Are these Historical Figures Truly Good/Evil? Watch

Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Report 4 years ago
Good/Evil is way too subjective to say. People can give an opinion on whether they are MORE good or MORE evil, or roughly neutral. The best way to determine whether they are good or evil would be to get a lot of people, and in such a way as to try to remove as much bias as possible and get them all to put each person on a scale and average the results. Thing is, the way history is written there is too much bias involved to even be able to do that.

As for a president with 100% approval, I can say with total certainty that there has never been a president with 100% approval.
The highest approval rating since Roosevelt (inclusive) is Bush Jr with 90% on 21/9/01, second going to papa Bush with 89% on 28/2/91, but they also take 3rd and 4th lowest too, Bush Jr taking highest disapproval also. The highest average is Kenedy with 70.1% average approval.

Based upon an aggregate of polls Lincoln is rated the best, FDR second and Washington 3rd. GWB being 34/43. What's to be taken from this? There is a distinct difference between a good approval rating and being a good president, and the ratings change that much that you can be both the most popular and least popular.
MC armani
Badges: 3
Report 4 years ago
(Original post by Cleomenes)
Well I'll just give my opinions, but nothing is so black and white as this:

8 - For the reason you said, I would say bad

7 - But he was still a vicious dictator, definitely bad.

6 - Pros and cons, rampant alcoholic and warmonger, and very arrogant, and an elitist. But he did bring Britain through World War II. Neither good nor bad.

5 - Things only turned bad for the USSR after his death, so I would probably view Lenin as good.

4 - If you even have to question whether Stalin was good I would doubt both your historical knowledge and sanity. Bad.

3 - Definitely bad. Watch the documentary "Hell's Angel" by Christopher Hitchens, he sums it up better than most can.

2 - Pros and cons again, but I cannot remember the cons off the top of my head, yet I'd still say there are more pros, so good.

1 - He brought Germany out of one of the worst economic crises the world has ever seen, but that doesn't do anywhere near redeem him. See my answer for Stalin.

For the Presidents question, I sincerely doubt it except perhaps George Washington and John Adams.
Clinton - a highly immoral and questionable man, see Christopher Hitchens' work on him, again sums it up better than myself.
Lincoln - only freed the slaves to win the support of Britain and France in the Civil War by blackmail, and his refusal to let the Southern States succeed purely because he needed their revenue can be seen as tyrannical.
FDR - no complaints, probably the best the US has ever voted in.

I'd also nominate Jimmy Carter for one of the best US Presidents. They haven't had a lot of other really good ones: though I'd say the worst are; Truman, Eisenhower and W. Bush.
5 - Rubbish. The Great Famine, the Red Terror, the shambolic and farcical peace negotiations at Brest-Litovsk - all products of Lenin's leadership. Not to say he was 'evil' by any means, but he certainly was an authoritarian and a totalitarian more than partly imputable for the degeneration of the Communist project.

2 - Apart from his lecherous and racist tendencies, his chief idea was to return India to a state of primitive agrarian economics and a culture of spiritualism. These were the last things India needed. A lot of the country's subsequent progress is in spite of his ideas rather than because of them. Again, not 'evil', but like Lenin, extremely misguided.

Pretty much agree with the rest.

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
new posts
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.


Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (153)
No (405)

Watched Threads

View All