What is the worst crime in History?

[hellheaven1987]

Others - common people have chances to stop all the crimes list on the top (such as Holocaust, if all German army against it, I wonder whether Hitler dare to do it), but they don't, even they know the truth. That's the horrible thing, you know bad things are happening infront of you, but you don't stop it!

[Garbarsardar]

I don't think the extermination of the Indians should be there. Most of it was through disease and despite what a lot of people think the Europeans had no idea their diseases caused the damage it caused.

This is a very controversial issue still. The plan of deliberate infection was there, ther is not enough evidence of if and how it was implemented:

One of the most contentious issues relating to disease and depopulation in the Americas concerns the question of whether or not American indigenous peoples were intentionally infected with diseases such as smallpox. Despite some legends to the contrary, there is no evidence that the Spanish ever attempted to deliberately infect the American natives.[8]

However, there is one documented incident in which British soldiers in North America attempted to intentionally infect native people. During Pontiac's Rebellion in 1763, a number of Native Americans launched a widespread war against British soldiers and settlers in an attempt to drive the British out of the Great Lakes region. In what is now western Pennsylvania, Native Americans (primarily Delawares) laid siege to Fort Pitt on June 22, 1763. Surrounded and isolated, and with over 200 women and children in the fort, the commander of Fort Pitt gave representatives of the besieging Delawares two blankets that had been exposed to smallpox in an attempt to infect the natives and end the siege.

British General Jeffrey Amherst is usually associated with this incident, and although he suggested this tactic in a letter to a subordinate, by that time the commander at Fort Pitt had already made the attempt. While it is certain that these officers attempted to intentionally infect American Indians with smallpox, it is uncertain whether or not the attempt was successful. Because many natives in the area died from smallpox in 1763, some writers have concluded that the attempt was indeed a success. A number of recent scholars, however, have noted that evidence for connecting the blanket incident with the smallpox outbreak is doubtful, and that the disease was more likely spread by native warriors returning from attacks on infected white settlements.[9]

A second alleged incident is disputed. Colorado professor Ward Churchill has written that in 1837 the United States Army deliberately infected Mandan Indians by distributing blankets that had been exposed to smallpox, resulting in at least 125,000 deaths. While it is not disputed that the Mandans suffered greatly from smallpox in 1837, sociology professor Thomas Brown and others have argued that the sources Churchill cites do not support his claims of deliberate infection. Three of Churchill's own sources have said that Churchill has misrepresented their work. The Cherokeedemographer and UCLA Professor Russell Thornton said: "The history is bad enough—there's no need to embellish it."[10]

Historian Guenter Lewy agrees that there is no evidence that the United States ever attempted to deliberately infect Native Americans. In fact, he says, the opposite was taking place: the U.S. government had implemented a program of smallpox vaccination for American Indians at the time of the alleged Mandan incident. Vaccination for Native Americans had been suggested in 1801 by President Thomas Jefferson, who sent smallpox vaccine on the Lewis and Clark expedition for distribution to western tribes (the vaccine was spoiled in transit). An official U.S. vaccination program was first funded in 1832, with an act passed "for the purpose of arresting the progress of smallpox among the several tribes by vaccination." One study concludes that in some areas of the United States, American Indians were eventually more thoroughly vaccinated against smallpox than their white neighbors.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populat...genous_peoples

[Sétanta]

Other.

Although the Holocaust comes in a very very close second.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki simply because it wasn't even consider a crime. What a horror. :no

[WhyAllTheFuss?]

I'd have to say the bringing of European sicknesses to North America. They were doing fine ruining themselves, but then they went and ruined a completely different culture.

From your list, I'd say no one will choose 9/11. I personally would pick Religious persecution, justifying murder with the name of a God you do not know exists. Worse than murdering for names you do know, your own or your nation, atleast you have a partial goal. With God it is just murder for murder's sake. So as someone above me said, orginized religion.

As for Hiroshima and Nagisaki, they are just as much of a crime as Stalingrad, Kursk or the western front. They are war actions, don't single them out, new weapons had been used before, will be used again. Please say WW2 not just Hiroshima.

[fguerin]

I voted for the Holocaust.

1 month ago, I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau complex. You can't imagine how far the feeling is different when facing the truth in comparison to read what happened in the books. In fact, there were multiple crimes committed on a single place:
-despoiling people of their goods
-murdering them because of their religion/origin/beliefs/sexual orientation

Behind the savagery of the act, the extent of the murders (6 mio for Jews alone), you must see a "rationalized irrational behavior". The plunder/murder were perfectly organized, with a sense of the detail that could be admired if it wasn't aimed at eradicating a whole population.

The most horrific was the lack of reasons to do this: Why to kill Jews? History teach us that people (like Native Indians) were slaughtered to take their territory (er sorry, to bring them civilization... like in RTW: a Barbarian can be civilized, once dead, he's very civilized). But did Jews had a territory of their own?
An other reason to wage war against people is to take their wealth, but most of the murdered people were poor. Should there have been any plunder motivation, Germany would have invaded USA instead.

So in my mind, the Holocaust was the worst crime ever committed. At a time when some question its reality (I won't drop any name, you'll find them easily), we must invite them to go to Auschwitz and see (no, it's not a proof of a so-called "jewish plot")

Have a nice day;

François Guérin

[removeduser_426582376423734]

The most horrific was the lack of reasons to do this: Why to kill Jews? History teach us that people (like Native Indians) were slaughtered to take their territory (er sorry, to bring them civilization... like in RTW: a Barbarian can be civilized, once dead, he's very civilized). But did Jews had a territory of their own?
An other reason to wage war against people is to take their wealth, but most of the murdered people were poor. Should there have been any plunder motivation, Germany would have invaded USA instead.

Without going into any real detail, it was the fault of humans. No matter how many people say "it was Gods will" or "it had been going on for ages, so its OK", there are quite a few real reasons.

1) Protocols of the Elders of Zion - a document that states all Jews and other minorities were trying to take over the world, and all civilisation.
2) Lebensraum - living space that was the 'excuse' for Hitler.
3) Propaganda - many thought the Jews were to blame for the Treaty of Versailles and the loss of the army.

To be vague

[Schwertmeister]

lol this forum is built upon this question i think. Can you really compare all of those ?

I votet south american indians as i think it affects the most people still nowerdays. Maybe I am wrong.

If we wish to narrow "crimes" in actions directly leading to the loss of life, I would say the depopulation of Asia by the Mongols. They have reduced the population of the whole continent by a 1/5 in less than 50 years. Never in the history of mankind has such a massacre occured.

you mean there were only 9/11 of the pop. left after their raids ?

sorry, I couldnt resist

[rez]

other - the reign of timur the lame. Filled with so much death its almost unbelievable

[Slowpoke]

Other - The Communist Era: 1918-1991. 90+ million people dead. About 1/3 of the world living in the 1960's... by the year 1990. Destroyed any shred of independent thinking in several generations. And the list goes on...

[The White Knight]

They're all horrible, I voted for slave-trade.

[Caesar Germanico]

constantine era..after putting christanity as the official religion roman and barbarians pagans were killed..probably millions..it made the empire fall (yes the empire it was good anymore)but could have lasted another few ceuntries..the world got back about 800 years..a

[Matrix33]

constantine era..after putting christanity as the official religion roman and barbarians pagans were killed..probably millions..it made the empire fall (yes the empire it was good anymore)but could have lasted another few ceuntries..the world got back about 800 years..a

Add to this all christians slaughtered by pagan Romans.
But I think you exaggerate numbers. Imperium wasn't so populated that time after endless barbarian incursions and - before everything, era of constant civil wars. So I don't believe in milions of victims.
Reasons of fall of Rome is another interesting but beaten to the death topic.
And... do you know that barbarians who pushed Rome on her knees and sacked it were... mostly christians?

[Caesar Germanico]

Add to this all christians slaughtered by pagan Romans.
But I think you exaggerate numbers. Imperium wasn't so populated that time after endless barbarian incursions and - before everything, era of constant civil wars. So I don't believe in milions of victims.
Reasons of fall of Rome is another interesting but beaten to the death topic.
And... do you know that barbarians who pushed Rome on her knees and sacked it were... mostly christians?

its proved "only" a few thousands christians died during the empire..and they werent killed because they were christians the law which christanity was illegal never exited..i can taky any example..after the great fire of rome a minority of the christians community chanted with other hebrews victory songs..and u know why??because they comed from the palastine and it was always a revolt province..rome were they enemy because rome conquested them..and after that the senators wanted to kill all these hebrew communities and inclunding this christians community..and u know what happened??nero saved them by killing only the ones that went in the street saying thanks to their god and chanting..and the pagans yes the wanted all these christians-hebrews community to die but nero saved them..and in the other cases its proved they were killed not because of their religion but because they comed from revolting provinces..and what are u talking about??in the splendor of the empire the people living was about 150 millions..by costantine era (the economic crissis were just passed and the economy was going quite well again)it was probably 120-130..it wasnt barbarians..actually after constantine there was even no trade with other nations inclunding sassanaids (which it wasnt a barbarian) because they didnt were christians..constantine made christanity the official religion and forbidden the build or the managing of pagans temples (people couldnt even clean it)in a few decades all the patricians moved towards christanity to get favors from the emperor (and forced their slaves to do so)pagans temples got destroyed and could nt be rebuild and it wasnt even a natural thing to do because christians were still a much minority when constantine was born..and revolts were crushed killing houndred of thousands at each pagan revolt...and people was forced to convert...only after constantine the number of people in the empire started to decrease ..i think u should read more books

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

constantine era..after putting christanity as the official religion roman

He didn't. That was Theodosius.

and barbarians pagans were killed..probably millions.

This is utter fantasy.

it made the empire fall (yes the empire it was good anymore)but could have lasted another few ceuntries.

The Western Empire fell. Yet the Eastern Empire, which was as Christianised as the West if not even more so, survived for almost 1000 more years. If this wickness of Constantine destroyed the Empire, why only the West and not the East?

This makes no sense.

[Caesar Germanico]

He didn't. That was Theodosius.



This is utter fantasy.



The Western Empire fell. Yet the Eastern Empire, which was as Christianised as the West if not even more so, survived for almost 1000 more years. If this wickness of Constantine destroyed the Empire, why only the West and not the East?

This makes no sense.

what is for u forbbiding pagan temples???he didnt make any law but he for sure put christanity to the top..and no its not utter fantasy..u ever heard of the sons of hercules revolt??no u didnt cause the winners always write history..the west empire didnt fell because they had plenty of resources..egypt was the producing food for all the empire..and they didnt had son many barbarians..and u think that was a roman empire??people spoked more greek..it was an hellenic empire..in fact after the separetion of the empire the west suffered a big economical crisis

[Perikles]

All these 'crimes' are indeed awful. I voted for the holocaust because Hitler exterminated millions of people through his jealousy and for their religion. The slave trade was also one of the worst things ever, I find it quite disturbing that 2 people have put as long as 'Islamists' did it....
(What are Islamists anyway? Do you mean muslims/followers of Islam?)

[Garbarsardar]

All these 'crimes' are indeed awful. I voted for the holocaust because Hitler exterminated millions of people through his jealousy and for their religion. The slave trade was also one of the worst things ever, I find it quite disturbing that 2 people have put as long as 'Islamists' did it....
(What are Islamists anyway? Do you mean muslims/followers of Islam?)

I asked the staff to change this option to "crimes of religious intolerance". It was an ill-conceived option for which I apologise.

[The White Knight]

I asked the staff to change this option to "crimes of religious intolerance". It was an ill-conceived option for which I apologise.

It was however, a very funny and satiric comment to todays thoughts.

[Garbarsardar]

It was however, a very funny and satiric comment to todays thoughts.

Thanks, but from what I'm reading in the forum in the last few days, I started questionning my sense of humour...