ITT: "bad guys" who did nothing wrong

...

...

Vlad III

Yeah he seems like a well-meaning but incompetent man who was handed a shitty situation and was unable to make it better.

Killing pregnant women and little children is below anyone and he did that.

he really didn't. not sure why the holocaust gets go much flak.. he was doing what we all wanted the entire time.

should try it again one day :)

Not a bad person, but I could probably think of a few things he did wrong.

>angering the parlements by telling them to just hurry the fuck up and pass the reforms when they were on the verge of agreeing
>mourning and generally being extremely passive at the beginning of the Estates General, where a couple of obvious proclamations could have easily won him popular support and pushed the reforms through
>telling the Swiss Guard to lay down their arms while an angry mob was bearing down on them
>taking the fancy carriage for his flight to Varrennes
>not fucking his waifu immediately after marriage, which would have given her something to do to pass time aside from spending shitloads of money and making them look bad
>letting himself get hauled into Paris and be held hostage by angry slumdwellers

He wasn't a bad man but goddamn was he inept as anything.

And on the subject of the revolution I'll say Robespierre didn't do anything wrong either. All the unjust mass killings that the revolution is known for took place outside of Paris according to the discretion lesser politicians who shifted the blame. Within Paris many were killed, but Robespierre only ever killed those who betrayed the ideals of the revolution. The people of Paris were rabid dogs, but Robespierre always stayed cool and never intended to be anything beyond impartial and unflinching.

I remember in an episode of Red Dwarf where an alternate version of the crew travel through time hanging out with awful people the Bourbons are treated as being on par with Hitler.

...

>Louis XVI did nothing wrong, he was just too nice and the big mean republican mob took advantage of that
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_to_Varennes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoire_de_fer

This guy was executed not because he was king, but for high treason. And there was ample evidence that he wanted to roll back many post-Bastille reforms, if neccessary by inviting an Austrian military invasion into "his" kingdom.

He was a traitor, and I don't see how even royalists could defend his actions. The French Revolution wasn't the end of the monarchy, but Louis XVI's actions and the distrust of the monarchy it inspired.

...

Louis wanted a lot of reform, he was mostly blocked by parlement.

Your conception of treason is different from the royalist. Your conception of treason is nationalist. From a royalist perspective, treason means going against the king.

Not even memeing

...

Napoopan

Louis wasn't opposed to revolution in France, he was opposed to a mob of bloodthirsty hysterics dictating the nation's politics at knifepoint, which is exactly what happened. His tipping point was the Parisians refusing to let him go to church on Easter. I find the ideals of the revolution agreeable but the Paris Crowds were a bunch of selfish savages.

Popular reform is one thing but the French Revolution quickly devolved into mobs dictating policy based on their feelings.

He fucked Haiti on purpose, starting up a long tradition of shitting on that country solely for existing.

Even from a royalist's perspective, what duty does a king have other than to advance what is best for his subjects, who put their faith and trust in him? Why would a monarch that invites death over to his own country against his own people be considered a good monarch.

If such a monarch can be considered good by royalists, then we also know why the monarchy was abolished.

>I find the ideals of the revolution agreeable but the Paris Crowds were a bunch of selfish savages.
>Not unlike the king who invited over a foreign army because he didn't like the bourgeois trying to take power away from the monarch

Also
>Haiti dindu nuffin
>They just instituted a system of slavery much more cruel and widespread than the French ever did
>But they dindu nuffin because everyone hates them, even though nobody bothers blockading Haiti in the present day
>There was also nothing wrong with literal white genocide

>Tito
>Bad
The only bad thing about him was that he didn't live forever.

Martin "Pope on a rope" Luther

>what duty does a king have other than to advance what is best for his subjects
He has to defend the integrity of the monarchy. Because if the system fails who will protect and serve France?

>invites death over to his own country against his own people
From his point of view the proper French system had been usurped by misguided and corrupt elements and order had to be restored, by force if all else failed.

And I consider that action to probably be the right one by royalist ideals, considering the circumstances. A good royalist would have ideally never let the situation get to such a dire point in the first place, but with the situation he faced and the resources he had at hand I think it was the right move.

>the king who invited over a foreign army because he didn't like the bourgeois trying to take power away from the monarch
Not a savage move. The bourgeois weren't humanitarians who represented the will of the people. They were out for themselves and seized power due to an act of barbarism that wasn't even carried out by them. Any good monarch would have opposed what the French bourgeois were doing.

>Haiti dindu nuffin
They did quite a lot. Toussaint Louverture did nothing wrong. He was one of France's most competent and dedicated servants and he was set to mold Haiti in his image.

>They just instituted a system of slavery much more cruel and widespread than the French ever did
Citation needed, my history books apparently skipped the cruelty of the Haitian Empire. I know lots of fucked up stuff occurred during their revolutions but when was this slavery and was what Napoleon did a response to it?

And I think that a lot of people hate Haiti, or at least have it in for them. America spent forever keeping their president from coming home after 'rescuing' him and the UN gave them all cholera.

>nothing wrong with literal white genocide
An awful thing carried out by extreme elements and opposed and largely prevented by Louverture, until he was taken.

>He has to defend the integrity of the monarchy. Because if the system fails who will protect and serve France?
So it's a self-sustaining monarch? The monarch is good because he retains the monarchy? This is a textbook example of circular reasoning.

>And I consider that action to probably be the right one by royalist ideals, considering the circumstances.
I don't disagree, it's just that the royalist system -assuming your interpretation of it is correct- is horribly flawed. The monarch's duty has nothing to do with doing good for the people or even accumulation of glory and power (the things that made respectively St. Louis and Louis XIV even today some of France's most beloved kings), but merely with maintaining the monarchy for its own purpose.

>Not a savage move
How is inviting a foreign army over in the land you're dutybound to protect and guide not the worst thing a thing can do? I agree it's not savage, because even savages are severely punished for selling out their own tribe.

>He was one of France's most competent and dedicated servants
Yeah, which is why he left office and went into exile in France after Napoleon dismissed him. He ACTUALLY didn't do anything wrong.

Shit didn't hit the fan until this guy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Dessalines
>Declaring Haiti an independent nation in 1804
>He ordered the 1804 Haiti massacre of the white Haitian minority, resulting in the deaths of between 3,000 and 5,000 people, between February and April 1804.[2] In September 1804, he proclaimed himself emperor and ruled in that capacity until being assassinated in 1806.
>Dessalines declared Haiti an all-black nation and forbade whites from owning property or land there.
Naturally, that last move made Haiti a nation that simply could not function leading to... the reinstalling of slavery. The mulatto minority ruled black slaves, much like under France except much crueler and now with a bankrupt economy.

...

this

Bono?

>The monarch is good becaus he retains the monarchy
You wrote that, not me. I wrote that that's his duty, not what makes monarchy a good thing.

You're either shitposting or not paying attention.

>next point
same thing, the monarchy doesn't exist for its own sake, I don't know how you got there.

>How is inviting a foreign army over in the land you're dutybound to protect and guide not the worst thing a thing can do?
Do you think that it's impossible that there could be circumstances under which it's the best way for a monarch to protect and guide their people? From Louis' perspective France had been hijacked by zealots and petty power-seekers. The intention behind the foreign army was to kick them out and reassert his idea of proper control, not to punish the French people.

>Louverture went into exile in France
>was dismissed by Napoleon
That's one way to put it. Another would be that Louverture was captured by a French Army he had no sensible reason to fear and shipped overseas to die of neglect in a jail cell.

>Jean-Jacques Dessalines
I swear you're fucking with me now. Napoleon didn't intervene during Dessalines massacres and insanity. He intervened when Louverture was fighting foreign powers on France's behalf and upholding the ideals of The Republic. This is just another thing Napoleon did wrong.

>Louverture fighting to create a majority black mini-France in Haiti
Napoleon must stop this
>Dessalines slaughtering minorities and reverting Haiti back to a state possibly more brutal than the French colonization
Whatever.

Do you REALLY think that Louverture was 'dismissed?'

>“My decision to destroy the authority of the blacks in Saint Domingue (Haiti) is not so much based on considerations of commerce and money, as on the need to block for ever the march of the blacks in the world.”

- Napoopan Bonaparte

elaborate

...

Aww fuck me Stalin for god sake
He was only trying to feed millions of hungry mouths by getting rid of millions of hungry mouths

Some of you guys are alright. Come to Niklashausen tomorrow.

in every history class the lecturers/teachers always croon about how communism is a good idea in theory, the bolsheviks wuz good boys who were well intentioned, etc

they are not seen as 'bad' by anyone except fox news, so much for communism being at all revolutionary - the moral sphere of marxist thought is basically merged with the neoliberal worldview

>He fucked Haiti on purpose, starting up a long tradition of shitting on that country solely for existing.

So nothing wrong like user said.

Joseph I of Spain, nicknamed Pepe Botella, brother of Napoleon.

He could've been the better king Spain had in a very long time, yet spaniards called him alcoholic for no reason andvretardedly rebelled against him to put in place an even more retarded king who was also from french heritage. Joseph could've kept the empire and would've ruled as a liberal illustrated monarch. Instead spaniards backed up a retard that lost the empire, returned to absolutism and caused an unnecessary dynastic conflict that provoked three civil wars.

>nigger Lenin
>"good"
lol

So was this guy a comminist or what?

George Washington fanboy/constitutionalist

...

is his human disguise meting?

If only you listened

What is he so happy about?

>Ended the warring states.
>Instituted meritocracy and opened government service for commoners.
>Abolished slavery in China.
>Ended Feudalism.
>Standardized weights, measures, and streamlined communications in China.
>China's first statewide laws, overturning shitty local laws that existed under feudalism.
>"""""""bad guy"""""""
I really believe most of the bad press of this guy came from assmad Chinese nobles and Confucians.

Look at his expression user, he's smiling but dead inside. No happiness in those cold, black eyes, just the broken mind of a man who has seen too much.

...

I'd add his daughters too

yes even Mary
>kill a bunch of religious fundies
>suddenly the bad guy

he's a twisted fucking psychopath

This. See how the savages acted without French rule.

You're just the worst kind of person.

Found the commies

good man

>Niklashausen

you and that fucking pile of excrement you cocksuckers refer to as a human are worthless and deserve a death in fire.

>fucking green text

i didnt put that nigger shit there

good post

Obama, along with Clinton, has been one of the most competent presidents of the last half century.

You'll never find anyone better.

Poor Nicky. :´(

Libertarian if anything

Oda Nobunaga

ree

t. Chilean

Who thinks Collins is a bad guy?

The majority of Irish Republicans love him and even Unionists respect him for being a cool guy capable of compromising. Only slimy De Valera supporters hate him.

a truly exceptional men

>"I have talked to you in the past but we have always exchanged pleasantries. And it has always been assumed that I am Kaltenbrunner, the big bad man next to Himmler and the successor of Himmler. But I think you can see by this time, after having treated my brain hemorrhages, both in the hospital and here in my cell, that I am not the disagreeable, uncouth fellow the public probably thinks because of all the atrocities committed under Himmler's rule, and of which I am totally innocent. When I saw the newspaper headline "Gas Chamber Expert Captured" and an American lieutenant explained it to me, I was pale in amazement. How can they say such things about me? I told you I was only in charge of the Intelligence Service from 1943 on. The British even admitted that they tried to assassinate me because of that, not because of having anything to do with atrocities, you can be sure of that."

There was no need to use so much violence during collectivization though. Most collectivizations in Eastern Europe after World War II were peaceful, so I see no reason why it couldn't be so in the Soviet Union during the 1930s.

yep

>Stalin was a Capitalist and communism has never been tried
>Stalin was the only successful "communist" leader

really makes you think.

Fuck the Unions.

...

On a scale to 1-10, how much of an autist was Milhouse?

He was fighting a Maoist guerrilla so brutal that it alienated support from the peasantry.

It was not the time to be nice and democratic.

...

If there was one man who deserved a second term.

"And since I'd achieved all my goals as President in one term, there was no need for a second"

Hitler dindu nuffin, he a good boy.

...

Assmad putinist RIDF kremlin drones detected

Glory to Ukraine! Heroes never die!

>That image
What a minute is this a new meme?

...

Haiti was on track to become a proper republic more devoted to liberty, equality and fraternity than even France before Napoleon intervened.

I really don't think it's possible to overstate how much of a hero Toussaint Louverture was. Some people call him the black Napoleon, but I think he was more of a black Lafayette. He wasn't just gifted militarily, he was a natural leader driven by what he believed in and people loved him for that. With him in charge there would have been no massacres, no slavery. Haiti was going to beat the odds and work.

Delete this meme.

Nicholas II was an incompetent idiot whose refusal to let go of absurdly outdated ideas doomed Russia, his family, half of Europe and himself.

But he did nothing morally wrong.

Easy to say that about Haiti when ou base yourself on wish and conjecture

A nation ruled by slaves is bond to fail and become what haiti was.

>A nation ruled by slaves is bond to fail and become what haiti was.
Louverture wasn't a slave. He was a free man who joined the revolution to steer it in the right direction.

And it's not wish and conjecture. Louverture was doing a good job and I've seen no reason to believe that he couldn't have stabilized the country if allowed to rule in peace.

Have you studied any of this? You're only speaking in terms so broad that I doubt you could tell me a single thing about the revolution beyond that the niggers decided to kill whitey because they weren't getting enough benefits or something.

Haiti was deliberately sabotaged because it looked like it was going to work. Napoleon didn't try to hide this.

'Morally wrong' is a stupid term. Hitler didn't do anything wrong according to his morals. Nicholas mostly acted how he saw fit as well and he was an idiot with poor judgement who made almost nothing but bad decisions.

He would have had to have been blind and deaf not to see that Russia wasn't working in its current state but he kept on suppressing and ignoring anybody who complained as he stayed the course and relied on his handful of competent underlings to keep the country from descending into anarchy.

I'd personally consider that a morally wrong course of action for a monarch.

This

...

But Nicholas II did nothing objectively wrong.

I get the impression he mightn't have been the nicest guy, but at the same time the narrative we were fed about the civil war was clearly a a load of horseshit. I think that the 'rape victim' who survived Gadaffi's savagery and was given a free ride to the US to serve as an example of his regimes cruelty most likely was just a hysterical schizophrenic like Gadaffi's government said. Last I heard she was getting fucked up on drugs and attacking American cops.

>nothing objectively wrong
The revolution was directly his fault. When the country was falling to pieces in the ass end of the war he abandoned the capital to go play soldier on the front lines. This had the effect of making himself directly responsible for the army's shit performance against Germany, making people lose faith in him, as well as leaving Petrograd with no strong source of authority to keep the people in line.

His wife even said, when the rioting and strikes started all it would have taken to break them up would have been a pound of bread, but nobody was around to control the situation so a movement of bored and unhappy hooligans ended up causing the downfall of the one of the largest empires in the world.

Nicholas was a failure of a leader and a weak excuse for a human being.

But that wasn't his fault. Nicolas II did nothing wrong.

Raising child soldiers is pretty rank, user.

How was it not his fault. Everyone told him to stay in Petrograd but he decided it was too stressful so he left anyway.

it was only a few

kys
based
underrated but a shit-tier foreign policy

The Fuhrer was so handsome and stylish. I love him.

Commie

>And there was ample evidence that he wanted to roll back many post-Bastille reforms

From his own letters, and the letters of the queen, what Louis XVI wanted to roll back was:

-The laws which restricted religious freedom and imposed government-enforced oaths on religious houses
-The laws which effectively made him a pageant king (and what rights he was given by the new government he was threatened with death for using) rather than a king in the typical constitutional monarchy
-Laws (or proposed laws) which made not taking the religious oath and which made emigrating a serious capital offense
-Laws which allowed the government to seize personal property based on political and religious convictions

He did not want to roll back reforms which eased the burden of the poor, which made the tax system based on your income, and which did away with certain privileges of the nobility. Most of the initial reforms of the Revolution were Louis XVI's reforms from 15 years earlier, finally pushed through.

He was also protesting against the fact that he was not able to exercise his own political opinions without the threat of violence. hence "when a Constitution which he has freely acceptable" being apart of the Montmedy Manifesto.

Louis XVI only agreed to the possibility of armed intervention assistance in the last months before he and his family were violently overthrown because of the increasing violence in Paris and the obvious signs pointing towards the inevitability of violence against him and his family. And even then, he didn't agree--and was royally pissed about--the inclusion of threats against the French people in those declarations of "hey if the royal family is hurt we're gonna invade." Up until that point he, again and again, told his brothers, the queen's allies, etc, that he didn't approve the use of foreign military intervention. It was a last resort.

Gee, I wonder who's financing these posts.