Why do some people consider Stalin worse than Hitler? (state, empire, USSR)

[WestPreussen]

Originally Posted by my54ford

I can't believe either of you guys....We were burning up *** civilians by the 10's of thousands every night. would you rather we have continued until we burned down every town and city in Japan because that's what Curtis Le May wanted to do....study up before you make silly comments.......

You are the one, who should study up before you make silly comments. To much american propaganda. Stop making excuses. It is pathetic that so many people can get that easily brainwashed by mass media.

Should you drop atomic bombs on Vietnam instead of fighting because less civillians might have get killed? Why don't we all just start droping atomic bombs? What is the point in fighting. J
Japan was finished and was about to be attacked by Soviet Union. You should neither drop atomic bombs nor burning civillians by 10 thousands every night. What their leaders feared was destruction of their country's military by an open all out invasion from Soviet Union.

Every historian knows that it was entry of Soviet Union into the war with Japan, and not atomic bombs which had little impact on japanese military, that caused Japan to surrender. Japan was used to losing cities by american bombings.

Here is what Adam Leahy president's of United States chief of staff wrote in his memoir

"this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… in being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

Here is what general of the US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold said in public statement only 11 days after Hiroshima was attacked “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”

“It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.” —Adm. William “Bull” Halsey


Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…” Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”


Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives…” He later publicly declared “…it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” Even the famous “hawk” Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

"The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin"


This is what you military and political leaders thought. Do you know better than them? Sad truth is that you wanted to test this toy on humans to check out the effects. American intelligence broke japanese codes and knew that japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow. You wouldn't even have time to make an invasion, Japan would have already surrended.

[WestPreussen]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

Stalin wasn't aiming to make any group of people a mere museum exhibit, resembling dinosaur displays. I hope you're not horrific. This post certainly is.

He was not trying? Since when owning class, bourgeoisie and aristocracy are not groups of people?
According to weird logic of many people it is worse to kill one group of people by much smaller amount than kill all kinds of people but tens of millions more. The reality is that both Hitler and Stalin killed many kinds of people. Stalin much more than Hitler though.

[my54ford]

Originally Posted by WestPreussen

You are the one, who should study up before you make silly comments. To much american propaganda. Stop making excuses. It is pathetic that so many people can get that easily brainwashed by mass media.

Should you drop atomic bombs on Vietnam instead of fighting because less civillians might have get killed? Why don't we all just start droping atomic bombs? What is the point in fighting. J
Japan was finished and was about to be attacked by Soviet Union. You should neither drop atomic bombs nor burning civillians by 10 thousands every night. What their leaders feared was destruction of their country's military by an open all out invasion from Soviet Union.

Every historian knows that it was entry of Soviet Union into the war with Japan, and not atomic bombs which had little impact on japanese military, that caused Japan to surrender. Japan was used to losing cities by american bombings.

Here is what Adam Leahy president's of United States chief of staff wrote in his memoir

"this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… in being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

Here is what general of the US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold said in public statement only 11 days after Hiroshima was attacked “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”

“It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.” —Adm. William “Bull” Halsey


Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…” Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”


Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives…” He later publicly declared “…it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” Even the famous “hawk” Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

"The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin"


This is what you military and political leaders thought. Do you know better than them? Sad truth is that you wanted to test this toy on humans to check out the effects. American intelligence broke japanese codes and knew that japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow. You wouldn't even have time to make an invasion, Japan would have already surrended.

I give up, but guess what... TO FLIPPIN BAD! we burned up 100's of thousands Germans and Japanese. You sew the wind you're going to reap the whirlwind..........The US won and they lost. Then the US rebuilt those country's making them what they are today..

[Tonyafd]

Stalin killed out of paranoia. Hitler killed because he had the illusion that non Aryans were inferior. Both were equally self destructive. Stalin killed thousands of Russian soldiers who he believed might someday pose a threat to him. Had he been more selective in his murders, Stalin might have had an easier time stopping the Nazis. It's a miracle that he didn't kill Zhukov. Zhukov eventually pushed the Nazis back into Germany. Hitler had a nation with perhaps the best engineers in the world. Undoubtedly the Jews were some of these engineers. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[duke944]

I find the fact these psychopaths were enabled with the power to do the damage they did far more disturbing than the individuals themselves. It just shows how weak the human race is to end up with leaders like this who's murderous orders are blindly followed for years. As far as which one was worse, I think a better question is which country who supported them was worse. Stalin held power a lot longer, but that's probably only because Hitler killed himself. I'd say toss up which country was worse.

[WestPreussen]

Originally Posted by my54ford

I give up, but guess what... TO FLIPPIN BAD! we burned up 100's of thousands Germans and Japanese. You sew the wind you're going to reap the whirlwind..........The US won and they lost. Then the US rebuilt those country's making them what they are today..

Of course you give up. If you questioned what your leaders at the time said, it would make you look stupid, so it is better to just give up.

Stop watching hollywood movies. American help never went beyond 5 percent of german GDP, even in years 1948-1949, when the support was the biggest. During the same time cost of allied occupation and war repatriations absorbed from 11percent to 15 percent of german gdp. So the money were flowing rather to you from Germany than the other way around. So much for your uneducated bull**** that you made Germany into what it is today. Absolute nonsense. Germany is what it is today thanks to its own work and entrepreneurship which was woken up in them by Erhard and its politicians who had enough of brain not to interject too much into economy during time of its economic "wonder".

[bcgr]

Yes Roosvelt was of course socialist. Bismarck hated socialism, but he understood that it was inevitable, so he did some socialist reforms in order to prevent socialists from gaining power. Just because Strasser was practically communist does not make Hitler capitalist. There "light socialists" and there are hardcore socialists like communists.

Ugh... fine call it socialism then...

War crime is a war crime, therefore the one who commits a war crime is a war criminal. Very simple. If you steal something just because you are hungry, you are a thief anyway. Nobody cares about your motives. You get sentenced to jail.

Is it that simple? The nuclear bombing of Japan is celebrated here in the U.S. despite the fact that it targeted cities with hundreds of thousands of civilians. Revolutionaries are dangerous terrorists and subversives, but when they found states become heroes.

What nazis wanted to do to slavs is what you guys had already done to amerindians. And not that far back. Russia was supposed to be to them what India was to United Kingdom. They wanted to do what allies already had done. While I find it rather condemnig. It always amuses me how allies completely overlook the fact that what they hate about nazis, they already had done it themselves, just little bit earlier.

Creating an modern-day national-Sparta complete with its own helotry does not impress me, neither does shameless American & British imperialism and profiteering.

What is impressive in having multiplied times of advantages in people, material, soldiers and loosing millions more people than your opponent? It is pathetic, not impressive.

My point was that Tsarist Empire buckled in about 2-3 years and descended into civil war. That did not happen in World War II, where the Soviet Union faced was far worse and ground the German advance to a halt and repulsed the invasion, and didn't have coups in the back.

The standard of living was improved signaficantly in 90 percent of countries during 20th century.

And the Soviet Union was among the most improved, it turned the semi-feudal Russia into a superpower and add to that the fact that Western countries actually had to start making some serious improvements to the living standards of its own working classes via welfare states and had to cut loose their colonies. I find it not coincidental that now welfare states are unravelling.

It would have happened, whatever governemnt had been in charge in Russia.

The Tsars never encouraged industrialization except for military purposes and some mining; after all cities bring independent and subversive political organization, but the Tsar did like his subjects rather stupid. The Provisional Government may have been to do something if Russia had a sizable middle class and the country weren't in crisis but that ended in a debacle; after that the only real options were the Bolsheviks, some general trying his hand at a military junta, or various plundering warlords.

But not every country had to pay a price of tens of million people dead to achieve that.

"We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us." -Stalin, 1931. Industrialization in western countries was not rosy either, they, such as Britain, spread this out over a century or longer and exploited other parts of the world. The Soviet Union never had those luxuries, it compressed those 50 or 100 years into about 10 years, more or less, and had to absorb those costs unto itself. The industrialization was successful; the collectivization and purges were much more mixed in the Russian way: heavy-handed and rather sloppy, but they proved to be effective enough.

Bolsheviks gained power thanks to westerners. Lenin was a german agent.

The Bolsheviks had a western ideology, but how was Lenin a German agent? I am actually surprised this myth is still believed.

It was west that made them. And bolsheviks were much more threat to west than west was to bolsheviks.

How many countries invaded Russia after 1917? They weren't there to help the fledgling RSFSR.

Had it not been for Germany having to fight two fronts world war, Soviet Union would be finished very fast, much faster than Russian empire was in first world war.

Germany fought on two fronts in World War I, and the western front was far more important and continuous too. Russia effectively lost in World War I, the Bolsheviks didn't believe in it and signed a humiliating peace treaty. The Soviet Union did not lose in World War II.

The ideology might have been stirring. Stalin did not believe any of it.

Proof?

Yeah, me thinks in fact it is a question of a worldview a bit. Each person has his or her own view of the world, often the person himself/herself does not even realize his or her own worldview and often fails to manifest it. But still - a person has a worldview.

I agree, everyone has an ideology whether they believe they do or not. Its the only way to make sense of anything in history/politics. To be fair, I don't even really like Stalin, but I've made my peace and respect certain things; in my estimation, things could have fared much worse.

[WestPreussen]

Russian empire rapidly industralized itself starting from the late 19th century. In one decade Russia made bigger advance in industralization then in the whole previous century. Witte ad the biggest impact on it had . Examples:
-Railroad mileage increased by 70 percetn from 19,500 miles in 1891 to 33000 milers by 1901
- Coal production from 5,9 million tons to 16,1 million by 1900
- Oil production from 3,9 in 1890 to 10,2 million by 1900 making Russia top oil producent in the world.
-Export rose signaficantly. From exports amounting for 400 million rubles, it grew to 1,6 billion rubles. By the time Witte resigned Russia had accumulated 380 million rubles in reserve as a result of years of surpluses.

It is clear from documents released that germans were using bolsheviks before 1917, perhaps even funding them do disrupt Russia and to keep them out of the war. Germans sent Lenin to Russia in order to get favorable treaty with them and they got it.


Documents from the Archives of the German Foreign Ministry

LONDON OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

The State Secretary to the Foreign Ministry Liaison Officer at General Headquarters

TELEGRAM NO. I925

AS 4486 Berlin, 3 December 1917

The disruption of the Entente and the subsequent creation of political combinations agreeable to us constitute the most important war aim of our diplomacy. Russia appeared to be the weakest link in the enemy chain. The task therefore was gradually to loosen it, and, when possible, to remove it. This was the purpose of the subversive activity we caused to be carried out in Russia behind the front—in the first place promotion of separatist tendencies and support of the Bolsheviks.

It was not until the Bolsheviks had received from us a steady flow of funds through various channels and under different labels that they were in a position to be able to build up their main organ, Pravda, to conduct energetic propaganda and appreciably to extend the originally narrow basis of their party. The Bolsheviks have now come to power; how long they will retain power cannot be yet foreseen. They need peace in order to strengthen their own position; on the other hand it is entirely in our interest that we should exploit the period while they are in power, which may be a short one, in order to attain firstly an armistice and then, if possible, peace. 1 The conclusion of a separate peace would

mean the achievement of the desired war aim, namely a breach between Russia and her Allies. The amount of tension necessarily caused by such a breach would determine the degree of Russia's dependence on Germany and her future relations with us. Once cast out and cast off by her former Allies, abandoned financially, Russia will be forced to seek our support.

We shall be able to provide help for Russia in various ways; firstly in the rehabilitation of the railways; (I have in mind a German Russian Commission, under our control, which would undertake the rational and co-ordinated exploitation of the railway lines so as to ensure speedy resumption of freight movement), then the provision of a substantial loan, which Russia requires to maintain her state machine. This could take the form of an advance on the security of grain, raw materials, &c, &c, to be provided by Russia and shipped under the control of the above-mentioned commission. Aid on such a basis—the scope to be increased as and when necessary—would in my opinion bring-about a growing rapprochement between the two countries.

Austria-Hungary will regard the rapprochement with distrust and not without apprehension. I would interpret the excessive eagerness of Count Czernin to come to terms with the Russians as a desire to forestall us and to prevent Germany and Russia arriving at an intimate relationship inconvenient to the Danube Monarchy. There is no need for us to compete for Russia's good will. We are strong enough to wait with equanimity; we are in a far better position than Austria-Hungary to offer Russia what she needs for the reconstruction of her state. I view future developments in the East with confidence but I think it expedient for the time being to maintain a certain reserve in our attitude to the Austro-Hungarian government in all matters including the Polish question which concern both monarchies so as to preserve a free hand for all eventualitie

[shanv3]

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?

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.

Its all in forming a psycogical first thought response when they hear a name. See what CNN or wapo or nytimes is doing. They work overtime to portray people in bad light. The people who post here, do they have anything to do withhitler or Stalin or mao or saddam? What effect did they have on us or the audience here?
( especially this canadian/indian op) ? Nothing. Unless thier ancestors fought the war and sacrificed something

But you need constant information or misinformation to portray someone as your enemy whuch perhaps is to distort the truth or make you believe in something else.


And according to me churchill was a bigger mf than these stalin or hitler because he killed the people I know. Stalun starving ukraine is well known, but not churchill starving and sending 4 million indians to extinction during the same time period. Bodycount wise he s up there on the top. And they were only doing a non violent struggle for frredom.

And btw, you are an antisemite since you used the word zionist.

[craigiri]

By most measures I think Stalin was worse. I will explain this side of the debate in this way.....

Much of the Evil of Germany in WWII was at the hands of certain young men (mostly SS) and a few others. Without all of those storm troopers, the amount of Evil done would have been much less - and perhaps it would have just been a more "military" campaign, which is not by definition "totally evil". That is, military campaigns made the USA and UK, etc. what they are today.

Germany, even under Hitler, entertained a "dream" of a very civilized world where people were healthy, well fed and had easier lives. They envisioned advances in medicine and science and industry (outside of war). They built the Autobahns and the VW, etc.

Stalin? Well, he started by starving and executing 3 Million Ukrainians in 1932. Forced collectivization was not something supported by the Russian people - the whole thing was a power play and a scam. People didn't matter to Stalin - and he didn't have a "dream" of anything good for his people or Europe or the World.

I'm not saying Hitlers "dream" was a net positive - not at all - but I am saying that PARTS OF IT were actual advancements for his people. Stalin didn't have much of that, IMHO.

In some ways we can judge the tree by the fruit. The "good parts" (industry, science, technology) of Germanys views - about making things better there for the people - are evident in the current country. On the other hand, Russia is a failed Petro State that has never come out of the shadow of Stalin, even to this day.

ALL the current messes - such as in Ukraine and the Wars in Chechnya - are the fruits of Stalin. Putins dad was Stalins Cook and modern day Russia is trying to resurrect him.

In the scheme of things I would say

Stalin is #1
Hitler is #2

We can then argue about Mao who some would say is #3, but again....in thought and in general his intention was too make China Great. And, in a sense, he did.

It's hard to step back and look at the Big Picture...but when you do I think you do find that the intentions matter. Russian "communism" was never real in any way. It was a reaction/backlash to other horrible times there...

Someday I hope they get it together. One only need look at China and Germany now and compare them to Russia to see some of the results. Stalin seems to have gotten the worst....score.

I am definitely judging somewhat on the results...so it's a bit of monday morning QB.