Best 20th century Dictator?

[Michael]

The 20th century is well known for producing lots of dictators in power. Hitler, Stalin and Mao tend to give dictators a really bad name.

Not all of the 20th century dictators were monsters like Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Some were only 'wannabe monsters', while some others were idiots or psychotic.

This thread is about the other ones who were not particularly monsterous and may have actually have done some good (if any).

How about Peron? Salazar? Franco? Anyone think either one of these guys did any good at all (or prevented a worse mess)? Franco's record is fairly mixed (some good, lots of bad), but Salazar and Peron? I've not studied either enough to know off hand...

So who do you think was the 'best' (or least bad) dictator of the 20th century?

[Donkey]

The Perons (really a package deal) were "good" enough that they are still held up as heroes by the popularly elected in-power people today. I don't know what that counts for, but it is probably more than a lot of them can say...


Jigme Singye Wangchuck ain't bad. ;)

[Michael]

Jigme Singye Wangchuck ain't bad. ;)
Ain't a dictator either - he's an absolute monarch. ;)

[Dominick]

What good did Franco ever do ? He's no different from Mussolini or Hitler except for the fact that he only played locally. Is lack of scale sufficient to absolve a monster ?

[Michael]

What good did Franco ever do ? He's no different from Mussolini or Hitler except for the fact that he only played locally. Is lack of scale sufficient to absolve a monster ?
1. Franco never sought to violate any national sovereignty.

2. Franco prevented Communists from taking over Spain. I respectfully submit that Spain under Franco may have been ugly, but it was a whole lot less ugly than Spain under Soviet rule - Soviet rule was the most vicious and deadly known to the 20th century.

I'd be curious to see how the civil rights of that era in Spain match up in reality against those of France, Italy or Greecec. I don't think there is much difference (France has always been a bit weak on civil rights - never scoring higher than a '6' on the Anmesty International Freedom scale of 7, and down in the '5' zone during the time period in question). Did Spain's Freedom index go below '5' under Franco? I don't know, but I don't think so. In other words, I don't think Franco's regime was particularly a bloody one as far as dictators go. And when it comes to imprisonment without charges and whatnot, France, Italy and Greece were notorious for doing the same thing at the same time period (1950's and 1960's).

I'm not arguing that Franco was a good dictator, or a benign one. My only argument here is to address the assertion that Franco was a monster like Mussolini or Hitler. My contention is that Franco was no where near the destructive rule of either of those two. On the whole, Franco brought domestic stabity to Spain (at the point of a gun I'll admit). My argument is that not-Franco would have been much worse for Spain and Europe.

[Dominick]

1. Franco never sought to violate any national sovereignty.
That depends on how you look at it. How about that of Spain itself. He only got to power through a military coup and as such had even less legitimacy than Hitler.


2. Franco prevented Communists from taking over Spain. I respectfully submit that Spain under Franco may have been ugly, but it was a whole lot less ugly than Spain under Soviet rule - Soviet rule was the most vicious and deadly known to the 20th century.
Two big problems here. First and foremost communist rule does not equate Soviet rule. Typical European (West) communist parties were not closely tied to Moscow. The succesful ones tended to be rather pragmatic (France, Italy, ...) There's no knowing how they would have acted in Spain. That is mere conjecture.

Secondly, Soviet rule was not the worst in the 20th century, or at least it's very debatable. The 60 million figure that so rampantly occurs on Internet forums is objectively impossible. One just has to correlate pre-Soviet demographic figures with post-Soviet demographic figures. There is no 60 million gap (considering everything else of course, such as birth and natural death rates, immigration, and whatnot). Unless there's about 20-30 million fictitious Russians to this very day. Another aspect here is that the 20 million Russian deaths of WWII are attributed to Stalin rather than to Hitler. Why on earth is that ? We don't attribute the American deaths to Truman either, do we ? Heck, Stalin et al were bad enough without the exaggeration.
Yet another point, although not exonerating, but still important, is that the Gulags were not a Soviet invention. They had been in use by the czars for decades, if not centuries. It may be hard to grasp, but even Soviet rule was an improvement over the czarist rule where, with few exceptions, everyone not belonging to the aristocracy was literally the property of the latter.
And finally, one just has to compare the anti-Muslim proaganda of today to realise just how low the credibility of Cold War figures are.

Disclaimer : I'm not defending Stalin/the Soviets here, just historical accuracy.


I'd be curious to see how the civil rights of that era in Spain match up in reality against those of France, Italy or Greecec. I don't think there is much difference (France has always been a bit weak on civil rights - never scoring higher than a '6' on the Anmesty International Freedom scale of 7, and down in the '5' zone during the time period in question). Did Spain's Freedom index go below '5' under Franco? I don't know, but I don't think so. In other words, I don't think Franco's regime was particularly a bloody one as far as dictators go. And when it comes to imprisonment without charges and whatnot, France, Italy and Greece were notorious for doing the same thing at the same time period (1950's and 1960's).
You're comparing France to Franco ? Here (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm)'s Franco. Where's France ? When did anyone ever execute 200,000 people in France ?

Are you sure that Freedom Index originates from AI ? The only Freedom Index I find is specific to the States. There's also a Freedom of Press Index but that won't be it I guess. So where do I find this Freedom Index ?


I'm not arguing that Franco was a good dictator, or a benign one. My only argument here is to address the assertion that Franco was a monster like Mussolini or Hitler. My contention is that Franco was no where near the destructive rule of either of those two. On the whole, Franco brought domestic stabity to Spain (at the point of a gun I'll admit). My argument is that not-Franco would have been much worse for Spain and Europe.
If stability is a plus then Saddam Hussein was an excellent leader.

[Michael]

That depends on how you look at it. How about that of Spain itself. He only got to power through a military coup and as such had even less legitimacy than Hitler.
Franco had as much legitimacy as the Normans in England or the American Founding Fathers, or the French Republic for that matter. All were born in blood of the battlefield. All three is/are 'legitimate' rulerships.

Two big problems here. First and foremost communist rule does not equate Soviet rule.
Please supply some evidence to support this assertion that contracdicts the historical record. Every Communist Government in Europe during the 20th century was a clone of the USSR in policy and practice.

Cuba is the only evidence and that is only because the USSR cut them off and cast them adrift.

Typical European (West) communist parties were not closely tied to Moscow.
Going to need a bookshelf of links to support this incredibly unbelievable assertion. There is mountains of evidence of KGB and Kremlin infiltration/takeover/domination of EVERY Communist party/group in Europe and North America starting in the 1930's.

And notably, the only 'survivor' Communist parties in Europe are precisely those European Communist parties with the strongest connections to the Soviets (Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal).

And the Soviets never did this openly. It was always secretly done, under the table and through third-parties to preserve 'plausible deniability'.

The succesful ones tended to be rather pragmatic (France, Italy, ...) There's no knowing how they would have acted in Spain. That is mere conjecture.
Not conjecture. The Communist Party in Spain that Franco was fighting against was directly supported by the Kremlin.

I doubt if Franco ever would have come to power in Spain if it wasn't for the Spanish Communists and their Soviet allies.

Secondly, Soviet rule was not the worst in the 20th century, or at least it's very debatable.
Name one type of system or example that was worse.

The 60 million figure that so rampantly occurs on Internet forums is objectively impossible.
Strawman. No one has mentioned any figures.

Another aspect here is that the 20 million Russian deaths of WWII are attributed to Stalin rather than to Hitler. Why on earth is that ?
Because Stalin's 'political purges' were far more deadly to the Soviets then Hitler was. Soviets lost more people to their own government than to Hitler's armies by a significant margin.

And you didn't mention the Ukrainian genocide to which was entirely Stalin's design (and pre-WW2).

We don't attribute the American deaths to Truman either, do we ? Heck, Stalin et al were bad enough without the exaggeration.
Truman didn't kill American troops. Stalin did kill Soviet troops (in the millions). Big difference there.

Yet another point, although not exonerating, but still important, is that the Gulags were not a Soviet invention. They had been in use by the czars for decades, if not centuries. It may be hard to grasp, but even Soviet rule was an improvement over the czarist rule where, with few exceptions, everyone not belonging to the aristocracy was literally the property of the latter.
Yes, Czarist rule was more bloody and more incompetent than Soviet rule - n. That's one example.

Got any others?

And finally, one just has to compare the anti-Muslim proaganda of today to realise just how low the credibility of Cold War figures are.
My low opinion of Soviet rule is not dependent upon some American-propaganda of Stalin's 60 million deaths.

Btw, I've never seen that number before. I've always heard 40 million there.

Disclaimer : I'm not defending Stalin/the Soviets here, just historical accuracy.
You are if you are asserting that Franco was worse than the Soviets.

You're comparing France to Franco ? Here (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm)'s Franco. Where's France ? When did anyone ever execute 200,000 people in France ?
Algeria seems like a good possibility. The French have a really, really nasty history in their colonial ruler phase - arguably one of the worst colonial monsters - almost as bad as Belgium or Portugal. Indeed, your source points to several hundred thousand if not several million possible deaths under French rule in Africa.


Are you sure that Freedom Index originates from AI ? The only Freedom Index I find is specific to the States. There's also a Freedom of Press Index but that won't be it I guess. So where do I find this Freedom Index ?
7 Point AI Freedom Scale? That's been around for decades (neither USA nor France has ever been above 6).

I'll look around for a reference for you. Might not be AI but another group.

If stability is a plus then Saddam Hussein was an excellent leader.
Not really. If one wants stability and peace, a graveyard is your best bet.

[Dominick]

^^
You won't accept non-English sources, would you ?

[Michael]

^^
You won't accept non-English sources, would you ?
For what? What needs to be sourced here? That the Soviets actively conspired to control ALL western European Communist parties starting in the 1920's and 1930s? Or that the French are alleged to have killed a couple hundred thousand Algerians?

I'm certainly not suggesting that Franco was some wonderful ruler. I'd only argue that Franco was not too bad (in context). And my point about Franco's 'death-tally' being no worse than the one reasonably applied to France during the same time period just illustrates that point (your link supplies the evidence of this).

[Dominick]

For what? What needs to be sourced here? That the Soviets actively conspired to control ALL western European Communist parties starting in the 1920's and 1930s? Or that the French are alleged to have killed a couple hundred thousand Algerians?
No, the history of European communist parties is much more accessible through French, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, German, ... sources. And much more detailled too. The English ones are predominantly from the US and heavily biased by anti-communist hysteria (it's the right word).
That the Soviets attempted that control and financed these parties is not the issue. The effectiveness thereof is. And that's pretty low actually.

I'll see what I can do for the linguistically challenged :p

[Michael]

No, the history of European communist parties is much more accessible through French, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, German, ... sources. And much more detailled too. The English ones are predominantly from the US and heavily biased by anti-communist hysteria (it's the right word).
That the Soviets attempted that control and financed these parties is not the issue. The effectiveness thereof is. And that's pretty low actually.

I'll see what I can do for the linguistically challenged :p
That's a moot point.

I stated that every Communist party that did successfully achieve power in Europe did so with the 'Soviet model'. Those communist parties that didn't successfully achieve power are of little concern. One cannot project their ruling character from their status as 'unsuccessful'.

Thus, it is entirely logical and rational to project a 'soviet-style' rule to occur in any place in Europe where a Communist party would actually achieve national power (Spain being the closest candidate during the 1930's) - particularly in cases involving the 'revolutionary' use of force (likewise, Spain 1930's).

There is ZERO evidence to support the hypothetical assertion that a successful Spanish communist takeover during the 1930's would have produced some socialist utopian state that would have been radically different from or unconnected with the soviet model. That's just not credible since there is no evidence of any kind. All existing evidence of success points to the soviet model.

Similarly, at the time of the rise of Franco, Mussolini had already established a 'successful' precedent of non-horrific fascist rule. Fascism doesn't get its nasty reputation until Hitler got the Panzers rolling over borders. Before then, fascism was somewhat or comparatively reputable. Given the choices of early 1930's Spain, and the political data available at the time, the fascists looked a whole lot less dangerous than the communists. (Mussolini-style fascism vs Lenin-Stalin-style communism - circa late 1920's).

[Sucre]

The 20th century is well known for producing lots of dictators in power. Hitler, Stalin and Mao tend to give dictators a really bad name.

Not all of the 20th century dictators were monsters like Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Some were only 'wannabe monsters', while some others were idiots or psychotic.

This thread is about the other ones who were not particularly monsterous and may have actually have done some good (if any).

How about Peron? Salazar? Franco? Anyone think either one of these guys did any good at all (or prevented a worse mess)? Franco's record is fairly mixed (some good, lots of bad), but Salazar and Peron? I've not studied either enough to know off hand...

So who do you think was the 'best' (or least bad) dictator of the 20th century?

Has only the 20th century produced dictators ?

I know this is :offtopic:, but I would argue that dictatorship is the rule, not the exception in history.

What was the difference beween Stalin and Nicolas II in power style. Wasn't Nicolas II a dictator too ?

Also, about "dictators" producing "mess" - this is again one of those "democratic prejudices".
Stalin, a monster ? Sure : and a great hero to most Russians nowadays.

Dictators are leaders. That's its. As such there are good and bad leaders.

Of course, you may not like the "nature" of their leadership, but it says little about its content.

[Sucre]

That's a moot point.

I stated that every Communist party that did successfully achieve power in Europe did so with the 'Soviet model'. Those communist parties that didn't successfully achieve power are of little concern. One cannot project their ruling character from their status as 'unsuccessful'.

Thus, it is entirely logical and rational to project a 'soviet-style' rule to occur in any place in Europe where a Communist party would actually achieve national power (Spain being the closest candidate during the 1930's) - particularly in cases involving the 'revolutionary' use of force (likewise, Spain 1930's).

There is ZERO evidence to support the hypothetical assertion that a successful Spanish communist takeover during the 1930's would have produced some socialist utopian state that would have been radically different from or unconnected with the soviet model. That's just not credible since there is no evidence of any kind. All existing evidence of success points to the soviet model.

Similarly, at the time of the rise of Franco, Mussolini had already established a 'successful' precedent of non-horrific fascist rule. Fascism doesn't get its nasty reputation until Hitler got the Panzers rolling over borders. Before then, fascism was somewhat or comparatively reputable. Given the choices of early 1930's Spain, and the political data available at the time, the fascists looked a whole lot less dangerous than the communists. (Mussolini-style fascism vs Lenin-Stalin-style communism - circa late 1920's).
There is Zero evidence because it did not happen. It is possible through to make assumptions and Dominiek has a very pertinent point.

Spain is very far away from the Soviet Union, geographically and did not fall in its sphere of influence. Therefore there are very strong assumptions that the Communist party in Spain would have followed its own style.

This assumption is strengthened by the experience of communists States in the Eastern Block. Each of its State developed its own style : the Hungarian "goulash" model for instance distanced itself as early as the 1960s from the Soviet model. To be very honest, Hungary nowawdays is not doing much better than in the 1980s.

[Michael]

There is Zero evidence because it did not happen. It is possible through to make assumptions and Dominiek has a very pertinent point.

Dominick's point requires that we assume a hypothetical that has never been demonstrated - ever (essentially 'wishing it so').

My point involves projecting known data from all past cases of the event in question (logical projection).

No question about which one is more logically sound.

[Donkey]

Has only the 20th century produced dictators ?

I know this is :offtopic:, but I would argue that dictatorship is the rule, not the exception in history.

What was the difference beween Stalin and Nicolas II in power style. Wasn't Nicolas II a dictator too ?

Also, about "dictators" producing "mess" - this is again one of those "democratic prejudices".
Stalin, a monster ? Sure : and a great hero to most Russians nowadays.

Dictators are leaders. That's its. As such there are good and bad leaders.

Of course, you may not like the "nature" of their leadership, but it says little about its content.
Semantically speaking (shh, don't tell the stormfronters!), a dictator is merely someone who rules by dictating. In modern American vernacular (not accidentally, I'm sure) it has come more to mean "despot" and is used as such. There is maybe (I would say definitely) a direct correlation between amount of power in ones hands and the despotic activities that one finds oneself doing, but in theory you could have a wholly benevolent dictator...
Dominick's point requires that we assume a hypothetical that has never been demonstrated - ever (essentially 'wishing it so').

My point involves projecting known data from all past cases of the event in question (logical projection).

No question about which one is more logically sound.
I don't really think that saving a country from a hypothetical communist state (indeed assuming that it would be as bad as, say, soviet Russia is about as presumptive, imho, as Dominick assuming that it would not) is not sufficient laurels upon which to rest.

I would say that Franco was more of an all around shitty dude. :ummm:

[Sucre]

Semantically speaking (shh, don't tell the stormfronters!), a dictator is merely someone who rules by dictating. In modern American vernacular (not accidentally, I'm sure) it has come more to mean "despot" and is used as such. There is maybe (I would say definitely) a direct correlation between amount of power in ones hands and the despotic activities that one finds oneself doing, but in theory you could have a wholly benevolent dictator...

Not in theory ... This is just a question of perception. The problem of the way the question is asked is that it is culturally biased. As you say the word has come to mean a "despot" in general understanding.

However, the problem with a culturally biased question is that it influences the answer.

Rather than asking whether a monster like Hitler - because he was a monster, I get banned from this forum if I state the contrary ! - produced "good" politics as well and not only "mess", I find it more productive to ask why he got so much support from the masses. The same applies to Stalin. Or Franco. Or any of the communist rulers in the Eastern Block, although in these cases, the rulers were not supported by the masses ... I know less about South America.

Since we live in democracies and regularly send dumheads to power, I find it more instructive for us, electors, to question on our choices. "Good" and "bad" politics is only a question of perception.