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.
Hitler's extermination was a priori. He was makin' a list and checkin' it twice, about whom to exterminate, in advance of actually assuming power.
Stalin was a posteriori. He set his regime in motion, and then exterminated anyone who got in the way of his plan, or whom did not appear to be generally useful to the outcome.
That, to me, is a huge difference, at least in philosophy, although probably not in actual outcome.
Hitler's extermination was a priori. He was makin' a list and checkin' it twice, about whom to exterminate, in advance of actually assuming power.
Stalin was a posteriori. He set his regime in motion, and then exterminated anyone who got in the way of his plan, or whom did not appear to be generally useful to the outcome.
That, to me, is a huge difference, at least in philosophy, although probably not in actual outcome.
Are you arguing that the above distinction makes Stalin more of a moral person than Hitler?
A) Let's kill everyone on that block and replace their homes with a factory.
B) We need a factory on that block...so, looks like we have to kill everyone living there now, that's a shame but whaddya gonna do?
Now, let us interview the people who lived on that block and see which of the above two philosophies they found less moral.
Both Hitler and Stalin were leaders of systems they intentionally used to deliberately and systematically murder millions. There is simply no validity to the notion that the “ends justify the means” in the case of either dictatorship. In both cases these dictators clearly displayed by their words and actions a murderous antipathy not only for other nations but for their own citizens. Anyone, any citizen who having "failed" to adhere to the deadly abstractions of the "peoples revolution" or "national socialism" clearly did not, in the twisted minds of these two degenerate and unbelievably amoral men, deserve to continue to exist or live free. The direct result of this debased ideology was the genocidal eradication of whole peoples, be they Jews, Poles, Bourgeoisies, Kulaks, "intellectuals" "wreckers" or "engineers" or what have you. Virtually ALL these murders were conducted out-right with no attempt at even the appearance of due process. What “trials” did occur were clearly rigged and predestined to agree with the desires of the “state” i.e. the dictator or the “party”.
To imply even remotely or tangentially that Joseph Stalin was anything but a hideous mass murderer, fully cognizant and aware of EXACTLY what he was doing and why, is so completely absurd it defies description. It is really quite bizarre to hear some white-wash Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or the like as somehow "not as bad" as Hitler purely because of the twisted political orientation of that particular person holding desperately onto that clearly debased and invalidated point of view, namely that communism was not as "bad" as fascism. To believe that the goal of communism was “good” even though the road to that (somehow positive) goal was awash in blood, is, in itself a most amazing attitude for anyone to subscribe to. No amount of rural electrification, no number of new super-autobahns no number of better roads schools housing gender liberation or jobs can EVER justify mass murder. It is completely insane, frankly to even insinuate that this idea is valid. Both communism and fascism were and are murderous political machines designed deliberately to place absolute power in the hands of those who wish to do evil on a large scale. It is precisely this point that has placed the west and freedom loving peoples at loggerheads with these, and any similar "political philosophy". The end result of these systems is so prima facie negative that only a dreamy mindless fool, or a fascist or a communist could hold that either system has any merit what so ever.
...and yet....many do.... probably because they have never nor do they now live under any such system.
It's easy to express erroneous views on dictatorships when you don't have to struggle to simply exist under one of them.
Exactly - dictatorships. Why is dictatorship not synonymous with communism and socialism? Because they are different things. I don't think people who live in Sweden and enjoy the highest standard of living would complain.
I think the idea of communism evolved from the injustices that the poor suffered under the ruling capitalist elite. There was no freedom, or future or hope for those people and communism gave them that. However, communism then created the "communist elite" with all the other consequences.
I don't think many people today will say that capitalism is fabulous, and many are questioning if we can do better.
Speaking as someone, who lived under a communist rule - I have no complains about the free education, free universities, almost free public transportation, free housing and a guaranteed job and retirement. No-one ever starved or struggled unlike what I see in America today.
Are you arguing that the above distinction makes Stalin more of a moral person than Hitler?
A) Let's kill everyone on that block and replace their homes with a factory.
B) We need a factory on that block...so, looks like we have to kill everyone living there now, that's a shame but whaddya gonna do?
Now, let us interview the people who lived on that block and see which of the above two philosophies they found less moral.
No, I didn't say that at all. All I said was that there is a basic, bottom-level, fundamental difference in the motives of Hitler and Stalin and how they arrived at their policies and tactics. Anyone seeking to make moral judgments needs to take that into account. I made no moral judgment, I only pointed out factors that would be needed, in order to do so.
And your A) has been corrupted to say something I did not say. You are still attributing the motive of killing people because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time, the same as B). Hitler did not do that. Hitler sought out people because of who they had always irreversibly been, and searched for them in every block.
The most interesting what exactly Stalin in October 1940 entered a tuition payment at the high and higher school, and rather big. Later Khrushchev cancelled this remnant of capitalism, but the deposit remained...
There is more. In the houses built at Stalin (stalinkas) in each apartment existed one more remnant at all capitalism, and a slaveholding system - special rooms for servants and "rear entrance" on the street, that servants (who should be them at the won communism?) not to disturb "masters".
The most interesting what exactly Stalin in October 1940 entered a tuition payment at the high and higher school, and rather big. Later Khrushchev cancelled this remnant of capitalism, but the deposit remained...
There is more. In the houses built at Stalin (stalinkas) in each apartment existed one more remnant at all capitalism, and a slaveholding system - special rooms for servants and "rear entrance" on the street, that servants (who should be them at the won communism?) not to disturb "masters".
I heard those secret rooms were for KGB to spy on the residents. But sure, some of the communist elite had house help in those days. Like I said, they twisted the ideals of equality and fairness, when they were left with unchecked unlimited power.
Capitalists had slaves, too, but people forget the evils of capitalism, and only want to remember the evils of communism.
No, I didn't say that at all. All I said was that there is a basic, bottom-level, fundamental difference in the motives of Hitler and Stalin and how they arrived at their policies and tactics. Anyone seeking to make moral judgments needs to take that into account. I made no moral judgment, I only pointed out factors that would be needed, in order to do so.
.
Okay...but what is your moral judgment here? Was Hitler less moral than Stalin for the reasons you have articulated? If we "..need to take that into account.." referring to the distinction you provided, then what are we supposed to be concluding as a consequence?
Okay...but what is your moral judgment here? Was Hitler less moral than Stalin for the reasons you have articulated? If we "..need to take that into account.." referring to the distinction you provided, then what are we supposed to be concluding as a consequence?
I don't have a moral judgement, except to say they were both at a very low end of the morality scale, amplified and exacerbated by their hold on power, without which their fairly commonplace sociopathy would have gone unnoticed. The OP asks who was scarier. If I had been a blue-eyed blonde, I probably wouldn't have thought Hitler was very scary at all. There are hundreds of millions of people living in the world today whose intrinsic moral values are no better than Hitler's or Stalin's. We probably just elected a few to Congress. King Leopold, Pol Pot, and Joseph Kony are certainly no better, and maybe even Andrew Jackson and Sheriff Joe. (NB: I said 'maybe'.)
If I'm asked about scariest, I consider the police to be the scariest people in the USA, not because they lack moral values (few of them do), but because they have awesome and virtually unchallengeable power to destroy my life. But, again, the less so for a blue-eyed blonde.
I don't have a moral judgement, except to say they were both at a very low end of the morality scale, amplified and exacerbated by their hold on power, without which their fairly commonplace sociopathy would have gone unnoticed. The OP asks who was scarier. If I had been a blue-eyed blonde, I probably wouldn't have thought Hitler was very scary at all. There are hundreds of millions of people living in the world today whose intrinsic moral values are no better than Hitler's or Stalin's. We probably just elected a few to Congress. King Leopold, Pol Pot, and Joseph Kony are certainly no better, and maybe even Andrew Jackson and Sheriff Joe. (NB: I said 'maybe'.)
If I'm asked about scariest, I consider the police to be the scariest people in the USA, not because they lack moral values (few of them do), but because they have awesome and virtually unchallengeable power to destroy my life. But, again, the less so for a blue-eyed blonde.
Very well. That leaves us wondering why we need to take the priori/posteriori distinction into account when making moral judgments, since above you appear to knocking down all distinctions.
Stalin was very sporadic in his killing, as his paranoia brought him to killing randomly, or so it seemed. Deaths from gulags and purges brought his numbers anywhere from 3 to even 50 million!!!
Hitler knew his enemies (jews, political enemies, soviets, rivals) and his death count seems to go as high as 30 million. This, in theory, means that if you walked the line in Nazi Germany, and agreed with its policies, you could make it without much fear.
So, which one would you not want to rule you?
Who is the lesser of two evils?
Depends whom you ask.
If you'd fit in the category of "racially desirable" than probably Stalin seems bigger of two evils, but if you happen not to fit into this category, Hitler is obviously more dreadful option.
So we know now why the majority of people consider Hitler a lesser evil and vote for it - they consider themselves ( subconsciously or not) more desirable racial material. That would probably explain it.
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.
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.
