Donelladan wrote:No, I wouldn't.
I do not even know why Nero and Caligula made it to your list, their were emperor, maybe not the best, but that's it.
Napoleon was a general and an emperor, he is responsible for death of people during battles, but that's it. I do not know of any slaughtering we could put on him.
I guess General Mau is previous leader of China. With Stalin they are the only names that are maybe comparable to Hitler. Because they are on your list the only one that we can make responsible for millions of people. And also because of the proximity in time - which does matter.
Stalin was the epitome of fully applied socialism. Mao, Castro, Che, and all those other assholes are directly responsible for killing millions and millions of people. But you don't really care about that.
Genghis Khan set back all the lands and peoples from China to Iran by centuries. The Great Depression was a fart in comparison to what Genghis Khan did.
Napoleon, Robespierre, and the myriad of dictators of our lovely past are also responsible for killing off large chunks of civilization, but to you, their name's are harmless because they weren't directly harming civilians (hah), and you can't bother remembering which specific groups of people were killed and oppressed by dictators long gone.
Sure, genocide by Hitler and the Nazis was awful, but at least be consistent in your criticism. Do not all victims equally matter? With your position, you must conclude with "no, they don't."
