So, who wins in this Eleventh Circle showdown?

France had communist tendencies in the 19th century, i would put MAO in France and then Pol Pot in Austria as a left over. otherwise i agree with those selections, interesting idea

hitler, easily. none of the others had any clue what to do in a proper war. they were good politicians and brutal oppressors, but that's all (save perhaps for Tojo). even stalin won by total war, losing millions of soldiers in the process of defeating a fraction of his own force.

where's napoleon? khomeini? bin laden? nasrallah?

Hitler was a HORRIBLE tactician, he would lose. don't know much about Tojo except that Pearl Harbor was the weakest stab in history that ended up biting him in the ass, so he doesn't win either. Saddam wasn't too diplomatic and neither was pol pot. it's a toss up between Stalin and Mao for me, because let's face it, Mussolini wasn't all that great at commanding forces. I'd say Stalin probs, but not too sure.

Napoleon would win if he was in, that's not even fair. Bin Laden isn't much of a leader. Khomeini would work in Turkey though... that would be interesting. bbdaniels, Hitler sucked at planning, the only reason he conquered as much as he did was because England and France acted as a freaking doormat for him, he won no major battles, trust me I studied him in depth last year. He wasted so many resources in death camps as well, are you forgetting something? (ie. Holocaust!!!!)

I think political ideals might get in the way with elements of metagaming coming through.

lol, as in fascists attacking commis, yeah probably. the most pragmatic would then win most likely? turkey might fair well in this case

@bdaniels:

It's evil people from the 20th CENTURY (so no Napoleon... and I don't count him as evil AT ALL, he's sort of a Caesar-like, ambiguous figure, he did some good, some bad... I guess if you live in England or Russia you have reason to hate him, but seeing as how he sold my country about a third of our land AND emancipated the Jews in West Europe, as a Jew... I have to say, I like Napoleon.)

And this is hell so they have to be DEAD... Bin Laden might be alive...

Khomeini I didn't put in to avoid any controversy, some Muslims like him... and the other guy I don't know who that is...

Hitler was a great statesman and a great grand-war guy... TERRIBLE tactician! He's actually the REVERSE then of Napoleon, who was maybe the best tactical battle commander ever, but TERRIBLE on grand-war strategy (See: Russian Invasion.)

But this is Diplomacy, and diploming...

-Hitler COULD diplome, but usually against those he could trick (See: Chamberlain) and he did stab Stalin, but Stalin's not falling for THAT again in hell...
-Stalin lasted a long time... he might do well here... if he's not snuffed early.
-Mao I don't know well enough...
-Saddam's all about running over folks quickly- the second he has to stop and fight a non-blitzing war he gets/got crushed...

Hey...

I think I see a Stalin/Saddam Juggernaut! Saddam would be happy, it's just plow straightfoward, and Stalin could then focus so heavily on Mao and Hitler they'd be hard pressed to stop him, and as Russia often dows better out of a Jugger than Turkey, he'd stay a bit ahead of Saddam...

-Pol Pot I don't know...
-Mussolini's a bit overmatched, so he's likely crawling to Hitler (again)
-Tojo's pretty fast out of the gate... and he and Hitler have worked before, so E/G alliances work well, that might be their answer if Stalin/Saddam in a Juggernaut comes out of the East

I'm still sticking with Stalin ftw, especially after that assessment. That is, providing the Juggernaut takes place

The obvious alliances would be England *4- Germany - Italy *3 against France (Pol Pot was very pro chinese *1) - Austria - Russia *2, with Turkey as a bargaining chip. All in all (see footnotes) I expect the Red Alliance to win, they are in a slightly worse tactical position but they could operate more close to real allies (see footnotes). Also, it does not present the "pacifist" enemy force that did allow Hitler to take Austria, Bohemia and Poland while doing nothing.
Of course, other outcomes are possible (as Hitler and Stalin allying again against Austria -some people never learn-).

*1 They were maoist but they had close ties with the chinese even after the chinese abandoned Mao ortodoxy
*2 At the beginning of WW II until 1944 Stalin was really closer to Nationalist China, but to me it was a reason of strategy (he needed someone to keep the Japanese occupied so they didn't attack Siberia).
*3 Unlikely alliance so close... even as allies, Germans and Japanese considered each other "inferior races". Its alliance was more one of "common enemies". It would be even reasonable that Japan choses to ally with the Red Alliance to profit from the weaker enemy... very classic Japanese tactic
*4 Another alliance that wasn't as smooth as it is usually told... Hitler and Mussolini where in the brink to go to war when Germany anexed Austria

@sjuan76:

Hitler and Stalin could very well ally just to get Austria... then kill each other.

By the way, a bit off topic:

The Westboro Baptist Church, the one that says "God hates fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers" and all that other hateful shit... coming to Long Beach February 19th... Anyone want to give them a proper "greeting?" ;)

(All these men are evil as can be... but did they ever knock soldiers? That's so low... when you go lower than THESE guys... granted these nutjobs haven't killed half their country or gassed 6 million- but if they had the chance... they hate Jews and gays... bastards the whole lot of 'em.)

That's what they want you to do Obi don't feed them, they're like trolls kind of. Ignore them as best you can, they are whackjobs that deserve no attention, however horrible of people they may be. Fuck Westboro, but Fuck them silently

Haha, Saddam can get played by a larger power in this game, just like in real life.

By the way, Mao won the diplomacy game for China during WWII. The players were The Republic of China (today's Taiwan), The People's Republic of China (the communists), and Japan.

Stalin would win, like he did in real life.

Stalin would win, but I'd put there someone responsible for the indian american genocide... With the excellent diplomatic skills of some american leader it'll be very hard decision to decide who is going to win :)

Accepting the premise as given (not discussing the "evil" part of any of them), I think the game would go to Mao, hands down.

Stalin is the best tactician of the lot, but he came to power on Lenin's back.

Mao, on the other hand, was able to get support against the regime of the time from very different places, and even took advantage of a foreign attack, and managed to come on top of everyone else.

He's the kind of guy that will have the whole board playing for him.

@ alexintour - you're thinking of Thomas Jefferson.