? They had the biggest empire in history.

    Also, didn't America ? off way more then France's empires did? I mean as bad as France was, Americans did commit genocide against the natives on a widepread scale and basically almost took a whole continent. I understand many of those killings weren't sanctioned by the American govt but the killings did eventually. Not to mention America has been waging ? conflicts all over the world for an amazingly long time. With Russia you used body count and desire to expand, so America should fit the bill in your top 5 list somewhere. Some sources say an estimated 20 million natives were killed by Americans (another 50 million by Europeans who came before or weren't Americans yet)

    And no mention of Italy? Roman Empire less brutal then the French ones?

    To be honest, most of those people died from unchecked disease. I guess you can give them the body count since europeans bought the disease well before the United States was established. Intentional or not, they were the cause. I think that we are being lightweight when it comes to including others in the murder game. The mongols should be on that list.. They destroyed civilizations on a mass scale and murdered entire cities (see kiev). There was also the Muslim incursions into everywhere. Italy definitely deserves an award for Rome alone. And greece for what Alexander accomplished. Then there is what the Turks did. I guess none is as grand in terms of scale as what those German mofos and their offspring were able to accomplish. In terms of the murder game, I really do think the mongols got this though.
    Ancient sources described Genghis Khan's conquests as wholesale destruction on an unprecedented scale in certain geographical regions, causing great demographic changes in Asia. According to the works of the Iranian historian Rashid al-Din (1247–1318), the Mongols killed more than 700,000 people in Merv and more than a million in Nishapur. The total population of Persia may have dropped from 2,500,000 to 250,000 as a result of mass extermination and famine. Population exchanges did also in some cases occur but depends as of when.[8]
    China reportedly suffered a drastic decline in population during the 13th and 14th centuries. Before the Mongol invasion, Chinese dynasties reportedly had approximately 120 million inhabitants; after the conquest was completed in 1279, the 1300 census reported roughly 60 million people.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire

  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I have always maintained that the USA has been the most moral and merciful nation in human history that has attained such dominance militarily.
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    could you imagine what would have happened if Rome had atomic weapons or ? forbid the British or mongols
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    could you imagine what would have happened if Rome had atomic weapons or ? forbid the British or mongols

    Rome included outsiders into their fold and the british did have rules of engagement with their enemies. They were both into economic benefit and there is no benefit to destroying land that you can profit from with trade and crops. The Mongols? Maybe so. I know that the Japanese are related to the Mongols and they had to be nuked. with that said, there is only one nation that's ever used a Nuke in an act of war.
  • (ob)Scene
    (ob)Scene Members Posts: 4,729 ✭✭✭✭✭
    As America grew into it's own we ended up inheriting a lot of the blame when it comes to the American Natives. Let's not pretend as if Indians were treated as equals up until 1776, now.
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    uh... apart from the ? genocide deal (oh, THAT little thing), you still had the Japan genocide deal and the abortive Italian genocide deal and WHO THE ? ARGUES IT'S A SHAME ? LOST

    *turns off internet*

    Lady Zee had an argument along those lines in the Palestine and Israel thread
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    could you imagine what would have happened if Rome had atomic weapons or ? forbid the British or mongols

    Rome included outsiders into their fold and the british did have rules of engagement with their enemies. They were both into economic benefit and there is no benefit to destroying land that you can profit from with trade and crops. The Mongols? Maybe so. I know that the Japanese are related to the Mongols and they had to be nuked. with that said, there is only one nation that's ever used a Nuke in an act of war.

    The romans only included outsiders that they deemed necessary ask the people of carthage how roman inclusion worked for them. The british were in inventors of the concentration camp so yeah if economic benefit can be had and it always can from conquest then the brits would have used the bomb and not just once.

    the america government using the nuke was an act of mercy for the fighters on both sides.
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    could you imagine what would have happened if Rome had atomic weapons or ? forbid the British or mongols

    Rome included outsiders into their fold and the british did have rules of engagement with their enemies. They were both into economic benefit and there is no benefit to destroying land that you can profit from with trade and crops. The Mongols? Maybe so. I know that the Japanese are related to the Mongols and they had to be nuked. with that said, there is only one nation that's ever used a Nuke in an act of war.

    The romans only included outsiders that they deemed necessary ask the people of carthage how roman inclusion worked for them. The british were in inventors of the concentration camp so yeah if economic benefit can be had and it always can from conquest then the brits would have used the bomb and not just once.

    the america government using the nuke was an act of mercy for the fighters on both sides.

    I'm not talking about people. I'm talking about Land. Nukes make things inhospitable. The British had plenty of chances to lay waste to everything but they took over countries like India and Parts of China without barely a sweat. Why would a pragmatic people like that use nukes unless it was a last resort like what America did. Britain ended slavery before America so they already showed more altruism. Rome administered Carthage after it's defeat. They ran Northern Africa. Can't run a region that's a waste land. Better to enrich your coffers having them pay tribute. IDK, maybe they would have nuked the German hordes, but they made good soldiers to fill the ranks to conquer easier targets. Btw, America had concentration camps during ww2 with the Japanese and Jim Crow laws. There is an argument focused on whether America needed to drop the Nukes at all.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books/did-we-need-to-drop-it.html


  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    could you imagine what would have happened if Rome had atomic weapons or ? forbid the British or mongols

    Rome included outsiders into their fold and the british did have rules of engagement with their enemies. They were both into economic benefit and there is no benefit to destroying land that you can profit from with trade and crops. The Mongols? Maybe so. I know that the Japanese are related to the Mongols and they had to be nuked. with that said, there is only one nation that's ever used a Nuke in an act of war.

    The romans only included outsiders that they deemed necessary ask the people of carthage how roman inclusion worked for them. The british were in inventors of the concentration camp so yeah if economic benefit can be had and it always can from conquest then the brits would have used the bomb and not just once.

    the america government using the nuke was an act of mercy for the fighters on both sides.

    Why would a pragmatic people like that use nukes unless it was a last resort like what America did.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books/did-we-need-to-drop-it.html


    Was it really a last resort?

    Seems more like a way to send a message to the world

    The Japanese didn't leave America with no other options
    Pearl Harbour wasn't a crippling loss
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Trashboat wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    could you imagine what would have happened if Rome had atomic weapons or ? forbid the British or mongols

    Rome included outsiders into their fold and the british did have rules of engagement with their enemies. They were both into economic benefit and there is no benefit to destroying land that you can profit from with trade and crops. The Mongols? Maybe so. I know that the Japanese are related to the Mongols and they had to be nuked. with that said, there is only one nation that's ever used a Nuke in an act of war.

    The romans only included outsiders that they deemed necessary ask the people of carthage how roman inclusion worked for them. The british were in inventors of the concentration camp so yeah if economic benefit can be had and it always can from conquest then the brits would have used the bomb and not just once.

    the america government using the nuke was an act of mercy for the fighters on both sides.

    Why would a pragmatic people like that use nukes unless it was a last resort like what America did.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books/did-we-need-to-drop-it.html


    Was it really a last resort?

    Seems more like a way to send a message to the world

    The Japanese didn't leave America with no other options
    Pearl Harbour wasn't a crippling loss

    Check that article that i linked to.
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Good read

    It definitely saved American lives, but their hands weren't tied
    Seems like they killed a few birds with one bomb
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    janklow wrote: »
    Russians did horrible things, I know Stalin starved 20 million Ukranians to death to take Ukranian food and feed the Russians, and what Russians did to the Asians around its borders is despicable. But Russia's bloodshed tended to stay in its own sphere, so its evil wasn't as widespread and destabilizing to the world compared to western Europeans and America.
    alright, so you know how you complain about America running around doing crazy stuff? during the Cold War era? who was the other half of that Cold War?

    gonna make my list:
    01. Germany (Nazis for the win)
    02. Spain/Portugal tag team
    03. Russia (like the Nazis, body count + desire to expand it exponentially)
    04. eh, why not Britain
    05. ? you FRANCE

    NO PLACE ON IT FOR ? 'S AMERICA

    Pretty good list all things being considered, but why isn't Britain number one???? They had the biggest empire in history.

    Also, didn't America ? off way more then France's empires did? I mean as bad as France was, Americans did commit genocide against the natives on a widepread scale and basically almost took a whole continent. I understand many of those killings weren't sanctioned by the American govt but the killings did eventually. Not to mention America has been waging ? conflicts all over the world for an amazingly long time. With Russia you used body count and desire to expand, so America should fit the bill in your top 5 list somewhere. Some sources say an estimated 20 million natives were killed by Americans (another 50 million by Europeans who came before or weren't Americans yet)

    And no mention of Italy? Roman Empire less brutal then the French ones?

    To be honest, most of those people died from unchecked disease. I guess you can give them the body count since europeans bought the disease well before the United States was established. Intentional or not, they were the cause. I think that we are being lightweight when it comes to including others in the murder game. The mongols should be on that list.. They destroyed civilizations on a mass scale and murdered entire cities (see kiev). There was also the Muslim incursions into everywhere. Italy definitely deserves an award for Rome alone. And greece for what Alexander accomplished. Then there is what the Turks did. I guess none is as grand in terms of scale as what those German mofos and their offspring were able to accomplish. In terms of the murder game, I really do think the mongols got this though.
    Ancient sources described Genghis Khan's conquests as wholesale destruction on an unprecedented scale in certain geographical regions, causing great demographic changes in Asia. According to the works of the Iranian historian Rashid al-Din (1247–1318), the Mongols killed more than 700,000 people in Merv and more than a million in Nishapur. The total population of Persia may have dropped from 2,500,000 to 250,000 as a result of mass extermination and famine. Population exchanges did also in some cases occur but depends as of when.[8]
    China reportedly suffered a drastic decline in population during the 13th and 14th centuries. Before the Mongol invasion, Chinese dynasties reportedly had approximately 120 million inhabitants; after the conquest was completed in 1279, the 1300 census reported roughly 60 million people.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire

    Most of the Native Americans were killed off by disease true, but many were still exterminated and forced off their land, America was still very populated with natives even after Europeans came here. But yeah not all of it was butchery to America's credit I guess. Greeks and Turks definitely were crazy for a long time, and we're definitely underestimating what the Arabs did in their part of the world. There's a reason Arabic is one of the most populous languages, and why Islam is one of the world's biggest religions. A lot of that spread was through vicious violence that killed ? knows how many. Italy should be on everyone's top 5 list in my opinion.

    As far as murder game yes, Mongols probably do have this pound for pound. I got them on my top 6 list. Maybe I should put them higher, but I won't for now cuz the empire didn't last too long....the Mongols lost the spirit of conquering after awhile, while the British, Germans, and Americans never lost that spirit for the most part. British Empire still exists lol, and it's been probably 500 years now that it's lasted, Mongols lasted 170 years if I'm not mistaken. It's crazy what the Mongols got away with, how they treated the Muslims and Arabs was way worse then anything America's done over there. It actually was the largest continual empire in history, and second largest overall behind the British. One can make a serious argument the Mongols were the most brutal of all, but because the British Empire and other western ones lasted so long and had so many long lasting effects, I have them ahead in being more evil. But murder game, yes Mongols got this.
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    Germans may still have the murder game though, the Nazis killed 28 million Russians, which is ridiculous. 7 million Russians were civilians, and these numbers are coming from Russia. They're a nation with pride so the numbers are probably higher then that.The Nazis also killed maybe another 25 million more, especially the Jews, Polish and many others
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    could you imagine what would have happened if Rome had atomic weapons or ? forbid the British or mongols

    Rome included outsiders into their fold and the british did have rules of engagement with their enemies. They were both into economic benefit and there is no benefit to destroying land that you can profit from with trade and crops. The Mongols? Maybe so. I know that the Japanese are related to the Mongols and they had to be nuked. with that said, there is only one nation that's ever used a Nuke in an act of war.

    The romans only included outsiders that they deemed necessary ask the people of carthage how roman inclusion worked for them. The british were in inventors of the concentration camp so yeah if economic benefit can be had and it always can from conquest then the brits would have used the bomb and not just once.

    the america government using the nuke was an act of mercy for the fighters on both sides.

    I'm not talking about people. I'm talking about Land. Nukes make things inhospitable. The British had plenty of chances to lay waste to everything but they took over countries like India and Parts of China without barely a sweat. Why would a pragmatic people like that use nukes unless it was a last resort like what America did. Britain ended slavery before America so they already showed more altruism. Rome administered Carthage after it's defeat. They ran Northern Africa. Can't run a region that's a waste land. Better to enrich your coffers having them pay tribute. IDK, maybe they would have nuked the German hordes, but they made good soldiers to fill the ranks to conquer easier targets. Btw, America had concentration camps during ww2 with the Japanese and Jim Crow laws. There is an argument focused on whether America needed to drop the Nukes at all.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books/did-we-need-to-drop-it.html


    Rome enslaved everyone they beat and england had a longer history of having salves than america did ending it when they did was not altruism it was practicality. And the goal of america using the a bomb was not to lay waste to japan. and the cities they bombed are habitable today and were lived in after the bomb dropped. America did not have concentration camps during ww2 the purpose of interning the ? americans was not to ? them and during the civil war the intent of places like camp douglas was not to ? people it.

    and yes america needed to drop the bombs the ? ? wanted to die for honor which would have meant many more america deaths.
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Agreed with the atom bomb on the Japanese, the atom bomb saved lives on both sides in the end
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    zombie wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    could you imagine what would have happened if Rome had atomic weapons or ? forbid the British or mongols

    Rome included outsiders into their fold and the british did have rules of engagement with their enemies. They were both into economic benefit and there is no benefit to destroying land that you can profit from with trade and crops. The Mongols? Maybe so. I know that the Japanese are related to the Mongols and they had to be nuked. with that said, there is only one nation that's ever used a Nuke in an act of war.

    The romans only included outsiders that they deemed necessary ask the people of carthage how roman inclusion worked for them. The british were in inventors of the concentration camp so yeah if economic benefit can be had and it always can from conquest then the brits would have used the bomb and not just once.

    the america government using the nuke was an act of mercy for the fighters on both sides.

    I'm not talking about people. I'm talking about Land. Nukes make things inhospitable. The British had plenty of chances to lay waste to everything but they took over countries like India and Parts of China without barely a sweat. Why would a pragmatic people like that use nukes unless it was a last resort like what America did. Britain ended slavery before America so they already showed more altruism. Rome administered Carthage after it's defeat. They ran Northern Africa. Can't run a region that's a waste land. Better to enrich your coffers having them pay tribute. IDK, maybe they would have nuked the German hordes, but they made good soldiers to fill the ranks to conquer easier targets. Btw, America had concentration camps during ww2 with the Japanese and Jim Crow laws. There is an argument focused on whether America needed to drop the Nukes at all.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books/did-we-need-to-drop-it.html


    Rome enslaved everyone they beat and england had a longer history of having salves than america did ending it when they did was not altruism it was practicality. And the goal of america using the a bomb was not to lay waste to japan. and the cities they bombed are habitable today and were lived in after the bomb dropped. America did not have concentration camps during ww2 the purpose of interning the ? americans was not to ? them and during the civil war the intent of places like camp douglas was not to ? people it.

    and yes america needed to drop the bombs the ? ? wanted to die for honor which would have meant many more america deaths.

    I didn't do the Math on the British involvement. Those ? also sold slaves to the Spanish and others. I guess i was thinking in Modern nuclear terms also. The bombs during ww2 is far weaker then what Nations have now. A concentration camp doesn't necessarily mean you are going to murder people. Basically, concentrate them into one area or an interment camp. Was the British Concentration Camps meant murder people? You have to school me on those..