ITT: "Villains" that did nothing wrong

>he doesn't know the USSR was notorious for manipulating quotas or simply making shit up
where do you think orwell's inspiration for the ministry of plenty came from?

>every stalin statistic is made up but its a fact he killed 100 trillion people!

k lol

You know it's possible to believe both extremes are full of shit when discussing Stalin, right? His body count probably wasn't as high as some here like to claim, but he also wasn't a miracle worker in economic terms, either. Those productivity stats just seem pretty bullshitty, especially considering they are completely unsourced and unverifiable, at least as presented in this thread.

Cardenas was GOAT, he didn't succumb to foreign pressure. Also there hasn't been a dictator in Mexico since Diaz.

Cardenas is the exception that proves the rule in Mexican leadership, 2bh.

>Also there hasn't been a dictator in Mexico since Diaz.

Debatable. Massive corruption at every level is pretty common though.

>Debatable. Massive corruption at every level is pretty common though.

there is only a few politicians post Diaz who could be considered dictators, Plutarco Calles is the only one that comes to mind. Even then he still didn't have control over the country like Diaz did for 30 years. And while corruption is still rampant in Mexico, at least Mexicans today have more choices for leaders than one old fag whose campaign slogan was ironicaly "no reelection".

Even the worst Mexican presidents after Diaz actually gave back to the people, in the form of edjidos. All Diaz did was such foreign cock and give out their resources to the highest bidder.

Ian Smith did all he could for his nation.

Muhammad

Couldn't be more wrong

Lawrence of Arabia is considered a hero. He's one of the few respected British figures that played a role in that part of the world.

Lawrence and his tiny band of dune coons didn't do shit

>Rightful heir to the English throne
>Faggoty Anglo-Dane agrees and pledges himself to William
>The confessor dies, and William is set to be crowned King of England
>Faggoty Anglo-Dane changes mind and decides he wants to steal the crown
>Based Willie crushes him in one of the greatest military victims of all time
>Faggoty Anglo-Saxons keep rebelling
>Based Willie forced to destroy their civilisation
>On his death bed he feels terrible about it, although it's justified
>Vikings never again menace the English
>Lays the foundations which lead to England becoming a global superpower
>Faggoty English still whine about him to this day

Could you get anymore ungrateful, ffs?

Cardenas was pretty shitty 2bh.
Nationalize oil in the name of the workers, workers get paid less.
He gets praised a lot by the left, but he was just the same as the others.

One party government is similar to dictatorship.

Godwin was chosen by the Witan.

The money they received from selling their own oil was a net benefit for Mexico. Wages for oil workers may not have surged immediately after oil was nationalized, but it t certainly increased during ww2 when the United States was buying a shit load of Mexican oil for their war effort. The Mexican economic prosperity after ww2 can be traced back to the nationalization of oil.

He built more schools and gave out more land than any other Mexican leader before him, he was definitley different from the typical corrupt Mexican politician.

He installed the idea of Arab Nationalism in the middle east.

Arab Nationalism collapsed in on its self.

The power vacuum created lead to the rise of al qaeda, and by proxy ISIS.

Looking back, It would have been better if the English had lost, and the ottomans still ruled, or the English had won, without that faggot crating Arab Nazis that eventually turned into Islamic Extremists.

If the English had lost there would be no Israel today.

Since when was William considered a bad guy?
I mean, sure his ties to the throne were based on shaky evidence, but so were both Harolds.

Wages were actually cut after the nationalization.
And like with all government run things, oil industry has been very corrupt since his times.
I'd argue that his successors were better, Miguel Alemán, Adolfo Ruiz Cortines and Adolfo López Mateos. After those it went downhill, fast.

he just wanted to make Iran great again.

HERE in the south of Brittania we actually like William, because his centralisation of taxes prevents a couple of invasions from being successful [spoiler] also allowed his son to have some boytoys

Im not too sure about your list desu. Miguel aleman is considered to be the most corrupt Mexican presidents ever, I could be wrong but didn't he marry/have and affair with some actress? And Mateos orchestrated the largest massacre of Mexicans in recent history. Say what you want about Cardenas, but at least no massacres happened under his reign. Also Cardenas actually tried to implement article 27, which had largely been ignored by his predecessors Calles and carranza.

>[spoiler] also allowed his son to have some boytoys

excuse me?

Every thread until you like him

I don't think people really see him as a villain, just outrageously incompetent and a bit corrupt, and undeniably a puppet of the West

He was a quintessential "we wuz shahs n shit" type as well

His son was gay

Debatable

...

The very definition of a sellout politician

exprain

if you think the greasing wheels and cracking a few skulls of mexican politics is comparable to the vast governmental apparatuses aimed at silencing opposition and killing people for basically no good reason like the southern cone dictatorships, you are stretching yourself thin for a hottake and dickriding that mario vargas llosa "perfect dictatorship" quote way too hard

Aleman industrialized the country, he did make himself and friends richer, though. His wife was just a regular woman.
Ruiz Cortines gave women the right to vote, passed laws that made the life of farmers easy and stimulated the economy. He supported health programs and public universities.
López Mateos was left wing like Cardenas, created social security, free books for school, which are used today still, updated of course, and spent like 1/5 of all his budget to fight poverty.
Massacre was under Diaz Ordaz, done mainly by Luis Echeverría.

>initially liked blacks
>makes his first political campaign about actaul issues, doesn't rave about niggers
>proceeds to lose
>next election goes full southern tard, goes nuts about niggers and wants more segregation
>wins election
>20 years later have half your political staff composed of black people

The dude just wanted votes, his own morals meant fuck all to him as long as he won. He was a sellout bitch who flipped over towards racism to win, and than proceeded to backtrack and go against racism in the 80s when it was popular to do so.

>Massacre was under Diaz Ordaz, done mainly by Luis Echeverría.

Fuck, sorry I don't know why i though it was Mateos. Really says a lot about Mexican politics that echeverria would go onto be the next Mexican president.

and to top it off he was sexy as fuck

There are different sorts of dictatorships, you've got the South American, not just the cone, military coups that happened every decade or so.
Then you get the PRI which won pretty much everything through corruption and the president ruled the country like an absolute monarch. There were massacres, all through the 70s students and protestors were killed and imprisoned.

Presidents used to have the right to handpick their successor, until Ernesto Zedillo (1994-2000) waved the right

>inb4 hitler
you were correct

Moving from Secretaria de Gobernacion to President was the pretty traditional path in Mexican politics of the mid 20th century.

The following were all Segob before being tapped for President by the PRI:

>Plutaro Elias Calles under Obregon
>Emilio Portes Gil under Calles
>Cardenas under Pascual Ortiz
>Miguel Aleman under Avila Camacho
>Adolfo Ruiz under Miguel Aleman
>Gustavo Diaz Ordaz under Lopez Mateos
>Echeverria under Diaz

Zedillo was based, some mid level pencil pusher who ended up in the presidency

but to the other point, i just dont buy that the mexican case was anything close in terms of violence and especially nothing close in terms of thought control/silencing of opposition voices. mexico had the western hemisphere's only USSR agency for many many years, and all the academics, journalists, and intellectuals who were unwelcome in south and central america without fail found refuge in mexico city. the PRI wasn't a dictatorship

Zedillo was a mediocre president, he literally did not achieve anything memorable, nor important besides winning the election, perfect example in which the most popular wins, instead of the most capable

Probably nazi germany when hitler resorted to pretending Germany wasn't being conquered on two fronts when the Soviets were storming Berlin

His best accomplishment was allowing clean elections, at a state level too.

True, no helicopter rides nor missing people in Mexico, not in the XX century at least.

He actually tried to limit foreign Omate rest whenever he could or seek balance and competition between them whenever he couldn't. Madero, on the other hand, was on the payroll of JP Morgan.

i didnt mean he was a great president, i mean he was some random politician who, after colosio's assassination and some obscure campaign bylaws, ended up as the nominee and won for really no good reason. he did negotiate with the zapatistas a lot, but i don't remember much about it. a few low level killings and all of course.

...