Where do you slot the various members of the American or British political administrations into that line-up? Does it go by how many people they killed? Or is killing one person enough?
A combination of number and method. Death camps, for example, count very heavily, as do things like deliberate starvation.
The intent to exterminate should also be factored in, but that's frequently difficult to determine after the fact.
Of course, none of this matters to people who simply want to make a moral equivalence between every leader of every country through history; my rule of thumb is, when you're feeling morally conflicted about who 'should have' won the Normandy invasion in 1944, your morality is a bit off-kilter.
So putting pressure on international bodies to enforce crippling sanctions should count, right?
>my rule of thumb is, when you're feeling morally conflicted about who 'should have' won the Normandy invasion in 1944, your morality is a bit off-kilter.
My rule of thumb is: when you assume that all "our" killing is for "good" and "their's" is for "evil" your morality (as well as your knowledge of history) is off-kilter.
How do you think economic sanctions have affected populations in Cuba, Iran and Iraq over the years? Why do you think the rest of the world sees the US as a bully?
People like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot are easy. But when people trot around on their moral high horse like "our" own countries haven't done despicable (read: "evil") things is where the real problem lies.
In case you hadn't heard, we got rid of Hitler. But that took people on the outside to recognize what was happening on the inside.
Mao is evil to roughly the same extent Hitler is evil.