Hitler VS Stalin [Archive]

Slartibardfast

11-08-2006, 21:20

Hard to say but for my money Most Evil Barstard circa WW2 has to go to..........

It's a draw.

Prescott Bush and Herbert Walker who with their business associates at Brown, Root and Harriman, now a subsidiary of Haliburton, financed the NAZI party from its infancy. They eventually become Hitlers bankers and supplied a lot of oil, spare parts, etc; to the NAZI war machine. A Congressional Trial, post Pearl Harbour, exonerated them of the charges of "dealing with the enemy".

No political party or war gets off the ground without someone throwing copious amounts of money at them. Killing masses of people in the cause of a demented ideology is ordinary "being completely plain insane". Providing the financial platform to enable the killing masses of people in the cause of a demented ideology in order to simply make a huge monetary profit takes "the Most Evil Barstard cake" in my books.

Orb

11-08-2006, 21:23

I'll vote Stalin. Hitler managed to recover Germany at least.

Craterus

11-08-2006, 21:26

Hitler FTW!

:2thumbsup:

Mithrandir

11-08-2006, 21:46

This topic really doesn't belong in a fuzzy place like the EH.

Anyway, :inquisitive:

pvt_isaac

11-08-2006, 22:00

Hitler. Period.

Vladimir

11-08-2006, 22:01

Hitler intended to kill people. Stalin just didn't care if a few million died while reforming the industries.

Hello, the purges? :inquisitive:

Anyway, I vote for Mao :devil: .:skull:

Phoenix

11-08-2006, 22:07

caravel

11-08-2006, 22:29

I voted for caravel. He was easily the worst after executing thousands of prisoners, and installing Windows 98SE on his computer.

Mithrandir

11-08-2006, 22:29

I voted for caravel. He was easily the worst after executing thousands of prisoners, and installing Windows 98SE on his computer.
:laugh4:

Papewaio

11-08-2006, 22:35

This topic really doesn't belong in a fuzzy place like the EH.

Anyway, :inquisitive:

I suggest you send it too the Backroom where some poor moderator can look after it there. :clown:

Julian the apostate

11-08-2006, 23:10

two things one i don't think there is a criterion to decide. can you say it by who started the war or who manipulated who or their dealings with political enemies or who killed more people or why
without a specific critea u can't really decide
also i just think its funny the thread creator is a junior member when this gets moved to the monestary and the junior members can't touch it
sadly i'm a junior member to and it just happened to me but i think its funny personally
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
MWAHAHAH

drone

11-08-2006, 23:29

Stalin had a better moustache.

Craterus

11-08-2006, 23:34

Stalin had a better moustache.

I thought that too.. :idea2:

Julian the apostate

11-08-2006, 23:56

i love u
stalin wins world war mustache:2thumbsup:

Csargo

11-09-2006, 04:25

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Stalin3.jpg

PWNED

Taedius

11-09-2006, 06:00

I'll vote Stalin. Hitler managed to recover Germany at least.

Yes, before he turned Europe into a pile of rubble.

LegioScythia

11-09-2006, 06:39

Hitler both of them were murderers but that was Hitlers plan all along to exterminate the jews,slavs,and other people who he considered inferior:skull:

CrossLOPER

11-09-2006, 07:44

I'll vote Stalin. Hitler managed to recover Germany at least.
...and Comrade Stalin transformed a giant farming village into an industrial super power that rivaled nations for years to come....

We will recover...

Warluster

11-09-2006, 07:48

But hitler inly ruled for 12 years! Stalin went onfor ages, plus he slaughtered people when they revolted, like The Czech's, they got killed over a riot( nearly killed) plus stalin, like hitler, had secret police, they were both bad, but hitler the worst.

Subedei

11-09-2006, 10:13

Come on, what a question. Bet on soccer games or anything if you wanna talk about "vs."

:gah: :weirdthread: :weirdthread:

My all-time evil favorit is Garry Oldman in "Leon"...click...click....

Jxrc

11-09-2006, 12:43

Two nasty bastards if you ask me.

Very similar in many way moreover (take a look at the parallel biographies by A. Bullock if you are interested).

Both killed millions of people to carry out their own crazy "grand design" but I would say that to me Hitler is worse because of the racial element "justifying" its deeds. At least with Stalin there was at least a small theoretical possibility to demonstrate that you had ceased to be the enemy he had dreamt all about.

Dexter

11-09-2006, 13:02

... history is always strange .. tri not to make decisions to quickly .. What one did in a period of 4 yeas the other did in 15 ... so the question is not relevant ... reed obout it ... and yes when it comes down to numbers Stalin is the winner here ... and he "loved" jews ... if you get what i mean ..
just because the allies chose the lesser worse of tho ? at least one was not playing innocent .. no offence ..

Vladimir

11-09-2006, 13:38

...and Comrade Stalin transformed a giant farming village into an industrial super power that rivaled nations for years to come....

We will recover...

:laugh4: :laugh4: :clown:

... history is always strange .. tri not to make decisions to quickly .. What one did in a period of 4 yeas the other did in 15 ... so the question is not relevant ... reed obout it ... and yes when it comes down to numbers Stalin is the winner here ... and he "loved" jews ... if you get what i mean ..
just because the allies chose the lesser worse of tho ? at least one was not playing innocent .. no offence ..

Yes; and Trotsky was a very dear friend of his. :yes:

Csargo

11-09-2006, 14:23

Hitler both of them were murderers but that was Hitlers plan all along to exterminate the jews,slavs,and other people who he considered inferior:skull:

Not true. Hitler's plan wasn't all along to kill the Jews. He actually thought he could defeat the UK and then force them to let Germany use there Navy to ferry all of the Jews in Europe to Madagascar. If you don't believe me look it up in wikipedia.:whip: That was called the Madagascar Plan.

Andres

11-09-2006, 14:42

They were both pure evil, so I vote : :gah2:

dacdac

11-09-2006, 21:30

well, Hitler was worse in my opinion. He used not only revenge, but religion as a tool to kill people. He even tried, but failed, to keep his own people from knowing just how many people he had killed. He served in WW1 and was so broken by the lose and Treaty of Versailles (sp?) that he vowed his revenge.
Stalin, on the other hand, was a victim of human nature. After overthrowing the gov't and czars of Russia, he became corrupt witrh power. He had Lenin kicked out, hunted down, and tried to kill him in order to rulle the Communist party.
By denotation, there is not much wrong with communism, even the U.S. was communist as the colonies were being formed. But he stretched the truth for more power, sold his people's food for more money and weapons, and caused the death of anyone who revolted, rebeled, even spoke out against his rule.
:whip:
:dancinglock:

Csargo

11-09-2006, 23:30

caravel

11-09-2006, 23:33

Andres

11-09-2006, 23:37

Hitler VS Stalin?

:boxing:

I'd put my money on Stalin.

Now, let's get ready to rumble !

:boxing:

:dancinglock:

maximus overlord

11-10-2006, 07:20

ok guys all that is water under the bridge take a look at germany today
and the take a look at russia

i know witch country i'd prefer to live in:whip:

Samurai Waki

11-10-2006, 08:16

Stalin was the boy who punched little kids in the stomach and stole their lunch money.
Hitler was the little boy who got punched in the stomach and had his lunch money stolen one time too many.

Can't really compare the two in terms of Evilness considering it is a subjective term. But if I was an (Aryan) German I'd rather have Hitler as my leader, rather being a Russian and having Stalin as my leader. If I was in the Holocaust I'd rather have neither one as my leader.

CrossLOPER

11-10-2006, 08:26

:laugh4: :laugh4: :clown:
???

Hepcat

11-10-2006, 08:37

I don't see anyone mentioning the fact that AFTER the war the "liberated" Russian POWs in the concentration camps just got sent to Gulags. Isn't that lovely, you have survived a death camp, NOW WORK IN OUR LABOUR CAMPS!

THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS RUSSIAN POWS ONLY RUSSIAN TRAITORS!!!!

Stalin was responsible for the deaths of more of his OWN people. Statistically Stalin was worse. Whether his moustache looped twelve times around his head and went in his ears and out his nostrals he was worse, I believe.

Avicenna

11-10-2006, 09:05

It's stupid and pointless to compare two characters from two different countries for different periods of time. Sure, Stalin killed a lot. Now, convert those figures to percentages of their country's population, and find the average killed-per-year % from that.

Also, to say that Hitler caused ALL the deaths in WWII is ludicrous. The Japanese were fighting a war before your European one, Nanjing massacre anyone? Also, ever heard of the Soviet war machine's one rifle per 3 (or was it 5) people figure? They also posted machine-guns to gun down people who were running from the battle.

All the Aryan rubbish as well... guess what it's for... SCAPEGOATING! Hmm, never thought of that, did we? The Nazi's NEEDED a scapegoat to blame Versailles and the hell after it, a scapegoat THEY could save Germany from by destroying, ONLY IF VOTED INTO POWER.

As for Stalin's political killings, those were to keep himself alive. In a dog-eat-dog world, if you didn't do that, you'd die and just be replaced by someone else like you.

MSB

11-10-2006, 09:44

I voted Stalin, but if Harry Truman was up there I would have voted for him as he was the first to drop a nuclear bomb.

Cencus

11-10-2006, 10:58

Really dunno who's worse, the lying, scheming, racist, who subverted and destroyed democracy in home country, invaded his neighbours and started the largest war to date, or the lying, scheming, paranoid delusional farm boy turned politician, who destroyed any hope of communism and instead promoted a mix of fascism and socialism.

Both were horrendous mass murders, luckily Hitler was defeated in just over a decade.

Warluster

11-10-2006, 11:24

Not true. Hitler's plan wasn't all along to kill the Jews. He actually thought he could defeat the UK and then force them to let Germany use there Navy to ferry all of the Jews in Europe to Madagascar. If you don't believe me look it up in wikipedia.:whip: That was called the Madagascar Plan.
I have to put in post here,the madagascar plan is not ture! ! You are allowed to put your own info in the wiki. Someone has obviously inserted some nonsense which some people actually believe. It is not true. The Nazi soldier's were killing jews on the street, everywhere! That was demoralizing to the soldier's so Adolf Eichmann oredered them to get extermination camps, they had to run that by Hitler first.

Avondland

11-10-2006, 12:12

I voted Hitler as he started the war, was responsible for the Holocaust, and his Lebensraum policy called for the extermination of the Slavs. As rotten as he was, Stalin never tried to exterminate an entire ethnic group AFAIK.
Kulaks, Wolga-Germans, Ukranians, even Jews were frequently deported towards the Gulags. Altough one cannot speak of exterminating an entire ethnic group, Stalin's policy could be considered racist ... and yes, that is quite ironic for an ideology that claims to be 'communist'.

I voted for Stalin. He was responsible for the deaths of millions, the unfortunate occupation of several countries in Eastern Europe with also a high death toll. But both men have put their mark on history. One may not forget both dictators also did good things, because as future historian, I believe the world is not black and white but filled with unlimited variations of grey. It would be unwise to say: Hitler Evil, Stalin Evil. One should look at these men from their own time period.

Tomisama

11-10-2006, 13:44

Did either ever actually personally kill anyone?

Hmmm?

No matter I guess.

They were indeed monsters, devoid of the compassion that makes us grater than the beasts. But they could not have done anything alone. They were enabled buy those around them, who can only be judged as worse, as they had the ability and opportunity to stop them.

Word :yes:

Hepcat

11-10-2006, 13:51

I believe the world is not black and white but filled with unlimited variations of grey. It would be unwise to say: Hitler Evil, Stalin Evil.

That is what I believe too. Had Russia continued with Lenin's plan for agriculture then the Soviets would almost certainly have done infinitely worse during the German invasion. Hitler rebuilt Germany and also, although the war was horrible, it made Europe a much more stable place. This doesn't excuse what they did, but they were a nessicary historical force and without them the world wouldn't be what it is today. It may also not be such a good place too.

I have to put in post here,the madagascar plan is not ture! !

I am pretty sure it is true but was a plan. It proved impractical because the problem was that when France surrendered they couldn't reach Madagascar because the British controlled the Suez Canal and they couldn't go around the long way and go past South Africa, so it was abandoned until they enacted the final solution. There were also plans for the invasion of Ireland but just because it wasn't put into action doesn't mean it isn't true.

Motep

11-10-2006, 17:16

This still goin on? Plain and simple...hitler was waay worse. Stalin killed for his country, Hitler killed to soothe his own hatred. Plaus Hitlers regime killed loads more people, and decimated half of Europe, plundering evrything in sight. DONT EVEN GET ME STARTED.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-10-2006, 17:49

Warluster

11-10-2006, 21:53

Quote:I am pretty sure it is true but was a plan. It proved impractical because the problem was that when France surrendered they couldn't reach Madagascar because the British controlled the Suez Canal and they couldn't go around the long way and go past South Africa, so it was abandoned until they enacted the final solution. There were also plans for the invasion of Ireland but just because it wasn't put into action doesn't mean it isn't true.[/QUOTE]

But basiclly Madagascar was a death camp because of all the lions, bugs and diseases, he was still killing 'em!

Marshal Murat

11-10-2006, 22:56

Lions, I thought they were Lemurs!!??

I voted Stalin.
Communist (there is the ticket to Hell right there)
Stalin's paranoia is worse than Hitlers Final Solution.
Stalin killed thousands of Red Army Officers, Farmers, Workers, Officials, Jews, Homosexuals, Democrats, Fascists, and others. Is bulk worse than specific genocide?
His oppresive regime caused needless Red Army Casualties (Purge, Winter War, WW2), where men were simply thrown against the enemy, the officers so afraid of independence, of the purge, the commissars that men were wasted in fruitless frontal assaults.
They both brought their nations out of economic decline, but Stalin's economy really helped Eastern Europe!
Stalin is responsible for North Korea (okay Mao involved his troops, but where did those T-34's come from? The MiGs?)

Hitler was just as paranoid, and I'm NOT DEFENDING THE HOLOCAUST, but the killing of 3 Million Jews against the killing Millions of Soldiers and People in Gulags and Prisons?

Unfortunately, Hitler will win out because he was so odd. Mark my words.

Mithrandir

11-10-2006, 23:25

Historical moustaches are best discussed in the Monastery.

Moved.

Adrian II

11-11-2006, 00:49

You guys know what's funny? If you ask Germans who was worse, nine out of ten will opt for Hitler. If you ask Russians, nine out of ten will opt for Hitler, too.

Motep

11-11-2006, 01:02

well, he WAS waorse

Slartibardfast

11-11-2006, 01:12

Getting back to the all important moustaches. I think Stalin's was better than Hitler's, though Hitler would have beaten Stalin on hygiene. Stalin's would have caught far more soup than Hitlers, of that I've no doubt. After a few days the flies would have started buzzing around the bits of chicken and spuds and carrots stuck in there. Hitler's on the other hand would not have trapped as much food, so he wins.

Hitlers mo and exagerated hand movements whilst speaking sort of makes him look like a crazed militant Charlie Caplain. Lenins walrus would look cool after sculling a stien of really frothy beer.

Hepcat

11-11-2006, 01:19

But basiclly Madagascar was a death camp because of all the lions, bugs and diseases, he was still killing 'em!
I didn't say that it was going to be a paradise. But what were Stalin's gulags? Were they just little buisinesses. If you didn't do enough work one day you got less rations. When you have less rations how are you meant to work harder?

Sending the Jews to Madagascar meant that Hitler was indirectly killing them off, the same applies for the gulags.

TigerVX

11-11-2006, 03:05

Ice

11-11-2006, 07:36

Like it was said, atleast Stalin turned the USSR into a world superpower after WWII. Atleast he had that legacy to show. All Hitler did was bring a country way up, then smash it to the ground. They were both evil, but I voted Hitler.

Motep

11-11-2006, 07:46

Stalin was paranoid, Hitler was insane. Stalin feared everything, were in Hitler feared nothing. Basically why I voted for Hitler.

And yes, Stalin wins World War Mustache most definitely. However, Churchill wins World War Fatty.

actually, hitler was skitzefrenic and VERY paranoid. Cant argue with the insane part.
haha about the churchill fatty thing, but qiut messin with him.

GottMitUns

11-11-2006, 09:58

The terms of the question are not clearly defined and invite all kinds of hyperbole and totaly subjective arguments.

Worse in what way?

The argument that Hitler was worse because his genocide was intentional while Stalins was only coincidental is a weak argument. Hitlers genocide could also be explained as coincidental to his plan for domination by the germanic race.

Hitler wanted the germanic race to dominate and used genocide as a tool to acheive that goal.

Stalin wanted Communism to dominate and used genocide as a tool to acheive that goal.

One has merely to look at the Ukraine situation (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm) to have an idea of what I am talking about.

Personaly I think Hitler was worse because he lost the war. Victory being the primary measure of "better or worse" in war.

Conqueror

11-11-2006, 12:50

Voted Hitler because I think he would have eventually caused more death and suffering than Stalin, had he actually won the war.

Dutch_guy

11-11-2006, 13:12

Well I voted Hitler, as he was the only one of the two who actually invaded and occupied my country. As far as total bodycount goes, Stalin may be worse but in my opinion when we're talking about millions of dead people it's just too hard to pick one above the other...

:balloon2:

Kekvit Irae

11-11-2006, 14:01

Morally, Hitler.
Statistically, Stalin.

Avicenna

11-11-2006, 14:19

About destroying democracy... the people voted Nazi and KPD knowing fully well that they intended to destroy democracy. If anything, blame the German people for that.

Hitler was a soldier in WWI so probably did kill someone, having won the Iron Cross.

Stalin did not fight 'for his country' as it was. He was Georgian, and plenty of Georgians died under him.

MSB

11-11-2006, 14:30

Voted Hitler because I think he would have eventually caused more death and suffering than Stalin, had he actually won the war.
If Hitler had won the war there would have been mass GENOCIDE!
Hitler's "if he won plans":

all Jews/Muslims/all other religions that are not Christianity must be EXTERMINATED.
anybody without blonde hair and blue eyes must die.
all foreign leaders and opposition must be beaten and then killed.
must have several lictors carrying an axe and a bundle of reads behind me.
must have large posters all over the world proclaiming how good I am.
everybody must greet each other by saying "HAIL HITLER"
everybody must speak German or die.

Hitler was mean, but Stalin would have blasted us to peices with NUKES (much worse than being beaten to death by Hitler). Also Stalin was communist (facist is better - the Romans were sort of facist).

Craterus

11-12-2006, 00:20

You guys know what's funny? If you ask Germans who was worse, nine out of ten will opt for Hitler. If you ask Russians, nine out of ten will opt for Hitler, too.

Welcome back. :balloon2:

Derfasciti

11-12-2006, 05:26

Stalin-killed more. Did nothing really good.

Samurai Waki

11-12-2006, 08:21

I guess Stalin summed it pretty well.

"A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a Statistic."

The Stranger

11-12-2006, 12:49

If Hitler had won the war there would have been mass GENOCIDE!
Hitler's "if he won plans":

all Jews/Muslims/all other religions that are not Christianity must be EXTERMINATED.
anybody without blonde hair and blue eyes must die.
all foreign leaders and opposition must be beaten and then killed.
must have several lictors carrying an axe and a bundle of reads behind me.
must have large posters all over the world proclaiming how good I am.
everybody must greet each other by saying "HAIL HITLER"
everybody must speak German or die.

Hitler was mean, but Stalin would have blasted us to peices with NUKES (much worse than being beaten to death by Hitler). Also Stalin was communist (facist is better - the Romans were sort of facist).

Hitler never had something against the other religions. He had a muslim SS division. He wanted to kill all jews because he thought they were less human, the same way as the slave traders and most people in the Christian world thought negro's were lesser people. He also wanted to kill all gipsy's, now that is no religion as far as know... and all homo's, no religion either.

Hitler himself had brown hair and brown eyes. So he should start with himself first. THere was no way he was going to kill everybody withour blond hair and blue eyes and a firm jaw. He just would have no one left. He only said that was the ubermensch and they should rule... but the ubermensch shouldnt rule ubermensch so, the normal mensch should be left alive, only the untermensch had to die.

and I don't recall him wanting to kill everyone that didn't speak german... German would become the official language ofcourse.

The Stranger

11-12-2006, 13:06

my oppinion: all WW2 Leaders were weird and crazy... i know a few things about Churchill that scares the shit out of me... the only difference was that his helpers sometimes refused to listen, where Stalins helpers never dared to refuse a thing and Hitlers helpers only started refusing when it was too late.

I would say it is a draw. But who are the other 8 of Histories most evil men...

Nero? Caligula? Genghis Khan? Nixon?

Adrian II

11-12-2006, 17:41

Welcome back. :balloon2:Thanks for the welcome.
And thanks for defending my sexuality during my absence.
:sweatdrop:

TosaInu

11-12-2006, 17:46

Hello Adrian II.

Adrian II

11-12-2006, 18:48

Hello Adrian II.Hello! Good to see you back in control. Although I recall KukriKhan doing a more than decent job as your replacement, as was to be expected.

I see new forum sections, new gadgets. Mods are on full strength. Board looks better than ever, TosaInu.
:bow:

Craterus

11-12-2006, 18:50

Thanks for the welcome.
And thanks for defending my sexuality during my absence.
:sweatdrop:

It was no problem. Just doing my job. :wink:

Ice

11-12-2006, 19:49

Nero? Caligula? Genghis Khan? Nixon?

Nixon? lol

Stig

11-12-2006, 20:02

Stop hijacking the thread Tosa :furious3:

j/k ~D

I voted Hitler, tho both are bad, voting Hitler makes more sense to me, dunno why really

Csargo

11-13-2006, 00:54

Avicenna

11-13-2006, 08:58

Re-reading the thread. Someone said that WWII deaths in the Red Army were 'needless'. Well, shows how well he would have led in Stalin's stead... "no! Don't retaliate against the Nazis! We cannot have deaths!"

ALBM: I don't even know where to start with your post. The list is completely wrong, Hitler and the Nazi's PROMOTED pagan ideas. They weren't hardcore christians.

It's spelt "heil", not "hail"

If he wanted to "beat and kill all foreign leaders", why did he install puppets like Mussolini for the SRI and Tiso for Slovakia?

And why are the Romans better? They subjugated many more ethnic groups than the Germans did for their small size, and made them into slaves. They also killed foreign leaders. So do the Americans, look at Saddam.

By the way, Stalin did have nukes. For a few years before his death, actually. I don't see any records of a 3rd nuclear strike by Stalin, do you?

So, if you feel like saying such things again, please DON'T make it off the top of your head. Actually learn something about the topic you're discussing...

MSB

11-13-2006, 13:17

Where did you get that from?:inquisitive:
From what I know about Hitler, that is what I believed he would have done.

naut

11-13-2006, 13:24

I voted for caravel. He was easily the worst after executing thousands of prisoners, and installing Windows 98SE on his computer.
:laugh4: Brilliant.

The Stranger

11-13-2006, 16:37

Stop hijacking the thread Tosa :furious3:

j/k ~D

I voted Hitler, tho both are bad, voting Hitler makes more sense to me, dunno why really

pffff Tosa can hijack every thread... i mean... we are good but he is God... so... HE IS THE ULTIMATE POWER, THE GOD OF DOT-ORGUS... haven't you read my story describing his ultimate fight with Dev Dave...

Welkom Terug Adriaan Twee :clown: :bow:

Adrian II

11-13-2006, 16:40

Welkom Terug Adriaan Twee :clown: :bow:Dank je, De Vreemdeling. :bow:

Alexanderofmacedon

11-13-2006, 23:49

I said Stalin. 40 million is more than Hitler, but that isn't all that should be included in discision. I just made a quick one.

Kagemusha

11-14-2006, 00:24

As much as i despise Stalin, i have to vote Hitler. True Uncle Joe was a terrible person. But for example how he differs from lets say Saddam Hussein or Ivan the terrible the one who brought the Muscowites as the main power in Russia? Stalin was a power hungry dictator, who didnt have any respect on human life. But he was also a real politik. While he was completely mercyless on his policies, he was also succesfull. Whether we like or not it was Stalin who created the world power Soviet Union from Tsarist Russia. While the ideas were mainly from Lenin and Trotski, it was the Josif Vissarionovits Dzugashvili who made those ideas come true. Stalins motivation was power. But if you think the normal Musik farmer in Russia had it any better at Tsarist Russia you are wrong. They just become the slaves of the party instead of slaves of Tsar.
I despise Stalin for his murdering of innocents as much as i despise Hitler. But to me Hitler was not only cruel dictator, but also a complete madmen and diabolical in a sense where only few others in history can come close. He was an industrial mass murderer who didnt choose his victims becouse he was paranoid like Stalin,but simply becouse he could. Hitlers philosophy was that the weak shouldnt be let alive. He was an extreme Darwinist who basicly thought that a just reason for killing another human beeing was that the other one couldnt defend himself. One of his favourite sayings that he yanked time to time was that compassion was a sickness. He thought that he was the master of the master race and all others should be destroyed just becouse they could be destroyed. In the end of the war when he realized that his master race had "betrayed" him by loosing against untermenchen his firm believe was that becouse of that failure the Germans should end to exist as nation becouse they had failed his standards.
This man was so badly disturbed,twisted and evil that it makes me sad to think that there have been people like him.:shame:

Btw.Nice to see you again in Org, Red Inquisitor!~:)

AntiochusIII

11-14-2006, 01:42

Eh, I'm kind of bored with this comparison. It's older than ninjas vs pirates, if that says anything.

It all comes down to "Stalin kills moar!" and "Hitler's more loony!" So I'm gonna cast my vote for Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon. ~;)

Adrian II

11-14-2006, 02:11

Nice to see you again in Org, Red Inquisitor!~:)Likewise, honourable Kanrei. :bow:

Reenk Roink

11-14-2006, 03:18

This poll is really in want of a 'Gah' option...

'OSU' would be fine too...

Marshal Murat

11-14-2006, 04:25

Stalin's paranoia did cause a huge mass of Red Army Deaths. The 'Purge' ring any bells? Hundreds of fine officers were cut from the ranks, killed or shipped to gulags. This created an atmosphere of fear, where the comissars watched and approved every single move.
Winter War is a great example. Any Finn will give you the bleak comparison between the modern Red Army and the post WW2 Finns, who were armed with rifles, a few Bofor anti-tanks, and short term weapondry. The Red Army had TANKS, Airplanes, and artillery galore. It's a great example in the north, where a Russian commander could push through, and hold the Finns in place for the entire span of the war. Most Red Army commanders were cautious, hoping to funel their thousands of troops along patchy roads through the forests. If they were smart, they would blitz through the south, in the middle, applying overwhelming force and the shock of tanks to break any Finn defenses. They didn't, and this resulted in thousands of Red Army deaths.
The only reason why Stalin didn't use a nuke was because of MAD. That was the greatest invention of man, MAD.
If Hitler had a nuke, then he would use it regardless.
However, had Hitler been in control, his steady amount of killings would have resulted in mass revolt and his overthrow.
Stalin's paranoia caused a state of fear across the globe, and resulted in many of the problems of today. Civil Wars between US backed Democratic parties, and Soviet backed Red parties. Stalin is evil because his long-term effects have a negative, more far reaching problems, that has resulted in more havoc and destruction than a great anti-Hitler force that held by only threads. Hitler was short-term. Stalin was long term.

Kagemusha

11-14-2006, 09:53

As a Finn,im pretty well aware of the History of Winter War and i wouldnt say that the problem with SU was the lack of The schweerpunkt. Soviet Union deployed atleast an Division in a direction of every major road to Finland.They attacked everywhere they could. But im thinking of writing something in detail of Winter War soon, so we can continue the talk there.~:)

The Stranger

11-14-2006, 19:09

MM like you said... Stalin was long time and Hitler short... if you look at the devastation both caused... Stalin wins, but if you look at the timespan and than who was the worst... Hitler definitly leads all the way... he was a sick pervert...

The Wizard

11-16-2006, 00:20

Mao.

Csargo

11-16-2006, 00:31

Stalin was worse because he was a Communist. ;P

AntiochusIII

11-16-2006, 04:35

Stalin was worse because he was a Communist. ;PHe was!? :dizzy2:

I tell you, if Stalinism is actually in any way legitimate communism then I'm an Evangelical Christian World-Ender named Snowball Ikari.

The Wizard

11-17-2006, 14:49

You must admit, Stalin adopted a lot of policies from Trotsky, who is usually ascribed a "true" communist in the face of "revisionist/traitorous" Marxism-Leninism (i.e. Stalinism)...

The Stranger

11-17-2006, 21:57

Mao was definitly EVIL... like in DEVIL...

anyway... True communism cant be achieved but in books and ideas and dreams... atleast i believe so... but if it could ever be achieved... that is when the nature of men (as in humans) changes, it would be the best form of goverment in the world...

Craterus

11-17-2006, 23:56

It's a ridiculous idea anyway. And men will always be selfish.

Watchman

11-18-2006, 00:08

Then explain people who cheerfully give money to the less fortunate. :dizzy2:

Anyway, Hitler is way worse IMHO. Stalin was "just" a nasty, bloody-handed, utterly ruthless, paranoid and opportunistic tyrant; Hitler had a full-fledged (and fully nutty) dogma that glorified war and lack of reason, with a lot of ugly racial hierarchy stuff on top of that. Even if he didn't initially intend to exterminate the Jews but shove them into some remote corner or something, his ideas about creating Lebensraum involved mass murder of Slavs and other "lesser races" pretty much from the start and by default.

Marshal Murat

11-18-2006, 00:49

Are the liquidation of thousands of farms, killing of hundreds of Red Army officers, and the senseless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Red Army recruits any better? Hitler was short-term and Stalin was long-term. Hitler couldn't have conquered the entire world, especially with the small population of Germans compared to the world population.
Stalin, on the other hand, could have taken over the world.

Watchman

11-18-2006, 01:11

...but never wanted to risk it. Hitler was actually crazy enough to try, and got millions killed in the process.

Soviet adminstrations was generally speaking incompetent as Hell, which caused a fair amount of friction. Stalin's solution was to squash anything and anyone who looked like a troublemaker; I'm under the impression he was suspicious of the loyalty of the Red Army (not necessary without a cause; that was originally Trotsky's animal, and he had the man killed too) and thus not only purged the officer corps but also subjected the remainder to strict political control, with the end result that the whole apparatus became nearly paralyzed before Barbarossa. As a side note that leash was loosened a bit after the German advance stalled, presumably as a reward of loyal service.

Anyway, purging the Red Army officer corps was just yet another ugly example of his brand of brutal personnel management which resulted in unintented and destructive side effects (ie. massive losses against the Germans). The really nasty thing however was the huge full-spectrum purges of the late Thirties, which affected the entire society - I've read he actually called them off after a few years because he realized the endless witch-hunts were about to cripple not only the society and economy, but also the security services themselves.

The destruction of the independent peasantry and establishement of the kolhos system wasn't really Stalin's work by what I know of it, though. AFAIK it was carried out by the Bolsheviks under Lenin quite early on to ensure political control of the majority of food supplies, so they could be gathered and distributed by the governement if necessary - unscrupulous individuals having a nasty habit of profiteering during famines by coldly sitting on supplies and waiting the prices to rise. Happened during the Russian Civil War and the chaos afterwards quite often enough, and by that point "excessive force" was about the only problem-solving method the Bolsheviks had in their repertoire any more, so...

As a side note, the Germans didn't dismantle the system in areas they conquered - they needed it to extract supplies for their own armies. Around the same time they were also confiscating agricultural produce from French farmers for the war effort, which unsurprisingly pissed them off something fierce... :no: Logistical planning was never the Nazis' strong suit.

Craterus

11-18-2006, 13:13

Then explain people who cheerfully give money to the less fortunate. :dizzy2:

They get to go away with that warm, fuzzy feeling that they've done their bit. And then they get to go out and take moral superiority over others because they're obviously a "better" person.

There is no selfless good deed.

Kralizec

11-18-2006, 22:01

Your hyperbole aside, it's true that people donate money to ease their conscience. So? Isn't the basis of a good chunk of the stuff all people do what feelings they relate to it?

If altruism isn't a reason to help people, what is? :inquisitive:

EDIT: spelling.

Watchman

11-18-2006, 22:02

Sure thing, Craterus. Want to pull the other one, it's got bells on too ?

How about I told you I just give the coin for no other reason I consider it my basic civil responsibility as someone not so down and out he needs to ask strangers for money ? Or had the exact same attitude to paying the (fairly high) taxes that maintain the social security system ?

Craterus

11-19-2006, 14:21

@Kralizec: I'm not saying people shouldn't help people. I'm saying that they certainly get something out of doing it.

@Watchman: You wouldn't pay taxes if you didn't have to. And by giving "the coin", do you not feel some satisfaction that you have done your basic civil duty? I'd guess probably. Especially considering you're on here lecturing me about it.

And this little argument(?) was started because I don't think true communism could ever work. If anything, the country would fall to ruin through a lack of motivation in its future. Why should a kid work hard at school to become a doctor, when he can get paid just as much being a dustman?

Watchman

11-19-2006, 15:49

Oh, so you're claiming a funny little trait called "kindness" some people happen to have is, ultimately, selfish too ? Suit yourself. Although that sort of thinking in general leads to a kind of dissipation of the whole distinction, because when everything is something that something in practice loses all meaning, as it is already everything. Or, "light" only becomes meaningful if you have "shadow" to compare it to.

Your definitions make "selfisness" roughly as relevent as air to the entire topic. They're too wide.

Besides, you missed the whole point of the taxes thing. I've no issues about paying them in the first place, so the fact their payment is ultimately enforced by the state monopoly on legitimate violence is entirely irrelevant. If those taxes weren't there, well, I'd have to find another channel to realize my more altruistic urges.

Plus IMHO your stance sounds like the typical excuse-muttering of selfish pricks who would like the whole world, and all other people, to share their callous attitude so they wouldn't have to feel occasional pangs of conscience when witnessing altruistic behaviour.

How in the world you explain the well-documented behaviour pattern where people are willing to die for "something greater" - their family, friends, nation, ideals, religion, whatever - with that worldview is somewhat beyond me though.

If people's sole motivations were "monetary" and "selfish", however, human civilization as we know it wouldn't even exist. Care to explain healthcare workers willing to put in long hours for entirely inadequate wages for no other reason than some inner urge to keep helping others, or the oft-documented occasion of doctors sticking to their Hippocratic oaths for no other reason than sticking to their ideals to the bitter end if need be, for example ? Firemen and other rescue workers who regularly risk life and limb for a fairly meager salary ? Volunteers who put their lives on the line to drive a truckload of disaster relief thorugh endless miles of Third World backwaters haunted by brutal bandits and Tupac Armies ?

Anyway, the real problem with most forms of communism is that they place altogether unrealistic requirements on the central planning side. There's simply no way even the most inhumanly competent analysts and bureaucrats could have managed the command economy Really Existing Socialism involved, nevermind now the Gaussian standard-distribution real people actually saddled with the job. Some sort of self-adjusting anarcho-syndicalist network thingy lacking central authority might theoretically work better, but thus far the rare few attempts have invariably fallen prey to hierarchically organized aggressive neighbours and, one suspects, would sooner or later produce the phenomenom where an ambitious actor begins absorbing others for his own ends as AFAIK has thus far invariably happened in power vacuums.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-19-2006, 20:32

Not much of a choice is it?

Stalin: paranoid tyrant, orchestrated the killing of millions in order to establish a state of terror wherein no one would oppose him on any level for any reason. Willing to starve millions more in order to industrialize and acquire a modern armed force with which to acquire more subjects.

Hitler: willing to kill millions in pursuit of some ill-conceived concept of racial purity. Willing to murder friends in pursuit of power. When faced with a hopeless situation, willing to kill everyone, destroy everything and leave nothing but ruins behind.

Either of these individuals stand near the epitome of evil, choosing betwixt them for the "title" has about as much value as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Marshal Murat

11-19-2006, 23:58

I'll change it to Hitler, because we would have used the nuke on every single German city, to stop Hitler. We didn't with Russia.

Sarmatian

11-20-2006, 04:58

Stalin: paranoid tyrant, orchestrated the killing of millions in order to establish a state of terror wherein no one would oppose him on any level for any reason. Willing to starve millions more in order to industrialize and acquire a modern armed force with which to acquire more subjects.

Either of these individuals stand near the epitome of evil, choosing betwixt them for the "title" has about as much value as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

"Epitome of evil" is a term better suited for superhero movies. Ww2 would have been much longer and maybe even would have had a different outcome without stalins drastic measures. Not much different than Ivan Grozny, except the fact that he was rulling in 20th century.

Here is a few questions. I've seen that number of people stalin killed varies from 20 to 50 millions, does anyone have exact figures? I mean, 30 million difference is a lot. Does the figure include german war prisoners, criminals, number of people died during the ww2 (it was almost impossible to feed the nation, I imagine those in camps weren't a priority) etc... So if anyone could clarify the numbers, it would be appreciated...

Hepcat

11-20-2006, 05:06

The Stranger

11-20-2006, 14:48

They get to go away with that warm, fuzzy feeling that they've done their bit. And then they get to go out and take moral superiority over others because they're obviously a "better" person.

There is no selfless good deed.

that is what i say too... but it doesnt go for a lot of people... but definitly for some...

marshal murat... NO PERSON OR COUNTRY CAN CONQUER THE ENTIRE WORLD... POINT!

Watchman... Craterus' point is that pity and such come from the fact that you want the help the person to get it as good as you... that means that you have it better... he links that to that you also immediatly think you are better than that person... and his point is not something that comes out of nowhere because i know a lot of people that think that way about people that have less.

Marshal Murat

11-20-2006, 23:14

Seamus Fermanagh

11-21-2006, 04:00

If Stalin was such a threat, soooo evil, then why didn't we nuke him to the stone age? He had nuclear weapons as well, but if he again was soooo evil, then I think we would have found a way to destroy Russia.

We weren't ready to absorb the casualties he'd have dished out in return. Destroying evil is not a bad objective, but one should try not to do it Quixotically.

During the 40's and into the early 50's when the CCCP would have had real difficulties in delivering their nuclear weapons, they still had the more powerful conventional forces located in Eastern Europe -- and we would not have been able to use nukes among mixed forces in Western civilian centers once the battle was engaged.

The conventional force threat was always present even after the CCCP developed fairly reliable ICBM delivery systems in the 1950s and 1960s. Our ICBM technology was more reliable and far more accurate, but even if half of a Russian launch failed and numerous warheads missed their intended targets the civilian casualties would have been horrific. After Stalin and Beria were kaput, the CCCP changed.

Sarmatian

11-22-2006, 01:31

The problem (from what I've heard) is that it isn't well documented and victims of famine, overwork etc. weren't all kept on record unlike the Nazis in the concentration camps who kept documents listing everything.

Trotsky didn't believe that the number of victims from Stalins purges were as great as were claimed, but how can you tell when they not only get rid of these people, but also get rid of the people who knew them, and try make out that they never existed in the first place.

Quite a tough job to make out exact numbers.

It seems that even most bold estimates don't go over 30 millions, including 6-10 millions deaths from famine during colectivization (which is also an overestimate probably since there was a growth of population, and not a decline during colectivization).
The real figure is probably less than 10 millions including germans pows and victims of deportation...

GoreBag

11-22-2006, 01:41

Stalin would win by knockout in the sixth due to moustache size.

AntiochusIII

11-23-2006, 01:41

he links that to that you also immediatly think you are better than that person... and his point is not something that comes out of nowhere because i know a lot of people that think that way about people that have less.Richer in fortune and material wealth: better?

Such an attitude is the proof of its own vanity.

Mind you, I don't really care about the argument based on numbers -- they were responsible for millions of deaths, period. A more valid and effective discussion would consider their philosophies and styles and the implications of such. Or their moustache size, since nobody ever dared to measure their little dinghies for all the world to be in awe of.

Csargo

11-23-2006, 02:47

He was!? :dizzy2:

I tell you, if Stalinism is actually in any way legitimate communism then I'm an Evangelical Christian World-Ender named Snowball Ikari.

Well if you look at it like that then there is no such thing as "legitimate communism" :no:

AntiochusIII

11-23-2006, 03:14

Well if you look at it like that then there is no such thing as "legitimate communism" :no:Communism as an ideal is defined as something can be seen, in a way as an extreme version of the familiar ideal of the "Common Good," prevalent just about everywhere. Stalin was purely dictatorial and would've used fascism, random-ism, or whatever political catchphrase as his propaganda banner if it was more appropriate for the population.

The only "ideological" contribution of Stalinism to "Communism" that I could think of right off the top of my head is as simple as "Communism in one country" -- how in the world is that even ideological? At least Leninism (Bolshevism?), as an ideology, tries to apply Marx's wishy-washy utopian theories into real life. The results, of course, has been judged by history. It wasn't very nice. That and Marxism isn't the only kind of communism or other socialist theories around. It was just the most prominent -- and most despised, for obvious reasons -- one.

A trivia: Lenin wrote in his testament that he wouldn't like to see comrade Stalin on top.

UglyandHasty

11-23-2006, 22:31

Hitler versus Stalin ??? (http://www.comics.aha.ru/rus/stalin/1.html)

I'd voted gah, but as there is no safe option, i'll go with Hitler...

Watchman

11-24-2006, 13:14

Watchman... Craterus' point is that pity and such come from the fact that you want the help the person to get it as good as you... that means that you have it better... he links that to that you also immediatly think you are better than that person... and his point is not something that comes out of nowhere because i know a lot of people that think that way about people that have less.
Yeah, well, what irks the snot out of me is that A) he generalizes that to apply to everyone (and I suspect for rather tendentious reasons, given the rather haughty manner he expressed it in) B) the severe lack of analytical depth involved in the statement C) what suspiciously looks like an attempt to define selfishness as "natural" and therefore morally acceptable (or, conversely, defining selflessness as merely a variation of selfishness and hence morally the same, which among other things already goes against the linguistical definitions of the concepts) D) his insistence on reducing the endless complexity of weird stuff that humans have motivating their actions to basically selfish economical calculations, which isn't exactly supported by empirical evidence anyway.

There's a lot of good arguments against Communism as a theoretical model of socioeconomical organization, nevermind now Really Existing Socialism (which didn't have all too much in common, and couldn't actually be understood and analyzed, with its nominal theoretical and ideological basis...), but what he put forward isn't part of it.

Anyway, I hold Hitler to be worse of the two because for him mass murder carried definite inherent value; his very ideology which he actually believed in (by all accounts and evidence, anyway) pretty much necessitated it. For Stalin it was merely a means to an end; and pragmatic tyrants who'll kill you to secure their power are much preferable to genuinely loony ones that'll kill you merely because of what you physically are. After all, the former is survivable by keeping your head low and adapting to the ebbies of internal politics; the latter, should you be unfortunate enough to have been born as someone belonging to a group scheduled for "removal", as such isn't.

Political opinion and suchlike are things people can change if necessary. What they're born as isn't, and as such I'd say murdering people because of the latter is worse as it doesn't leave them any way out of the hit list.

Pannonian

11-26-2006, 04:25

Well if you look at it like that then there is no such thing as "legitimate communism" :no:
Cooperatives?

Pannonian

11-26-2006, 04:46

After Stalin and Beria were kaput, the CCCP changed.
An interesting scenario might be how the CCCP would have changed if Beria had taken charge instead of Khrushchev. Beria, in a reaction against Stalinism, wanted to liberalise the Soviet Union, giving greater autonomy to the states, making government more transparent, allowing more freedom of speech and opinion, etc. Basically all the political reforms Gorbachev came up with in the 1980s. Khrushchev, Malenko, and the rest of the crew realised this would lead to the breakup of the Soviet Union, as later happened under Gorbachev, and deposed him. The Soviet Union was fundamentally rotten, in its formation and government, and any liberalisation would IMHO result in its dissolution. The authoritarianism of Khrushchev and others managed to put this off for a few decades.

About the difference between Hitler and Stalin. Stalinism is tyranny for political advantage, where obedience to the party line was the key to survival. Hitlerism was laxer on this point, but placed far greater emphasis on the idea that certain peoples were inherently superior or inferior. For example, Hitler disliked (understatement) Jews because IHO Jews as a race were inferior, while Stalin disliked Jews because of their links with the outside world (he supported a homeland for Jews, but inside the USSR and hence under his control).

The Stranger

11-28-2006, 19:30

[QUOTE=AntiochusIII]Richer in fortune and material wealth: better?

Such an attitude is the proof of its own vanity.
QUOTE]

Im missing your point... You mean better life, beter person... better what... I meant that Craterus links having a better "standard" of life to being a better person

Craterus

11-28-2006, 20:35

he links that to that you also immediatly think you are better than that person... and his point is not something that comes out of nowhere because i know a lot of people that think that way about people that have less.

A) he generalizes that to apply to everyone (and I suspect for rather tendentious reasons, given the rather haughty manner he expressed it in) B) the severe lack of analytical depth involved in the statement C) what suspiciously looks like an attempt to define selfishness as "natural" and therefore morally acceptable (or, conversely, defining selflessness as merely a variation of selfishness and hence morally the same, which among other things already goes against the linguistical definitions of the concepts) D) his insistence on reducing the ... (it goes on)

Why am I being referred to as "he"? Since when did I become male?

The Stranger

11-28-2006, 20:40

shut up... Everybody knows I meant Craterus.. and He is a lot less to type than Craterus...

Vuk

11-28-2006, 21:03

Hitler intended to kill people. Stalin just didn't care if a few million died while reforming the industries.
What!! What about Ukraine?! He delibrately killed more people in Ukraine than Hitler in the ENTIRE WAR!! And that was just the beginning! Hitler went after the Jews, and Stalin went after the protestants!! They both had a religious/ethic group they disliked and killed everyone of them that they could! Stalin imho was worse simply because he killed more, and in just as gruesome a way. While Hitler, no doubt, would have killed as many or more as Stalin if he could, he didn't. Stalin took more human lives in worse ways and caused mass human suffering. By that measurement, I'd say Stalin (For the ugliest, shortest dictator of WWII, though, it would be Hitler ;)).

Conqueror

11-29-2006, 00:03

While Hitler, no doubt, would have killed as many or more as Stalin if he could, he didn't.
For many, that is a reason to consider Hitler the worse one. A man is no worse just because he has the better/more opportunities to do bad things.

Consider this: What if Stalin slips on a soap and dies before rising to power? Would you say that he (in that hypothetical scenario) isn't as bad a person just because he never gets the opportunity to kill millions?

Vuk

11-29-2006, 03:42

For many, that is a reason to consider Hitler the worse one. A man is no worse just because he has the better/more opportunities to do bad things.

Consider this: What if Stalin slips on a soap and dies before rising to power? Would you say that he (in that hypothetical scenario) isn't as bad a person just because he never gets the opportunity to kill millions?

You have to remember though, if Stalin had been able to, he would have killed more people also. No one can know their hearts (which is the true measure of good or evil), so the only way we can compare their evil is by the numbers of people they killed. Niether had quams about torture, rape, murder (obviously), etc. and we will never know who the "worst" was, we can however know who did the worst to humanity, and it was Stalin. People can guess as to who was worse, (I for one could not even begin) but we will never know for sure.

Vuk

11-29-2006, 04:00

If Stalin was such a threat, soooo evil, then why didn't we nuke him to the stone age? He had nuclear weapons as well, but if he again was soooo evil, then I think we would have found a way to destroy Russia.

The reason we dropped two nukes on Japan was to scare the Russians. We tried to do everything we could to avoid a war with Russia. If a war did start, the result would not be pretty, with only two countries emerging from WWII with any sort of power, and both of them in serious economic trouble. There would be all kinds of alliances made again, as countries took sides (though the U.S. would probably have the easiest time with that). When we (America) did win (which I'm sure we would), we would have been no better of than any of those other ruined countries. It would have been a disaster. Not to mention that if we won the war, we could not start an all out conquest of Russia, as we would not have the resources, and the Russians, with their enormous population and in their impenitrable fortress of snowy waste land, that since the time of the Mongols has never been successfully invaded, would have been safe and soon recovered. Any chance of "good relations" with them would be over forever.

I am wondering though Murat: you say: "if he again was soooo evil". Do you find the killing of billions (tens of millions directly) evil? I do.

Watchman

11-29-2006, 09:44

You have to remember though, if Stalin had been able to, he would have killed more people also....based on what ? Having people killed was of purely instrumental value to him; it was how he secured his continued power. The second he realized his purges were about to start seriously undermining that power, he put the stops on the worst of them.

Hitler put the Final Solution to work smack in the middle of a total war against an industrially superior enemy, and basically shot his own military-industrial complex in the leg in the process. All because he was obsessed with not having filthy Jews and Gypsies and whatever anywhere near his oh-so-pure Aryans.

That's the difference between the two tyrants. Stalin had a measure of rationality in his policies - albeit of a decidedly callous and brutal sort, and not rarely quite contrafinal - while Hitler was guided purely by his crackpot (and murderous) ideology and delusions.

Vuk

11-29-2006, 13:39

...based on what ? Having people killed was of purely instrumental value to him; it was how he secured his continued power. The second he realized his purges were about to start seriously undermining that power, he put the stops on the worst of them.

Hitler put the Final Solution to work smack in the middle of a total war against an industrially superior enemy, and basically shot his own military-industrial complex in the leg in the process. All because he was obsessed with not having filthy Jews and Gypsies and whatever anywhere near his oh-so-pure Aryans.

That's the difference between the two tyrants. Stalin had a measure of rationality in his policies - albeit of a decidedly callous and brutal sort, and not rarely quite contrafinal - while Hitler was guided purely by his crackpot (and murderous) ideology and delusions.

Having people killed was of purely instrumental value to him; it was how he secured his continued power.

Not so. He launched a war against Protestants and killed them wherever he could.

The second he realized his purges were about to start seriously undermining that power, he put the stops on the worst of them.

That is why he was unable to kill more. Because if he did, he would lose power, get attacked by western powers, and be destroyed like Hitler. You seriously think that if he had the power that there would be a Protestant alive in the world? He was a maniac with a vendetta, just like Hitler; he was simply more sucessfull than Hitler was.

Watchman

11-29-2006, 23:51

Vuk

11-30-2006, 00:08

You know, this whole Protestant thing is entirely new to me. I've heard and seen Stalin accused of all kinds of antipathies, mainly involving Jews, different East/Central European nationalities and/or assorted minority populaces withing Russia proper, but never before of him actually giving a hoot about religion...?

'Sides, I haven't heard of him having any noticeable issues with us Hundred Proof Protestant Finns because of that.

What, you're not ? That'd be news to me. Not that it would be of major consequence anyway AFAIK - isn't the male pronoun the standard for passive/generic use in English ? Damn your gender-differential Indo-European languages anyway, they make things so complicated... :furious3:

Actually, He, and Man can be gender neutral. There are, after all, two types of men: Women, and men. That's why in the Lord of the Rings, people were called the race of men. Men refers to our species. It also, of course, can be used to refer to the male sex, but when you don't know if a person is male or female, you say he, refering to someone of the human race (unless you are talking to a dog ;)).
It is not 'politically correct' to do this any more, but it is still gramatically correct.

Watchman

11-30-2006, 00:13

Tells you something of the priorities of the people who developed the root language... :dizzy2:
Anyway, yeah, that's pretty much what I was referring to.

Vuk

11-30-2006, 00:18

Tells you something of the priorities of the people who developed the root language... :dizzy2:
Anyway, yeah, that's pretty much what I was referring to.

I know, pretty degrading to men, huh? Women are their own special category, and men are just generic, the grunts so to speak.

Watchman

11-30-2006, 08:13

I'd say it makes them the norm from which everything else (say, round half the humans on the planet...) is the expection.

I can kind of see why some people might find that annoying.

Vuk

11-30-2006, 13:22

I'd say it makes them the norm from which everything else (say, round half the humans on the planet...) is the expection.

I can kind of see why some people might find that annoying.

lol, I was making a joke Watchman. Actually, it makes the race of Men the NORM. It is he, or she, either way you could get people offended, and since in old English, man (not spelled like that), at first was NOT use to refer to the male sex, I guess it is something that carried over. I think it is kind of ridiculous to change it, as it neither exalts nor lowers men or women. Next thing I know you'll be saying that men walking behind women, opening doors for them, walking on the road side of the sidewalk, and other forms of respect are sexist ;).