• XaeroDegreaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You think because the names you listed were leaders of their countries doesn’t make them part of a greater evil? No one person commits atrocities alone; there must be some backing.

    One single name doesn’t get to make decisions… There must be a greater body at play. There has to be support of some sort, otherwise the people would have just said no, and killed that person.

    • lulztard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d rather not have an internet argument, but I’ll give you a pointer that you can use to google for more information of the issue is of actual interest to you:

      • Mao, Stalin and Hitler were tyrants that forced their way to leadership and killed everyone who opposed them. Kissinger was the advisor of a terrorist government that existed long before him and will continue to exist.

      • “just said no, and killed that person” is a naive Disney fantasy. In actual reality people that “just say no” get vanished, tortured and killed. And their neighbours suddenly turn reaaally quiet after that. However, there is always a certain joint guitl and complicity, I agree with that. And it weighs especially heavy if “the people” are very free to protest their nation’s terrorism but don’t do so.

      There is a big difference between a single dictator being a plague upon the world for the 10-50 years he’s in power, and an nation with constently changing leadership being a permanent plague upon this world for 100+ years.

      That’s the reason why Kissinger sticks out of the list: Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Kissinger*.

      • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I agree with your overall thesis but your characterizations of the three tyrants are casually backwards.

        Mao was a leader of a militant group first. He won political power in that group and that group won a large following of people over several decades. His status as tyrant emerges from that history and cultivated in a desperate militaristic role which is already predisposed to authoritarian rule.

        Hitler was similar, his authotarianism, is on display much earlier in the process, and part of his charismatic attraction. It was clear early on that Hitler was going to mow down anyone in his way. Still, he needed to acquire popular and then political power. He leveraged existing sentiment and thuggish groups such as the Freikorp.

        Stalin was just a bureaucrat.
        Just kidding. I know very little of Stalin’s rise to power except that it was internal to a party that already had seized power.

    • mob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with the sentiment in context of these “next level” atrocities, for lack of better way to phrase it.

      But I disagree with “No one person commits atrocities alone; there must be some backing”. Plenty of atrocities have happened because one person decided to be a dickhead

        • mob@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh yeah, geopolitical is probably a better way to phrase it than “next level”.

          That I agree with. I just felt like saying “nobody commits atrocities alone” removes some blame from some monsters out there that have done terrible shit.

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh absolutely. That’s why I made a point to qualify it like that. Atrocities can go from a mass shooting carried out by one person to a genocide carried out by an entire government.