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.
I am reading The last days of hitler, written by an English historian who researched and wrote the book right after the war ended. It reinvigorated my interest in WW2, and I ended up watching many documentaries.
There seems to be a consensus among many people that Josef Stalin was a far worse person and a tyrant than Adolf Hitler. Do you agree?
Personally speaking, whilst Stalin was a sociopath who sacrificed his troops unnecessarily and even killed many of his own people, I don't see how he was worse than Hitler. If we use this hypothesis of killing millions of his own people then shoudnt China's Mao also be included?
Hitler "ruled" for barely 12 years and he did immense damage. Stalin ruled for much longer. I can't imagine if Hitler won the war and ruled for as long as Stalin did, what he'd have done, or how many millions more would have perished. Hitler was far worse imo.
Hitler was definitely more evil. Stalin may have done far more damage to the world by the durability and surface respectability of the ideology he claimed to advocate. Though there was little that the doctrinally Communist about him.
Stalin's actions resulted in more deaths. No question about it. But he didn't target any one group for extinction. Unlike Lenin, he did not know when to stop. And his personal violent streak, from his young days as a Caucasus tough, didn't help matters.
Don't forget, that Stalin loaded enter nationalities into cattle cars, and shipped them to Central Asia and Siberia, as enemies of the people, or simply as a preventive measure against "ethnic nationalism". Lithuania, for example, after the end of WWII:
Quote:
At least 130,000 people, 70% of them women and children, were forcibly transported to labor camps and other forced settlements in remote parts of the Soviet Union, particularly in the Irkutsk Oblast and Krasnoyarsk Krai. Among the deportees were about 4,500 Poles. These deportations do not include Lithuanian partisans or political prisoners (approximately 150,000 people) deported to Gulags (prison camps)
Hitler was definitely more evil. Stalin may have done far more damage to the world by the durability and surface respectability of the ideology he claimed to advocate. Though there was little that the doctrinally Communist about him.
Stalin's actions resulted in more deaths. No question about it. But he didn't target any one group for extinction. Unlike Lenin, he did not know when to stop. And his personal violent streak, from his young days as a Caucasus tough, didn't help matters.
His ideology was to kill people en masse by their social status. Is it any different than killing people by their nationality?
Anyway he did target people and kill people by their nationality. Read about "The polish action" Not to mention millions ukrainians that he starved to death. He also had planned to target jews but he died.
I repeat Hitler was a disgusting tyrant. But chances of survival under his regime for an average person were much higher than under Stalin's regime, where all it took was that your neigbour made up a story about you and you would end up dead and your whole family most likely too.
His ideology was to kill people en masse by their social status. Is it any different than killing people by their nationality?
Anyway he did target people and kill people by their nationality. Read about "The polish action" Not to mention millions ukrainians that he starved to death. He also had planned to target jews but he died.
I repeat Hitler was a disgusting tyrant. But chances of survival under his regime for an average person were much higher than under Stalin's regime, where all it took was that your neigbour made up a story about you and you would end up dead and your whole family most likely too.
Hitler didn't killed someone by their nationality,but by their blood/ethnic,so Hitler was worse.
Hitler didn't killed someone by their nationality,but by their blood/ethnic,so Hitler was worse.
So did Stalin when, he specifically killed poles, cossacks, ukrainians based on just their ethnic origins and not actual political views or some imagined guilt.
Stalin was worse of course, but Americans have been brainwashed by the Zionists to despise Hitler so they do. I have been thinking of writing something about this. Why do we see endless movies, games, news stories, etc about how evil Hitler was, and by extension modern neo-nazis, when other rulers have killed more people and enslaved larger terroritories?
Stalin, Ghengis Khan and Tammerlain all killed more people and took over more countries, but for some reason only Hitler is despised. Use your brains people.
People who try and portray either Hitler or Stalin as 'worse' than the other are usually using them as proxies for right and left, respectively. What's pathetic is that in so doing, they are implicitly identifying as being on the ideological 'side' of one or the other so some degree.
To wit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlB328
Stalin was worse of course, but Americans have been brainwashed by the Zionists to despise Hitler so they do. I have been thinking of writing something about this. Why do we see endless movies, games, news stories, etc about how evil Hitler was, and by extension modern neo-nazis, when other rulers have killed more people and enslaved larger terroritories?
This one is dissembling on behalf of Hitler because he's tired of the 'bad rap' noe-Nazis are getting. Plus, it's all the fault of 'the Joos!' [he thinks 'Zionists' is a clever way of making hims look less anti-Semitic].
He doesn't fail to live up what I observed previously...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41
It seems obvious that both Hitler and Stalin were murderous individuals who thought nothing of laying waste to millions of lives in furtherance of their ends. People who try and portray one or the other as 'worse' merely beclown themselves in the process.
This one is dissembling on behalf of Hitler because he's tired of the 'bad rap' noe-Nazis are getting. Plus, it's all the fault of 'the Joos!' [he thinks 'Zionists' is a clever way of making hims look less anti-Semitic].
He doesn't fail to live up what I observed previously...
But by that logic would you consider Harry Truman to be equally disgusting person as Hitler and Stalin? The guy killed about 250 000 civillian people at once without a blink. He does not come close to Hitler and Stalin in number of dead civilians but he is clearly capable of killing thousands of innocent people at once. So would you consider him to be as deranged even though he did not kill as many people?
Stalin was worse of course, but Americans have been brainwashed by the Zionists to despise Hitler so they do. I have been thinking of writing something about this. Why do we see endless movies, games, news stories, etc about how evil Hitler was, and by extension modern neo-nazis, when other rulers have killed more people and enslaved larger terroritories?
Stalin, Ghengis Khan and Tammerlain all killed more people and took over more countries, but for some reason only Hitler is despised. Use your brains people.
So Hitler gets a pass since he was a less adept mass murderer than Stalin, Ghengis Khan and Tammerlain? This conversation is drifting off into some very dark places.
But by that logic would you consider Harry Truman to be equally disgusting person as Hitler and Stalin? The guy killed about 250 000 civillian people at once without a blink. He does not come close to Hitler and Stalin in number of dead civilians but he is clearly capable of killing thousands of innocent people at once. So would you consider him to be as deranged even though he did not kill as many people?
No.
First, I've already clearly stated my position that body counts are ridiculous means of measuring morality, or lack thereof.
Second, let me make it clear, I am not one of those Americans who thinks it is beyond the pale to discuss the morality of dropping the atomic bombs. These boards are full of people who go into a full-throated "How dare you!" when the issue comes up. I'm not one of them. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while the had some military utility, were primarily terror bombing meant to break the will of the people by killing as many of them as possible. In that respect, they were no different than the bombings of Tokyo or Dresden or Rotterdam or Belgrade, to name just a few examples.
I think war entails a lot of ugly choices, and I think winning war means making moral compromises. I don't think anyone comes out clean, and those that want to portray World War II are purely the white-hatted good guys against the black-hatted bad guys are telling themselves a fairy tale.
That said, I think it is pretty clear that there is a stark difference between, say, raining bombs down on the Yugoslav capital in a war of aggression against perceived 'subhuman' Slavs on one hand, and attempting to deliver a swift knockout blow to an aggressor nation that initiated a war against you and had been regular murdering your POWs in the three-plus years since on the other hand.
Truman did not drop nuclear bombs 'without a blink'. He was very disturbed by their use, as his diary entries and letters indicate. He initially sought and received assurances from generals that they would only be used against military targets, but he ultimately acquiesced to their use against cities. In the end, he decided that he was taking Japanese lives to save American (and British, and Australian, etc.) lives. I do not see how bombing Rotterdam or London or running concentration camps by Hitler, or how the Holodomor or summarily massacring 20,000+ Polish officers and intelligentsia by Stalin, can reasonably be construed as saving German or Soviet lives, respectively. Still, on August 10, 1945, after the second bomb was dropped, Truman ordered a halt to the bombings. The second drop surprised him, as he had turned over discretion of use to the military and did not expect it so soon. He wanted a pause because he found the destruction 'too horrible' and was appalled by the killing of 'all those kids'. Both of those quotes are Truman's words. I am aware of no angst or struggle of conscience on the part of either Mr. Shicklgruber or Mr. Dzhugashvili regarding those they doomed.
Motive and intent matter.
Note:
I don't consider either Hitler or Stalin to have been deranged. They certainly had their personality disorders - megalomania, paranoia, inferiority complexes, messianic rage (Hitler), personal cruelty (Stalin). But I don't think either of them was clinically insane.
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.
noe-Nazis are getting. Plus, it's all the fault of 'the Joos!' [he thinks 'Zionists' is a clever way of making hims look less anti-Semitic]. 