Who was worse? Hitler vs Stalin

[Baron Von PWN]

Both Killed millions of people and were generaly unpleaseant, and undoubtedly deserve to go down in history with infam. However which one was more evil? Please provide some reasoning for you choice to get some disccusion rolling.

I chose Hitler although he killed fewer people than Stalin, I feel his ideology was far more vile and had greater potential for evil had things gone difrently.

[Phatscotty]

satan vs satan?

[BigBallinStalin]

satan vs satan?

not quite, there's parts that vary in evilness.

Hitler's racial agenda just doesn't look good in the textbooks compared to Stalin's mass famines, killing quotas, and ethnic cleansing--well, if you consider the Ukrainians to be an actual ethincity, that's probably the improper term..

[Woodruff]

Hitler backstabbed Stalin. The debate is over!

[Army of GOD]

Pol Pot was a crazy motherf***** too.

[PLAYER57832]

We in the US tend to see Hitler as the "ultimate villian" because he was closer to us, impacted us more directly. Also, he was particularly "methodical" and even "civilized"(in a very diabolical way). Stalin was not a direct threat the the US, was more removed. Pol Pot was just "another of those "strange countries".

However, in truth, I think the Japanese, in WWII were probably among the worst. And, well, the US gets no blue ribbons for its treatment of Native Americans, obliterating whole peoples.

[Baron Von PWN]

satan vs satan?

not quite, there's parts that vary in evilness.

Hitler's racial agenda just doesn't look good in the textbooks compared to Stalin's mass famines, killing quotas, and ethnic cleansing--well, if you consider the Ukrainians to be an actual ethincity, that's probably the improper term..

From what I've read the Ukrainian "genocide" was more a result of fucking over rural peasants in favor of the industrial proletariat, as there were peasants starving in Russia proper as well.

[BigBallinStalin]

We in the US tend to see Hitler as the "ultimate villian" because he was closer to us, impacted us more directly. Also, he was particularly "methodical" and even "civilized"(in a very diabolical way). Stalin was not a direct threat the the US, was more removed. Pol Pot was just "another of those "strange countries".

However, in truth, I think the Japanese, in WWII were probably among the worst. And, well, the US gets no blue ribbons for its treatment of Native Americans, obliterating whole peoples.

What I found interesting about the Japanese was how they viewed war. They didn't give a damn about the Geneva conventions, things like declaring war then attacking are overrated, and to me their standpoint makes sense. Keeps the whole surprise element a surprise.

As far as the "Rape of Nanjing" is concerned, the Germans and Russians killed more of each others' civilians compared to the Japanese v. the Chinese, so I'm not too outraged about how the Japanese handled their affairs in China. What makes the Japanese the worst? They didn't have systematic programs of eliminating entire ethnic groups like the Nazis did. What can be more diabolical than that?

[BigBallinStalin]

satan vs satan?

not quite, there's parts that vary in evilness.

Hitler's racial agenda just doesn't look good in the textbooks compared to Stalin's mass famines, killing quotas, and ethnic cleansing--well, if you consider the Ukrainians to be an actual ethincity, that's probably the improper term..

From what I've read the Ukrainian "genocide" was more a result of fucking over rural peasants in favor of the industrial proletariat, as there were peasants starving in Russia proper as well.

Ah, well those Ukrainians do have the incentive in distorting history to create a deeper division between Russian and Ukrainian.

[jefjef]

Stalin was the larger evil. He would have murdered every single person to ensure communist rule/victory.

Hitler would have killed all but 2 to ensure the survival of the master race.

[PLAYER57832]

We in the US tend to see Hitler as the "ultimate villian" because he was closer to us, impacted us more directly. Also, he was particularly "methodical" and even "civilized"(in a very diabolical way). Stalin was not a direct threat the the US, was more removed. Pol Pot was just "another of those "strange countries".

However, in truth, I think the Japanese, in WWII were probably among the worst. And, well, the US gets no blue ribbons for its treatment of Native Americans, obliterating whole peoples.

As far as the "Rape of Nanjing" is concerned, the Germans and Russians killed more of each others' civilians compared to the Japanese v. the Chinese, so I'm not too outraged about how the Japanese handled their affairs in China. What makes the Japanese the worst? They didn't have systematic programs of eliminating entire ethnic groups like the Nazis did. What can be more diabolical than that?

Perhaps the fact that it wasn't just China, among other issues. Perhaps the fact that some of it continued long after the war was over. Perhaps the fact that, unlike Germany, Japan took a long, long time to even come close to truly acknowledging its role to its own people. (many would say they still have not).

[Baron Von PWN]

Stalin was the larger evil. He would have murdered every single person to ensure communist rule/victory.

Hitler would have killed all but 2 to ensure the survival of the master race.

If he murdered everyone there wouldn't be anyone to rule. Stalin killed only to ensure loyalty or obedience.

Hitler's murder was for regardless of loyalty or actions, he would kill you simply for not being German. I suppose if Hitler had won eventually there would be less killing after Nazism had killed all non Aryans while Communism would just keep on killing people to maintain control. So maybe you have an argument there.

[PLAYER57832]

Stalin was the larger evil. He would have murdered every single person to ensure communist rule/victory.

Hitler would have killed all but 2 to ensure the survival of the master race.

If he murdered everyone there wouldn't be anyone to rule. Stalin killed only to ensure loyalty or obedience.

Hitler's murder was for regardless of loyalty or actions, he would kill you simply for not being German. I suppose if Hitler had won eventually there would be less killing after Nazism had killed all non Aryans while Communism would just keep on killing people to maintain control. So maybe you have an argument there.

Except Hitler killed to maintain control, also.

[Baron Von PWN]

Stalin was the larger evil. He would have murdered every single person to ensure communist rule/victory.

Hitler would have killed all but 2 to ensure the survival of the master race.

If he murdered everyone there wouldn't be anyone to rule. Stalin killed only to ensure loyalty or obedience.

Hitler's murder was for regardless of loyalty or actions, he would kill you simply for not being German. I suppose if Hitler had won eventually there would be less killing after Nazism had killed all non Aryans while Communism would just keep on killing people to maintain control. So maybe you have an argument there.

Except Hitler killed to maintain control, also.

very true.

[PLAYER57832]

Not to spin this off, but my understanding was that Stalin pursued his own ehtnic cleansing agenda as well as the power issue, but that it is not necessarily as "publicized" or as "cut and dry" as with HItler. That is, a lot of his "political" assassinations had definite ethnic overtones as well.

[Baron Von PWN]

Not to spin this off, but my understanding was that Stalin pursued his own ehtnic cleansing agenda as well as the power issue, but that it is not necessarily as "publicized" or as "cut and dry" as with HItler. That is, a lot of his "political" assassinations had definite ethnic overtones as well.

It is certainly true that Stalin mistrusted the ethnic minorities and was rather anti-semitic himself. It isin't clear though why he ordered purges or attacks on some groups. During Tsarist times most of the various ethinicities of the empire were left to their own devices so long as they swore loyalty to the tsar. So when Stalin tried to collectivize Khyrgiz nomads who had been used to being able to do their own thing they resisted, because they resisted they couldn't be trusted which led to arrests and deportations. That was repeated in various other communities for similar reasons.

So it isin't clear that these clashes with the minorities were ethnicly motivated so much as because of their cultural practices they resisted Moscow's directives. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the more political murders (former communist) were at least influenced by Stalin's prejudices.

[Baron Von PWN]

Derp derp double post.

[PLAYER57832]

Not to spin this off, but my understanding was that Stalin pursued his own ehtnic cleansing agenda as well as the power issue, but that it is not necessarily as "publicized" or as "cut and dry" as with HItler. That is, a lot of his "political" assassinations had definite ethnic overtones as well.

It is certainly true that Stalin mistrusted the ethnic minorities and was rather anti-semitic himself. It isin't clear though why he ordered purges or attacks on some groups. During Tsarist times most of the various ethinicities of the empire were left to their own devices so long as they swore loyalty to the tsar. So when Stalin tried to collectivize Khyrgiz nomads who had been used to being able to do their own thing they resisted, because they resisted they couldn't be trusted which led to arrests and deportations. That was repeated in various other communities for similar reasons.

It should also be noted that the Soviets went out of their way to create the various ethnic republics and garanteed their protection. So i don't think it was due to their ethnicities these groups were killed, more that their cultural practices were more likely to be at odds with Stalinism.

So it isin't clear that these clashes with the minorities were ethnicly motivated so much as because of their cultural practices they resisted Moscow's directives. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the more political murders (former communist) were at least influenced by Stalin's prejudices.

I think you would have to say they went out of their way to protect some groups. Others still feel they suffered. It is one reason why the union broke up so readily when it did. It is also why there is still some strife in certain areas.

[monster10]

obama is worse then both

[Army of GOD]

obama is worse then both

Good job. Just, well said, I mean. You're awesome. I love you.

[Uncle Waldo]

They were both nuts and both had differant issues. Serious issues. However, they both had differant psychosese and differant agendas. Hitler and the Nazis were not only very proud of what they were doing, they all felt they were going to win in the end. So their exploits are very well documented and recorded. Not a whole lot was known at all or at the very least wasn't reported in the U.S. about Stalin and his attrocities until the late 80's. At the end of the day, when the final tally is kept and if you're going to be objective, I feel if you're really going to pick a "winner" out of the two for "most crazy". You have to go with Stalin. Stalin targeted artists and intellectualls first and formost above all other things. Russia and/or it's gene pool will be fucked up for centuries if not milleniums. Germany is doing just fine and Jews... Well, they damn sure still haven't gotten over it intellectually or emotionally... So, Stalin first. Hitler second. Not a short second but not a distant second either.

(at least that's what the history books will say; still got it)

[2dimes]

This is almost subjective no?

I have two glasses of urine. Which tastes worse?

[PLAYER57832]

This is almost subjective no?

I have two glasses of urine. Which tastes worse?

cannot speak from experience, but probably the one that's not from the diabetic.

[2dimes]

Just a spoon full of sugar helps the Urine go down.

Aite then.

[muy_thaiguy]

They were both nuts and both had differant issues. Serious issues. However, they both had differant psychosese and differant agendas. Hitler and the Nazis were not only very proud of what they were doing, they all felt they were going to win in the end. So their exploits are very well documented and recorded. Not a whole lot was known at all or at the very least wasn't reported in the U.S. about Stalin and his attrocities until the late 80's. At the end of the day, when the final tally is kept and if you're going to be objective, I feel if you're really going to pick a "winner" out of the two for "most crazy". You have to go with Stalin. Stalin targeted artists and intellectualls first and formost above all other things. Russia and/or it's gene pool will be fucked up for centuries if not milleniums. Germany is doing just fine and Jews... Well, they damn sure still haven't gotten over it intellectually or emotionally... So, Stalin first. Hitler second. Not a short second but not a distant second either.

(at least that's what the history books will say; still got it)

Not to mention the swift and uncalled for executions of a majority of his military officers that actually had battlefield experience. Which was one of the reasons why Russia suffered so many causalties (sending wave after wave of troops may eventually get the job done, but by the time you do, you've left about a good sized town's worth of dead in doing so).