Who was worse? Hitler vs Stalin

[BigBallinStalin]

Now for some REAL evidence.





Haha, what a great smile! I'm certainly charmed.

_______________________________________________


Now look at this asshole:



Not at all the kind of guy I'd make jokes around.

_________________________________________________

I rest my unbiased case which is free of all subjectivity.

[Johnny Rockets]

Stalin.
Not that I'd give Adolph a big wet smootch either but Uncle Joe left a bigger footprint of Evil.


There are huge cultural differences between Ukrainians and Russians. Even more so before 1932. Most Ukrainians at the time (and still are...) were very devoutly religious....something Stalin despised as religion would be directly competing with his vision of an ideal communist society. His goal was to starve out the Ukrainians and settle the land with Russians. Hard core communist peasants who would not object to his collective farm model.

A few points:
The Ukrainian Genocide Famine (Holodomor) is one of the least known tragedies of the 20th century...

At the height of the Genocide Ukrainians were dying at a rate of 25,000 per day.
Nearly 1 in 4 rural Ukrainians perished as a direct result.

The Soviet Union dumped 1.7 million tons of grain on Western markets during the Genocide.
Nearly a fifth of a ton of grain was exported for each person who died of starvation.

Over 3,000,000 children born between 1932-1933 died of starvation.

"The aftermath of the present tragedy in Ukraine will be Russian colonization of this country, which will affect its ethnic makeup. In the future, or even in the near future, no one will even speak about Ukraine or the Ukrainian people - and, hence, about the Ukrainian problem - because Ukraine will de facto become a territory with a predominantly Russian population."
- Letter from the Italian consul in Kharkiv, Ukraine
by Sergio Gradenigo to his Ambassador in Moscow (1933)



Thus the assumption today that there is little difference between Russians and Ukrainians.
That’s what happens when you exterminate a culture and flood the surviving remnants with another.

Johnny Rockets

[Baron Von PWN]

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).

This is often cited as why the Soviets won (disregard for casualties) but they actualy underwent a change in military leadership during the war. Pre-war most of the generals and officers were political appointees with little to no military talent or skill. As the war got worse Stalin smartened up and started putting professional soldiers (people like Zhukov) back in positions of leadership.

[Baron Von PWN]

Stalin.
Not that I'd give Adolph a big wet smootch either but Uncle Joe left a bigger footprint of Evil.


There are huge cultural differences between Ukrainians and Russians. Even more so before 1932. Most Ukrainians at the time (and still are...) were very devoutly religious....something Stalin despised as religion would be directly competing with his vision of an ideal communist society. His goal was to starve out the Ukrainians and settle the land with Russians. Hard core communist peasants who would not object to his collective farm model.

A few points:
The Ukrainian Genocide Famine (Holodomor) is one of the least known tragedies of the 20th century...

At the height of the Genocide Ukrainians were dying at a rate of 25,000 per day.
Nearly 1 in 4 rural Ukrainians perished as a direct result.

The Soviet Union dumped 1.7 million tons of grain on Western markets during the Genocide.
Nearly a fifth of a ton of grain was exported for each person who died of starvation.

Over 3,000,000 children born between 1932-1933 died of starvation.

"The aftermath of the present tragedy in Ukraine will be Russian colonization of this country, which will affect its ethnic makeup. In the future, or even in the near future, no one will even speak about Ukraine or the Ukrainian people - and, hence, about the Ukrainian problem - because Ukraine will de facto become a territory with a predominantly Russian population."
- Letter from the Italian consul in Kharkiv, Ukraine
by Sergio Gradenigo to his Ambassador in Moscow (1933)



Thus the assumption today that there is little difference between Russians and Ukrainians.
That’s what happens when you exterminate a culture and flood the surviving remnants with another.

Johnny Rockets

I think this was more the result of Stalin's desire to export grain rather than a desire to wipe out the Ukrainians. If Stalin had wanted to wipe them out he could have done it. At the same time as Holodmore russian peasants were also starving because of the approriation of grain, this wasn't targeted at the Ukrain but peaseants as a class, whom the Communists mistrusted.

[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).

This is often cited as why the Soviets won (disregard for casualties) but they actualy underwent a change in military leadership during the war. Pre-war most of the generals and officers were political appointees with little to no military talent or skill. As the war got worse Stalin smartened up and started putting professional soldiers (people like Zhukov) back in positions of leadership.

Even then, the Russians still took many causalties. And even though they eventually turned back the German's on the Eastern Front, they took something like a 2-1 or 3-1 in terms of comparing casaulties with the Germans. Stalin may have put more experienced soldiers in charge, but many were still under equipped, if completely unarmed and were told to pick up some other soldier's weapon when they were shot down.

[Baron Von PWN]

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).

This is often cited as why the Soviets won (disregard for casualties) but they actualy underwent a change in military leadership during the war. Pre-war most of the generals and officers were political appointees with little to no military talent or skill. As the war got worse Stalin smartened up and started putting professional soldiers (people like Zhukov) back in positions of leadership.

Even then, the Russians still took many causalties. And even though they eventually turned back the German's on the Eastern Front, they took something like a 2-1 or 3-1 in terms of comparing casaulties with the Germans. Stalin may have put more experienced soldiers in charge, but many were still under equipped, if completely unarmed and were told to pick up some other soldier's weapon when they were shot down.

Absolutly. Russia suffered around 30 million casualties during the war (Civilian and military) about two thirds of those casualties were civilian deaths, Lenningrad and Stalingrad suffered many many deaths from german bombing. Also huge soviet armies were wipped out (mostly captured and then killed as POWs, I think somthing in the order of only 1 in 10 Russian POWs survived captivity) in the opening weeks of the war which destroyed allot of war material which led to the situations you describe above.

[sensfan]

Stalin just because he's Russian and I hate Soviet Russia and the modern Russia.

[Qwert]

Hitler its worst. They responsibile for murder of 1,5 milion of mine people.

[monster10]

Russia killed more people than the third reich............

[The Neon Peon]

Stalin, and not because he killed more people than Hitler.

Hitler killed millions of people to take the bad genes/races/cultures out of the earth to "perfect" the human race.
Staling killed millions of people.

At least Hitler was trying to accomplish something that he thought was good for humanity.

[Baron Von PWN]

Stalin, and not because he killed more people than Hitler.

Hitler killed millions of people to take the bad genes/races/cultures out of the earth to "perfect" the human race.
Staling killed millions of people.

At least Hitler was trying to accomplish something that he thought was good for humanity.

Stalin killed so that Communist party which he thought would bring about global communism could stay in power. They both killed for what they thought was best for humanity.

[Metsfanmax]

I chose Stalin because the stain of totalitarianism he left with humanity is far more evil than the particular policies or actions of any one individual. In the case of the Nazis, certainly the killing of particular races was a despicable act. However, I have never been particularly persuaded that genocide is morally worse than mass murder for other, non-racial reasons. More significantly, though, Hitler killed the Jews and other groups for the purpose of maintaining control, and perhaps he really believed Aryans were a superior race. In the case of Stalin, though, his government attempted to make its citizens completely obedient, mindless automatons. Anyone who has read 1984 can understand why this is such a danger to humanity, because it is the type of mindset that justifies genocide in the first place.

[Mr Changsha]

This is a very interesting question and I'll enjoy keeping an eye on this thread.

Personally, I think the final solution was quite possibly the most evil act upon humanity ever devised and I base that on not just the numbers, but also on the ruthless efficiency of the government machine that devised it.

Stalin and Mao may have killed more than Hitler (though once you get over a few million deaths I tend towards the view that whether it is 5 million, 10 million or 20 million it doesn't really matter) but I have yet to be convinced that there was such an organised push to wipe out so many. More neglect than deliberate cleansing in my view...(more certainly in the case of Mao) though I'm willing to have my mind changed on this point. I haven't studied Russia since my A levels (over 10 years ago) so my memory may be a touch foggy.

I think one can also point to the fact that Stalin's Russia and Mao's China did eventually settle down into something approaching normality (if only once those leaders died). The Nazis would have kept on killing (whether through firing squads, gas chambers or enslavement conditions designed to kill) for as long as they held power for their basic racial ideology demanded it. I think they would have gone on AFTER Hitler's death in the same manner. This maybe speculation, but once can point to the numbers of younger Nazis (middle ranking at the time of the war) who believed in these ideas of racial purity. They would have seized power in the 50's and would have kept on killing.

So my theory is that Hitler was worse because the ideology he followed was inherently more dangerous than Stalin's or Mao's. Thus, if Nazi Germany had been allowed to survive they would have killed far more and possibly reached levels of perversity we cannot even imagine. Remember that the Nazis were cut off in 1945. I don't believe they would have 'settled down' in the 50's and 60's.

Finally, I do think Mao should be added to this poll. While I may not consider him as bad as Hitler personally, I would put him up there with Stalin.

[Baron Von PWN]

I chose Stalin because the stain of totalitarianism he left with humanity is far more evil than the particular policies or actions of any one individual. In the case of the Nazis, certainly the killing of particular races was a despicable act. However, I have never been particularly persuaded that genocide is morally worse than mass murder for other, non-racial reasons. More significantly, though, Hitler killed the Jews and other groups for the purpose of maintaining control, and perhaps he really believed Aryans were a superior race. In the case of Stalin, though, his government attempted to make its citizens completely obedient, mindless automatons. Anyone who has read 1984 can understand why this is such a danger to humanity, because it is the type of mindset that justifies genocide in the first place.

I think yours is the best argument so far. Do you feel Hitler would have been much different had he somehow remained in power? He did engage in political killings as well as the holocaust claimed the lives of homosexuals, priests, communists and other non racial groups as well.

[Baron Von PWN]

This is a very interesting question and I'll enjoy keeping an eye on this thread.

Personally, I think the final solution was quite possibly the most evil act upon humanity ever devised and I base that on not just the numbers, but also on the ruthless efficiency of the government machine that devised it.

Stalin and Mao may have killed more than Hitler (though once you get over a few million deaths I tend towards the view that whether it is 5 million, 10 million or 20 million it doesn't really matter) but I have yet to be convinced that there was such an organised push to wipe out so many. More neglect than deliberate cleansing in my view...(more certainly in the case of Mao) though I'm willing to have my mind changed on this point. I haven't studied Russia since my A levels (over 10 years ago) so my memory may be a touch foggy.

I think one can also point to the fact that Stalin's Russia and Mao's China did eventually settle down into something approaching normality (if only once those leaders died). The Nazis would have kept on killing (whether through firing squads, gas chambers or enslavement conditions designed to kill) for as long as they held power for their basic racial ideology demanded it. I think they would have gone on AFTER Hitler's death in the same manner. This maybe speculation, but once can point to the numbers of younger Nazis (middle ranking at the time of the war) who believed in these ideas of racial purity. They would have seized power in the 50's and would have kept on killing.

So my theory is that Hitler was worse because the ideology he followed was inherently more dangerous than Stalin's or Mao's. Thus, if Nazi Germany had been allowed to survive they would have killed far more and possibly reached levels of perversity we cannot even imagine. Remember that the Nazis were cut off in 1945. I don't believe they would have 'settled down' in the 50's and 60's.

Finally, I do think Mao should be added to this poll. While I may not consider him as bad as Hitler personally, I would put him up there with Stalin.

From what I know of Mao i agree he is similar to Stalin. You could make a similar argument towards Stalin as with Mao. This would relly on people doing what they thought Stalin wanted and acting to overfull-fill their arrest quotas(NKVD were often simply given absolute numbers to arrest "arrest 1000 in Moscow" and vague outlines of the types of people to arrest) like any other part of the plans.

[Frito Bandito]

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..

I for one put Ukrainian as my ethnicity on the census form!

[Phatscotty]

Both of them are the tag team champions of communism being directly responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century.

[Army of GOD]

In the case of Stalin, though, his government attempted to make its citizens completely obedient, mindless automatons. Anyone who has read 1984 can understand why this is such a danger to humanity, because it is the type of mindset that justifies genocide in the first place.

Didn't the Nazi's try the same thing though?

With their anti-Semitic propaganda and such?

(I'm not really sure how much "Hitler is GOD" propaganda they did, which I know Stalinist Russia and Maoist China did a whole lot of)

[cyrenius]

Hitler backstabbed Stalin. The debate is over!

Yeah, and the red army entered Berlin causing the death of Hitler, we can say that he got his revenge

Stalin killed far more people than Hitler, not to mention that he took comunism to another level(stalinism) that created victims even after his death, spreding comunism around the globe.

[cyrenius]

Stalin, and not because he killed more people than Hitler.

Hitler killed millions of people to take the bad genes/races/cultures out of the earth to "perfect" the human race.
Staling killed millions of people.

At least Hitler was trying to accomplish something that he thought was good for humanity.

Stalin killed so that Communist party which he thought would bring about global communism could stay in power. They both killed for what they thought was best for humanity.

Stalin killed to ensure his power, not for the sake of an ideolog of his party.He also killed all of his comunist rivals

[cyrenius]

I chose Stalin because the stain of totalitarianism he left with humanity is far more evil than the particular policies or actions of any one individual. In the case of the Nazis, certainly the killing of particular races was a despicable act. However, I have never been particularly persuaded that genocide is morally worse than mass murder for other, non-racial reasons. More significantly, though, Hitler killed the Jews and other groups for the purpose of maintaining control, and perhaps he really believed Aryans were a superior race. In the case of Stalin, though, his government attempted to make its citizens completely obedient, mindless automatons. Anyone who has read 1984 can understand why this is such a danger to humanity, because it is the type of mindset that justifies genocide in the first place.

I think yours is the best argument so far. Do you feel Hitler would have been much different had he somehow remained in power? He did engage in political killings as well as the holocaust claimed the lives of homosexuals, priests, communists and other non racial groups as well.

I don't know about comunists maybe after he turned against Stalin.The fact is that the Natzis where trained by russian comunists.The russians had quit an experience with concentracion camps and tortute tehniques by the time germans started theirs.We can say that it was one of the first franchise

See "The Soviet Story"

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=109818

http://www.novamov.com/video/gzpvi86ym82iv

[Baron Von PWN]

Both of them are the tag team champions of communism being directly responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century.

Nazism/fascism and Communism are different ideologies.

[Baron Von PWN]

I chose Stalin because the stain of totalitarianism he left with humanity is far more evil than the particular policies or actions of any one individual. In the case of the Nazis, certainly the killing of particular races was a despicable act. However, I have never been particularly persuaded that genocide is morally worse than mass murder for other, non-racial reasons. More significantly, though, Hitler killed the Jews and other groups for the purpose of maintaining control, and perhaps he really believed Aryans were a superior race. In the case of Stalin, though, his government attempted to make its citizens completely obedient, mindless automatons. Anyone who has read 1984 can understand why this is such a danger to humanity, because it is the type of mindset that justifies genocide in the first place.

I think yours is the best argument so far. Do you feel Hitler would have been much different had he somehow remained in power? He did engage in political killings as well as the holocaust claimed the lives of homosexuals, priests, communists and other non racial groups as well.

I don't know about comunists maybe after he turned against Stalin.The fact is that the Natzis where trained by russian comunists.The russians had quit an experience with concentracion camps and tortute tehniques by the time germans started theirs.We can say that it was one of the first franchise

See "The Soviet Story"

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=109818

http://www.novamov.com/video/gzpvi86ym82iv

It's fairly well known that the Nazi's hated communists, they were their primary opponents for power. Whatever training the Soviets might have given the Nazi's would have been in the interests of realpolitk, not any ideological fondness.

The Soviets definetly used concentration camps for ideological enemies (landowners, political opponents, preists ect) this isn't exactly a secret. Solovki island is seen as the "mother" of the gulag system and has a particularily brutall history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solovki_prison_camp. The distinction to be drawn between Hitler and Stalin is that of motive, they both ordered despicable acts but who's motives were more vile?

[Woodruff]

Both of them are the tag team champions of communism being directly responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century.

Nazism/fascism and Communism are different ideologies.

I think he was referring to Stalin/Mao.

[Baron Von PWN]

Both of them are the tag team champions of communism being directly responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century.

Nazism/fascism and Communism are different ideologies.

I think he was referring to Stalin/Mao.

Possibly, I assumed he was conflating Nazism and communism like many teabagers have recently.