Major Historic Villains You'd like to See Die a Thousand Death etc.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Because I wasn't raised in the West I have a very tentative idea who are the most hated historic villains for a Westerner.

Bush Jr.

He might be little Satan himself, but we aren't looking for todays gentlemen, but dead people...

 

Jack the Ripper might be a good candidate.

[-JR-]

Bush isn't smart or evil enough to be a villain, he was just a playground bully with too much power.

Jack the Ripper is more of a point of interest than a hated figure from what I can tell, though he might work.

 

John Wayne Gacy. The killer clown, child rapist and murderer. Hatred of the man himself has fled along with our education and interest in the past, but he is THE reason people are afraid of clowns these days.

[PetrusOctavianus]

Tony Blair.

Both a traitor to his country and a war criminal. And still alive...

[Sorrow]

Wow, that's completely insane. I hope something like this will never happen to my country.

[-JR-]

Not trying to be argumentative, but I've read over that article a few times and can't find anything in there that makes him any more of a villain than the average politician. Granted I'm not from the country so I don't know the whole situation, but an outsider's glance sees it as the pretty standard, mutually-selfish/ignorant polarization of often originally innocent ideas that political parties usher in all over the world.

[yarpen]

In my opinion that's quite sad that you're calling non-experienced politicians or guys with other beliefs than yours "historic villains" and wish them thousand of deaths. That's very childish. Wish it also to your math teacher, neighboor who's unpleasant for you, muslims because they are muslims etc.

 

If I'd say that ANYONE deserves death, there wouldn't be any difference between me and Hitler. -.-

[INS-Hyacinth]

I suspect that you might get different answers to this in different countries. I'm pretty certain the reputation of Oliver Cromwell is not as high in the Irish Republic as it is in England. Not that we're universally fond of him. On the other hand we don't remember Napoleon with great fondness, and I suspect the French do. Even Hitler and Stalin have their apologists, and given the ignorance of history I see every day in both schoolchildren and adults I can't imagine most would even know who Ignatius of Loyola was let alone why he was a bogeyman in England (and Scotland) for a long time.

 

If there's one figure who doesn't get much sympathy from anyone who hasn't been mentioned yet it's Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany. He can probably be correctly identified as the person most responsible for World War One, which called more people than any previous war, and his colonial policy was only less brutal than that of Leopold I. Add his extremely reactionary politics, and you have the makings of a great villain. If it wasn't for World War II he'd be one of the 20th centuries great hate-figures.

[-JR-]

Okay, that makes sense. I'm somewhat dislexic and was just trying to make sure I wasn't missing any sort of 'mini-holocaust' thing the article shed light on.

 

If it wasn't for World War II he'd be one of the 20th centuries great hate-figures.

I've always felt this way too.

 

This would indeed be an interesting figure to see played out in a work of fiction; it would be a lot more believable than, say, someone acting like Hitler.

[Sister Vigilante]

I would say Hitler is the only name everyone can agree on. Stalin killed more people in the long run, but stepped into such a disastrous political situation his personal responsibility is hard to judge. But Hitler was evil personally and caused widespread devastation.

 

Anyone remember Inglorious Basterds? (spoiler) And did it occur to anyone in the last scene that the people in the audience were doing the exact same thing as the people onscreen (e.g. sitting in a theater cheering mindless, violent propaganda?) But the film still worked because I mean come on, it's Hitler. Demonizing others is never the right thing to do. Unless it's Hitler.

[-JR-]

Anyone remember Inglorious Basterds? (spoiler) And did it occur to anyone in the last scene that the people in the audience were doing the exact same thing as the people onscreen (e.g. sitting in a theater cheering mindless, violent propaganda?) But the film still worked because I mean come on, it's Hitler. Demonizing others is never the right thing to do. Unless it's Hitler.

To say that I am opposed to Nazis would be the understatement of the year (the ones around here even today are almost as annoying in their behavior as the other racial-supremacy groups), but I was thinking the exact same thing. Outside of the historical knowledge we have some of their crimes, the characters were being portrayed as vicious and evil for cheering a one-sided battle, then minutes later, the audience was bellowing with laughter as (albeit wicked) people are being killed and mutilated, and unarmed civilians are burning alive.

 

I know a lot of people will disagree with this, but I went into that movie thinking it was going to be great, maybe using its innate hypocrasy to its advantage in conveying the message of harsh 'justice' we as moviegoers are sometimes in the mindset for. I admit it was overall well-done, but most of the characters were annoying to the point of complete distraction, and I felt myself struggling not to mentally side with the Nazis in the off-chance I could see Brad Pitt get shot in the face.

[yarpen]

I would say Hitler is the only name everyone can agree on. Stalin killed more people in the long run, but stepped into such a disastrous political situation his personal responsibility is hard to judge. But Hitler was evil personally and caused widespread devastation.

Killing thousands of young intelligence people (doctors, engineers) only because they didn't fit to proletaryat revolution is hard to be justified by being done because of political situation. Or maybe it's but his methods (don't mention Katyń) were quite awfull. Thanks to 'killing professors plan' I've lost something like half of my potential uncles.

[-JR-]

I don't think he was implying that the chaotic situation was a justification for Stalin's actions; I got the impression he was pointing out how history is somewhat unsure how personally responsible he was for what happened, due to the secrecy and confusion of the times and the greater degree of world focus on events in the west at the time.