People you consider more evil than Hitler

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Shirō Ishii.

In general I notice a conspicuous lack of figures from that era of Japanese history in this thread.

I'd argue that Kishi Nobusuke, who became a postwar PM and whose immediate descendants are still politically relevant today, was, if not "more evil than Hitler", at least similarly evil in his public capacity to most similarly situated Nazi occupation functionaries, with his singularly unpleasant personal life larded on top of that. Obviously the primary responsibility for Japan's much more toxic attitude towards its past than Germany's lies with the Japanese people, but GHQ deciding not to insist on points like this certainly didn't help.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Dishonorable mentions for people not mentioned are Yahya Khan, President of Pakistan during the Bangladesh Genocide, and Talaat Pasha, an Ottoman bureaucrat generally cited as the architect of both the Armenian and Greek genocides.

Oh yeah, those two are definitely undermentioned and underrated for their evil. Along with Leopold II of Belgium. Another utterly monstrous historical individual that's very unknown today is Queen Ranavalona I of Madagascar.

I've seen Ranavalona revisionism here and there in a way that I haven't for Yahya Khan, the Three Pashas, or Leopold, but only in the sense that people have argued she wasn't really that much worse than other similarly situated historical rulers, not in the sense that they've argued she was Good Actually.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A case could be made for some, including Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin.  On the other hand, Stalin’s troops did liberate Auschwitz and were instrumental in defeating Hitler, thus ending a genocide (seems a bit odd, Stalin himself may not have actually cared).

I think the best way to handle the moral historiography of the Eastern Front is that, while there's no moral comparison between the two combatants during those four years (with the arguable exception of the invasion of Germany itself, with the mass rapes and so forth), that was due to circumstance rather than due to core, lasting differences in the virtues or vices of the respective leaderships. I think both parts of this formulation should be insisted upon, although the second could be disputed based on the (very real, imo) moral difference between Nazism and Bolshevism as ideologies. I just don't think that really reflects on Stalin, Beria, etc. as people.