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.
Neither of these leaders can be defended...pure and simple. Here is a quote from Hitler advocating world domination and repeating his obsessive hatred for Jews:
"The struggle for world domination will be fought between us, between Germans and Jews. All else is a facade and illusion."
Stalin by far and not only because of the death and misery he created during his lifetime but also the death and misery after he died.
Everyone already referenced the purges, executions, starvation of people, etc...
But I didn't see anyone mention how Stalin propped up the regimes of China and North Korea. Those regime stood only because of Stalin backing and I lay the millions of those deaths on Stalin as well. If he hadn't propped up Mao after WWII, I do not think China would've turned out the way they did with Mao in charge of the country.
I think there would be Korea now if it weren't for the efforts of the Stalin and Mao (whom Stalin made, IMO). Both Stalin and Mao knew there was no way Kim Il Sung could've won without their help. It's because of Stalin and Mao that there are 2 Korea's today, that so many families are still separated and that millions have been executed, starved to death or sent to hard labor.
I hope Stalin is rotting in hell not just for what he did but also for the domino effects of his actions.
Stalin "invading" Hungary and other eastern countries was a necessity in terms of fighting the Germans, I wouldn't so much term it as an invasion rather than an opportunistic manner to conquer those who generally cooperated with the German regime ("cooperation" is a loose term as well, my grandfather, 15 at the time, explained to me that you either took up the rifle for the Germans or you were shot, end of).
The Germans were not liked, but the Russians were hated more, it really was a matter of picking your poison. When Stalin made it to Berlin, it was an opportunity seized and more of a conquering rather than invasion.
Stalin "invading" Hungary and other eastern countries was a necessity in terms of fighting the Germans, I wouldn't so much term it as an invasion rather than an opportunistic manner to conquer those who generally cooperated with the German regime ("cooperation" is a loose term as well, my grandfather, 15 at the time, explained to me that you either took up the rifle for the Germans or you were shot, end of).
The Germans were not liked, but the Russians were hated more, it really was a matter of picking your poison. When Stalin made it to Berlin, it was an opportunity seized and more of a conquering rather than invasion.
They were both garbage, I can agree to that.
Not really an invasion?
Why don't you read up about what happened to Hungary under the stooge Bela Kuhn?
At times like this-when dealing with someone like Cerebrator-a saying comes to mind. "You can't enlighten the unconscious."
Cerebrator should feel free to use it in reference to me; as I am surely using it in reference to him.
What here do you have a problem with? What did I say wrong? Why not argue straight up with me rather than ad hominem attacks? So far all people have used are ad hominem attacks.
Stalin "invading" Hungary and other eastern countries was a necessity in terms of fighting the Germans, I wouldn't so much term it as an invasion rather than an opportunistic manner to conquer those who generally cooperated with the German regime ("cooperation" is a loose term as well, my grandfather, 15 at the time, explained to me that you either took up the rifle for the Germans or you were shot, end of).
The Germans were not liked, but the Russians were hated more, it really was a matter of picking your poison. When Stalin made it to Berlin, it was an opportunity seized and more of a conquering rather than invasion.
They were both garbage, I can agree to that.
Also, what is a necessity to invade the Baltic States and commit mass murder amongst the people?
Was it necessary to starve 7 million Ukrainians? Was it a necessity to murder 25,000 Polish inellectuals and officers in the Katyn Forest?
And another poster had it right! If it weren't for Stalin, not only would half of Europe endure suffering, but more like half the world considering all the communist regimes that grew from Soviet backing and influence.
Why don't you read up about what happened to Hungary under the stooge Bela Kuhn?
You're arguing semantics here. Obviously it was a conquering, but it wasn't in the same comparison as what Hitler was doing in Europe - they were different methods.
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.
