God, a genie, ultra-powerful aliens…take your pick. It/they come to you and tell you that they will will/wave their wand/sci-fi ray the world such that starting tomorrow there will be one supreme leader of the world.
You get to choose who that leader will be. Your choices are Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler.
If you refuse to choose your mind will be read and analyzed and your least favorite choice will be picked for you. Feel free to elaborate on why you chose what you chose or not as you like.
Good point so through the magic of the hypothetical I hereby undo your point poof.
Our alien/genie/god thing will ressurrect Adolf. You should assume both men, in their new position as world leader, will successfully inflict their visions on the world as we understand either of these men today.
Well I don’t think you can even compare the 2…
Adolf was more of a leader, and kind of a motivational speaker in a way… he was able to manipulate the minds of MANY more people than Sadam…
I don’t think you would even have the choice… you would be assimilated…
Could be worse.
Could be Stalin.
After all, he won the war, & the peace. too.
Stalin died *old, feared, and powerful *, the true hallmarks of a genuinely successful monster.
I think I’d have to pick Adolf. While Adolf did indeed attempt to persecute a particular race to extinction I don’t think Saddam is any less blood thirsty. I could imagine him going after Kurds and Americans for starters with some gusto. To me millions of murders are millions of murders regardless of which group is being singled out.
My reason for thinking Adolf would be ‘preferable’ is that I see him as more of a law and order kind of guy whereas I see Saddam as a more chaotic, anarchic type. To me some semblance of a framework of laws, even draconian laws, is better than the take it as it comes style of crap Saddam would likely throw down.
Saddam, in a heartbeat. He’s evil. Hitler was an evil genius, at least as far as propaganda and manipulation were concerned. If we have to have an evil leader, I want him to be as ineffectual as possible.
Hitler, at least, pulled the German economy out of the depression. He also didn’t persecute those generals who disagreed with his (ill fated) war plans. Unlike Saddam, who I hear executed a general merely for disagreeing with him.
At least Hitler has been defeated before, and could most likely be again. Also, Hitler’s strategies and such would be over half a century outdated, and it would take longer for him to get enough data to properly fight a war against the world, who would more than be a little upset at having the Fuher as their new leader.
Saddam on the other hand is a more modern threat who has been around for a while, and has killed his own people; not because of their race like Adolf over there, but to test out his new weapons.
But either way, I’m pretty sure neither would stay in power for too long.
Hitler seems a better world leader. Most of the bad things he did were to gain power. Once he had ultimate power, he might not be so bad. He was just a frustrated artist, after all. I can’t help but shake the feeling he just went isnane from too much irony.
An all-powerful Saddam, I think, would keep thousands of people breeding in a pit just so he could decorate his bedroom with fresh human skulls every vernal equinox. I don’t think he’s really insane at all; perhaps psychopathic.
Can’t we have a choice without an ugly moustache? :dubious:
Saddamed if you do and Saddamed if you don’t? That is one of the more horrible choices imaginable, although I agree that Stalin was at least as bad. You’ve got two incredibly evil, dictatorial villains who have used all sorts of methods up to and including poison gas to exterminate not only those who disagree with them, not just their families, but entire ethnic groups. So I’ll have to see if I can focus on what differences they have:
Saddam would place the entire world under world under Islamic law. Hitler would exterminate all religious groups that criticized him (not just Jews - he went after the Jehovah’s Witnesses too), but tended to at least keep most other religions legal. There was some talk among Nazis about reviving Norse pagan gods, but it seems they were pragmatic enough to realize this wouldn’t work. Also, it appears Nazism did not seem quite as determined to interfer with personal freedoms as Islamic laws do. Relatively speaking, of course; limiting personal freedoms is one of the main ways dictators keep themselves occupied. Advantage: Hitler.
Hitler appeared to be more efficient at organizing means of disposing of his enemies. Advantage: Saddam.
I don’t consider Socialism to be the best economic policy, but Nazi Germany seemed to have less poverty (for those outside of concentration camps) than modern Iraq. Advantage: Hitler.
I think Saddam is older than Hitler was when he died. If they bring back Hitler as he was just before he died, Saddam would kick the bucket first. Advantage: Saddam.
They are both anti-Semitic madmen who would probably want to wipe all Jews off the face of the earth. Tie, except Hitler stands a better chance of actually accomplishing that.
Ok. This is getting nowhere.
I think I would choose Saddam not because he is less evil, but because he seems like the more incompetant. If you have billions of people who want to see you dead, I’m going to vote for the guy I think is most likely to slip up first, and is more likely to kick the bucket first if he dies of natural causes.
