Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Who was worse
HITLER! 52 45.22%
STALIN! 63 54.78%
Voters: 115. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-08-2010, 03:56 PM
 
4,434 posts, read 6,951,847 times
Reputation: 2261

Advertisements

If you are an non Jew that is from Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania or Ukraine you would say Stalin. If you were an Jew from those countries you would say Hitler.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-08-2010, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,539 posts, read 21,172,856 times
Reputation: 16936
"worse" is very subjective, of course

If you think in terms of numbers of victurms then, for instance, Stalin killed more than Hitler. Does this make him "worse"?

Hitler killed some 12 million in some six years though, and had plans for far more bloodshed than he had time for when he lost his war. Does the concentration of deaths make Hitler worse?

If he had been able to carry out his plans in Eastern Europe, and had the time to do it in less time than Stalin had would have killed more then the Soviet dictator since Slavs were by defination undesirables. If he'd been able to finish is elimination of those that were deemed not worth life and his camps had been empty and done, so many more.

To me Hitler is worse because of the mechanized, cold and carefully planned way the victums were not just killed but used up first with every effort make it a streamlined process. Stalin had purges, but they were just worse than those other leaders of the area had done. Hitler trumped anyone in coldblooded killing. Even the genocides since have been born of more traditional causes and methods, except possibly Croatia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2010, 04:55 PM
 
1,175 posts, read 1,780,295 times
Reputation: 1182
I voted "stalin" merely for the fact that his regime lasted longer and so therefore killed more, tortured more and caused more international chaos and suffering.
If the Nazi regime had lasted as long as the soviet / communist regime in the former Russia then the Germans could very well have been the "worst".

But as others have mentioned, two brutal murdering sociopath mutants are far more similar than different. They were BOTH mass murders of nearly incomprehensible proportions and they BOTH (along with their completely insane twisted "political systems") deserve nothing but the most VIGOROUS CONDEMNATION from FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE and the FREE WORLD we all (continue to) wish to live in.

Last edited by Happy Cells; 10-08-2010 at 04:58 PM.. Reason: BRING AN END TO DICTATORSHIPS!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2010, 06:00 AM
 
3,669 posts, read 6,847,925 times
Reputation: 1803
Hitler because he had the will of the majority. They and that state were scary. At least in Russia the common people might be more than likely to harbor you from the government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2010, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Østenfor sol og vestenfor måne
17,916 posts, read 24,198,051 times
Reputation: 39026
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightbird47 View Post

To me Hitler is worse because of the mechanized, cold and carefully planned way the victums were not just killed but used up first with every effort make it a streamlined process. Stalin had purges, but they were just worse than those other leaders of the area had done. Hitler trumped anyone in coldblooded killing.
So a murderer who uses a bullet which is more mechanically efficient than an arrow is 'worse' than the bowman?

A murderer who pummels someone to death with their fists, an inefficient method for murder, is a fractionally kinder soul than one who uses a knife?

Is cold-blooded, matter-of-fact murder 'worse' than murder committed by a red-faced, impassioned murderer, frothing at the mouth, eyes bulging?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2010, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,539 posts, read 21,172,856 times
Reputation: 16936
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQConvict View Post
So a murderer who uses a bullet which is more mechanically efficient than an arrow is 'worse' than the bowman?

A murderer who pummels someone to death with their fists, an inefficient method for murder, is a fractionally kinder soul than one who uses a knife?

Is cold-blooded, matter-of-fact murder 'worse' than murder committed by a red-faced, impassioned murderer, frothing at the mouth, eyes bulging?
I don't think there is a true "worse" but in terms of mass murder and genocide, there are different kinds. Ruanda is horrendous. But it was a different kind than the Nazi machine. It was personal passion over industrialized murder.

Reading a book called, Liberators, American Witnesses to the Holocaust, by Michael Hirsh. Its about the men who liberated the camps they came across in the west and what it did to them. It's descriptions are stark and graphic, largely first person. When a person is killed, no matter if its a personal killing, an accident, an act of war or genocide they are still dead. But the special horror of not just killing but *using up* the victum until they have no further use and then, if they don't die on their own, eliminating them is the exception. Industiralized murder is not the norm and in that way it can be said to be "worse" since it kills so many more so efficently. Pol Pot and his shipments of "logs" to his killing camps is in the same league.

A little of us can understand how emotionally motivated mass murder happens because we are human and have emotions. But the cold and calcuated and designed method is much harder to wrap the mind around. Most people cannot find any human connection to that. Thus the "cold blooded" part.

What I was aiming at is when we try to compare the acts of two mass murderers, or add in others, what do we use as a measure? Stalin killed in less concentrated doses than Hitler but Hitler killed in concentrated fashion and had to build an entire system to do it, and even when the war was lost continued to kill. We cannot say one death is worse than another but we can pick a comparison and say one method or one instance is "worse" in terms of that? Or one motivation. Or the casualties over time if it had finished.

In the end, the dead are still dead.

There was a movie, can't remember who was in it, set in nazi germany. This German detective is trying to solve the murder of a prostitute, who he tracks to an SS officer. The counterpoint between his attempts to seek justice for his one victum, extended over time into the recognition of this officers responsibilty for the deaths of mass numbers, is well told, and the idea that the prostitute is no less deserved of justice than the rest is the heart of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 06:49 PM
 
39 posts, read 284,505 times
Reputation: 58
Hello, I know this is slightly off-topic but I have some Qs regarding Stalin. I know from history that both Hitler and Stalin were brutal dictators who held their empires with absolute power. But I heard of several assassination attempt made on Hitler. Most notably, the July 1944 plot by Colonel Stauffenberg and some high-ranking Nazi officers.
But I have never heard of any assasination attempt let alone any plot to overthrow Stalin. I know Stalin killed off so many of his supposed "enemies" through purges. Still, because of his evil and monstrous deeds toward his own people, there must have been quite a lot of people who hated Stalin's guts and wanted to assasinate him, especially in Ukraine.
Why was no assaisination attempt made on Stalin? If Soviet people were too afraid, why didn't any of his generals attempt Coup de'Tat to overthrow Stalin? At one point, the Marshal Zhukov was more popular than Stalin. Why could nobody in a country of 200 million assaisinate or overthrow Stalin?

Thanks in advance for any insights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 07:41 PM
 
Location: New York City
2,745 posts, read 6,440,929 times
Reputation: 1890
The German military was not controlled by Hitler (or, more generally, the National-Socialist (Nazi) Party)) nearly to the extent that the Red Army was controlled by Stalin. There were many very senior officers in the Wehrmacht who didn't care for National Socialism or even the fuhrer - they simply followed orders out of a sense of duty and respect for chain of command. However when they realized that Hitler was leading Germany to ruin, some of them took action.

Stalin had a much greater control of the Red Army. In 1938, he purged the military by executing thousands of officers, from the highest ranks (including 2 marshals) down to lieutenants. Secondly, the Red Army had a dual command structure. Each unit would have 2 commanders - a military one and political one, call a commissar. A commisar could countermand the military commanders orders.

Lastly, Stalin was very popular among the people, especially during the later years. This was partly due to propaganda and partly due to his leadership during the Great Patriotic War.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 07:47 PM
 
1,020 posts, read 1,705,220 times
Reputation: 755
Stalin was planning additional purges for the 1950's, especially against the Jews. His power and prestige were at their highest postwar, and he likely didn't foresee any opposition to his plans.
When the heinous SOB became very ill, it seems as if Beria, et al either panicked, or refused to send for medical assistance. They were still terrified of the monster on his deathbed. I hope he suffered a great deal before the end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2012, 07:56 PM
 
1 posts, read 995 times
Reputation: 10
Default eloy-judovsky

Hi, I just read your discussion on "Who was worse, Hitler or Stalin". I was wondering where you got the Judovsky name. It was my maiden name, I don't get alot of information on that name, your help is grately appreciated. Thank you Sharon
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top