They've been mostly outside the West.

Tansu Çiller in Turkey, continued state policy of suppressing the Kurds

Khertek Anchimaa, Sükhbaataryn Yanjmaa, both chairwomen in Soviet satellites in Asia. I'm not aware of atrocities, just leading authoritarian regimes.

Isabel Perón in Argentina was democratically elected, but acted as a strongwoman in a time of political convolution. She was often eclipsed by her far more volatile, openly fascist Minister of Social Welfare, José López Rega, so you can contend how much repression came from each.

Sheikh Hasina, currently active, an electoral autocrat of modern times, violently suppresses opposition in Bangladesh.

Right now Jeanine Añez is serving jail time in Bolivia, following a show trial, the likes of which she was arranging for political opposition, that she also suppressed with the military. She stomped into the Bolivian Government palace with Bible in hand and her goons tearing down indigenous banners, promising to bring God back into the country.

And well, more, but none leading the great empires, no.

Factually correct, but as head of state her direct impact on policy was minor - I'm not aware of her dismissing governments of whose policies she disapproved, for example. Accepting the fruits of imperialistic tyranny is morally culpable, but it's also a systemic problem, distinctly different from the active application of executive power.

There is no evidence Hitler was at all involved with the execution of the holocaust either.

Funny how you're holding one responsible for the crimes of their regime and the other was a figurehead. The moral of the story is don't lose a world war if you've committed genocide.

> There is no evidence Hitler was at all involved with the holocaust either.

There's considerable evidence he was, actually.

> Funny how you're holding one responsible for the crimes of their regime and the other was a figurehead.

It's almost like a head of state and a combined executive head of government and head of state are different things.

There is evidence he wanted the Jews out of Germany and he didn't much care if they left in a boat to Madagascar or on a train to an extermination camp. There isn't evidence that he was involved with either attempt.

If we applied the standards of the Nuremberg trials to the British Empire during the Boer war Queen Victoria would have been hung.

> There isn't evidence that he was involved with either attempt.

This simply isn't true. There's plenty of evidence of that. (There's one specific kind of evidence—an documented order—that doesn't exist, but there is plenty of other evidence, including a series of public statements stating intent to exterminate the Jews stretching back to 1922, and a statement in 1942 referring back to those anticipatory statements and claiming to have silenced those who would have laughed at them, among other anticipatory and inculpatory statements.)

> If we applied the standards of the Nuremberg trials to the British Empire during the Boer war Queen Victoria would have been hung.

There might be an interesting argument for that, but the assertion is not the argument, and since no person similarly situated to the British Monarch was tried at Nuremberg, such an argument would require something much more specific behavioral analogy to make.