Who was worse - Hitler or Stalin?

[Chaotic42]

Stalin

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: CPA
Patiently waiting for the first "GWB!" post.

OMGWTF GWB IS WORSE:!?!?!?!?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: yoda291
If I recall my sketchy rendition of history ( I was a cs major, what do you want from me?), I don't think either of them were really too awful.

Hitler pretty much dragged germany out of a ww1 induced economic depression and turned it into a military and industrial superpower. From the perspective of the German people, they went from mulling around the streets starving to prosperity in a matter of months IIRC.

Stalin pretty much rode on the coattails of Lenin and turned Russia from an agrarian society just starting to recover from a civil war into an industrial powerhouse in record time. Likely he was egged on by the political and economic climate all over europe at the time.

Now while it's unlikely that either of them deserve sole credit for anything, it tends to pan out that way. I think they only seem really evil just because they ended up losing. Makes you wonder. Would we consider Abe Lincoln an evil man if we lost the civil war? Oodles of americans died there. How would we regard Jefferson Davis?

-snip-.

Stalin won, though. History still paints him as a genocidal monster, and rightly so.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: yoda291
If I recall my sketchy rendition of history ( I was a cs major, what do you want from me?), I don't think either of them were really too awful.

Hitler pretty much dragged germany out of a ww1 induced economic depression and turned it into a military and industrial superpower. From the perspective of the German people, they went from mulling around the streets starving to prosperity in a matter of months IIRC.

Stalin pretty much rode on the coattails of Lenin and turned Russia from an agrarian society just starting to recover from a civil war into an industrial powerhouse in record time. Likely he was egged on by the political and economic climate all over europe at the time.

Now while it's unlikely that either of them deserve sole credit for anything, it tends to pan out that way. I think they only seem really evil just because they ended up losing. Makes you wonder. Would we consider Abe Lincoln an evil man if we lost the civil war? Oodles of americans died there. How would we regard Jefferson Davis?

I don't really think it comes down to such a black and white situation here. If I learned anything in history, the answer is never that simple.

The sheer loss of life caused by Hitler and Stalin for equally ignorant and paranoid reasons is staggering.

Their actions are in no way comparable to the events of the US civil war and the actions of Lincoln or Davis.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: yoda291
If I recall my sketchy rendition of history ( I was a cs major, what do you want from me?), I don't think either of them were really too awful.

Hitler pretty much dragged germany out of a ww1 induced economic depression and turned it into a military and industrial superpower. From the perspective of the German people, they went from mulling around the streets starving to prosperity in a matter of months IIRC.

Stalin pretty much rode on the coattails of Lenin and turned Russia from an agrarian society just starting to recover from a civil war into an industrial powerhouse in record time. Likely he was egged on by the political and economic climate all over europe at the time.

Now while it's unlikely that either of them deserve sole credit for anything, it tends to pan out that way. I think they only seem really evil just because they ended up losing. Makes you wonder. Would we consider Abe Lincoln an evil man if we lost the civil war? Oodles of americans died there. How would we regard Jefferson Davis?

I don't really think it comes down to such a black and white situation here. If I learned anything in history, the answer is never that simple.

Well, you are correct.. sort of.. Apparently, they only told you half the story. The most important part was left out, which is HOW and at WHAT COST did Germany and USSR achieved their greatness. An oversimplified answer is they built their superpowers on bones of millions of innocent victims.

 

[bernse]

Originally posted by: L3p3rM355i4h
to the op, your mom, for spawning someone as stupid to ask a question...

That's not very nice. I said nothing bad to your mom when I was pounding her ass on the weekend.

 

[yoda291]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: yoda291
If I recall my sketchy rendition of history ( I was a cs major, what do you want from me?), I don't think either of them were really too awful.

Hitler pretty much dragged germany out of a ww1 induced economic depression and turned it into a military and industrial superpower. From the perspective of the German people, they went from mulling around the streets starving to prosperity in a matter of months IIRC.

Stalin pretty much rode on the coattails of Lenin and turned Russia from an agrarian society just starting to recover from a civil war into an industrial powerhouse in record time. Likely he was egged on by the political and economic climate all over europe at the time.

Now while it's unlikely that either of them deserve sole credit for anything, it tends to pan out that way. I think they only seem really evil just because they ended up losing. Makes you wonder. Would we consider Abe Lincoln an evil man if we lost the civil war? Oodles of americans died there. How would we regard Jefferson Davis?

I don't really think it comes down to such a black and white situation here. If I learned anything in history, the answer is never that simple.

The sheer loss of life caused by Hitler and Stalin for equally ignorant and paranoid reasons is staggering.

Their actions are in no way comparable to the events of the US civil war and the actions of Lincoln or Davis.

Well my point was kind of asking whether or not we demonize the two of them a bit irrationally simply because their plans didn't really work out. Had they succeeded in their crack-brained schemes, how much differently would we hold them?

Personally, I think the both of them are small fry compared to the romans, the holy roman empire, and the mongols. That's just me.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: mzkhadir
George W. Bush is worse.

You are a moron!

I would say Adolf. Stalin was bad but was genocide on his mind? Stalin just liked to kill and didn't really care who he was killing.

I don't know if he means it, but I almost bit because CPA was begging someone to.

you know why I think he is worse because of the 26000+ iraqis dead.

Guess GWB is still way behind Saddam (according to your word but a source would be nice)
like these
1
2
3
4
I'm not going to list all of the 106000+ sites google found

Heres a summary: (assuming your number is right) Bush still has only done 6.5% of what Saddam has done. BUT you say iraqies--which most likely includes terrorists and Bath Party members (like the Uday and Qusay)--but Saddam's victims were all civilians and children

Only hope my sarcasm detector is broken and you really arent that brainwashed

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: yoda291

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: yoda291
If I recall my sketchy rendition of history ( I was a cs major, what do you want from me?), I don't think either of them were really too awful.

Hitler pretty much dragged germany out of a ww1 induced economic depression and turned it into a military and industrial superpower. From the perspective of the German people, they went from mulling around the streets starving to prosperity in a matter of months IIRC.

Stalin pretty much rode on the coattails of Lenin and turned Russia from an agrarian society just starting to recover from a civil war into an industrial powerhouse in record time. Likely he was egged on by the political and economic climate all over europe at the time.

Now while it's unlikely that either of them deserve sole credit for anything, it tends to pan out that way. I think they only seem really evil just because they ended up losing. Makes you wonder. Would we consider Abe Lincoln an evil man if we lost the civil war? Oodles of americans died there. How would we regard Jefferson Davis?

I don't really think it comes down to such a black and white situation here. If I learned anything in history, the answer is never that simple.

The sheer loss of life caused by Hitler and Stalin for equally ignorant and paranoid reasons is staggering.

Their actions are in no way comparable to the events of the US civil war and the actions of Lincoln or Davis.

Well my point was kind of asking whether or not we demonize the two of them a bit irrationally simply because their plans didn't really work out. Had they succeeded in their crack-brained schemes, how much differently would we hold them?

Personally, I think the both of them are small fry compared to the romans, the holy roman empire, and the mongols. That's just me.

Stalin's plans did work out, as far as he was concerned.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

An answer of which one was worse *inherently* gives you a "which one was better", which I think is pretty damn obvious.

The answer is simple: Neither was better or worse. There is no such thing as a "better dictator" any more than there is such a thing as a "better murderer", "better child molester" or "better rapist". Dictators are ALL bad, period, end of story. There is NO room for compromise on this kind of an issue.

Jason

Don't try to impose your morality on someone else's post. Just as Christians see nothing wrong with converting others to *their* religion, you seem to see nothing wrong with imposing your beliefs on someone else and thinking it's the only right way and the final word.

Nobody said that either of these guys were good. You seem to take offense at the very asking of the question, while others weren't offended by the question and gave an honest answer. You have no right or authority to tell someone that they can't ask that question.

I recommend you keep your whining to yourself.

I didn't tell anyone that they COULDN'T ask anything, nitwit, I stated my OPINION the same as anyone else. If you don't like it, TOO BAD.

Jason

 

[imported_GateKeeper]

STALIN!!!!

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: bernse

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
An answer of which one was worse *inherently* gives you a "which one was better", which I think is pretty damn obvious.

The answer is simple: Neither was better or worse. There is no such thing as a "better dictator" any more than there is such a thing as a "better murderer", "better child molester" or "better rapist". Dictators are ALL bad, period, end of story. There is NO room for compromise on this kind of an issue.

Jason

Oh bull. That blanket statement holds no water whatsoever.

You mean to say with a straight face that oh, Castro is on the same level as Hitler? Using your theory, they are.. theu're both dictators. Or someone who raped 1000 women is the same as someone who raped 1? Please. Both are horrible, but one will be out of jail in 5 years.. the other never will be.

History rates people. It might be ugly, but it's done. Live with it or plug your ears and cover your eyes.

Actually yes, I WOULD put Castro on the same level as Hitler and Stalin. True, he hasn't managed to impose nearly the death, destruction and carnage that those two have, but that hardly makes him a good guy, now does it? As for your other very, very poor example, a rapist is a rapist pure and simple. Whether he'll be out in 5 years is immaterial, he's still a guy who decided he had the right to FORCE his will onto another, and that's just wrong. I'm sorry but you can't defend these kinds of people and hold ANY credibility whatsoever.

Jason

 

[halik]

i'd say hitler though it's a tough call.

Hitler took a completly innocent group of people and tried to eliminate them. Stalin was mostly focused on disidents and people who stood up against him. At least the the violenced caused by Stalin was somewhat rational.

 

[iroast]

Stalin is worse because he's Hitler's #1 fan

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

I'm sorry but you can't defend these kinds of people and hold ANY credibility whatsoever.

Jason

Are you really this out of touch with reality or what? All of your posts are filled with way too much emotion and you come off as being frantic. You make it sound like your angst-filled opinions are the only valid ones and that anyone who disagrees has no credibility.

Get over yourself and your whining. Nobody likes a brat.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

I'm sorry but you can't defend these kinds of people and hold ANY credibility whatsoever.

Jason

Are you really this out of touch with reality or what? All of your posts are filled with way too much emotion and you come off as being frantic. You make it sound like your angst-filled opinions are the only valid ones and that anyone who disagrees has no credibility.

Get over yourself and your whining. Nobody likes a brat.

You're apparently reading the wrong posts, as I haven't said ONE emotional thing at all. I've said very simply: Dictators are unacceptable, PERIOD. By *definition* a dictator is someone who disregards the rights of others, who uses FORCE to impose his will on other people. Whether it's ONE person or a hundred million is irrelevant. The point is that using FORCE to impose your will on others is morally unacceptable, period.

The judgment call I make is simply this: Where you choose to try and categorize tyranny into different levels and flavors, I reject the proposition entirely and consider them all one and the same. Tyrants are *by definition* evil. I don't see that there's room to compromise on the issue. You do, and that's fine, enjoy your opinion.

Jason

 

[TitanDiddly]

Hitler did what he did based on hate. Stalin was just nuts. I have to go with Hitler on this one.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
Hitler did what he did based on hate. Stalin was just nuts. I have to go with Hitler on this one.

It's difficult to make a case for Hitler's sanity though.

 

[desy]

Stalin chose to kill 10's of millions of his citizens , not just disidents
It didn't take a whole lot to be callled a 'disident'
Hitler loved his countrymen cept the Jews which he didn't consider his countrymen, a few million. After that everyone he killed was the 'enemy'

Stalin was much worse he killled you if didn't fold like sheep, Hitler only expected you to lay down your life for the fatherland.
They were both crazy meglomanics.

 

[bernse]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Actually yes, I WOULD put Castro on the same level as Hitler and Stalin. True, he hasn't managed to impose nearly the death, destruction and carnage that those two have, but that hardly makes him a good guy, now does it? As for your other very, very poor example, a rapist is a rapist pure and simple. Whether he'll be out in 5 years is immaterial, he's still a guy who decided he had the right to FORCE his will onto another, and that's just wrong. I'm sorry but you can't defend these kinds of people and hold ANY credibility whatsoever.

Jason

You reading a different thread? Who's defending them?

Yes. They're all bad and horrible, nobody says they aren't. But to not differentiate and recognize between orders of magnitude is just wrong. If you can't grasp that, I don't know what else to say.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: bernse

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Actually yes, I WOULD put Castro on the same level as Hitler and Stalin. True, he hasn't managed to impose nearly the death, destruction and carnage that those two have, but that hardly makes him a good guy, now does it? As for your other very, very poor example, a rapist is a rapist pure and simple. Whether he'll be out in 5 years is immaterial, he's still a guy who decided he had the right to FORCE his will onto another, and that's just wrong. I'm sorry but you can't defend these kinds of people and hold ANY credibility whatsoever.

Jason

You reading a different thread? Who's defending them?

Yes. They're all bad and horrible, nobody says they aren't. But to not differentiate and recognize between orders of magnitude is just wrong. If you can't grasp that, I don't know what else to say.

You are more than welcome to disagree all you like. As I said before: I reject the idea that one Dictator is better (or "less bad", if you prefer) than another simply due to their scale of atrocity. How can one look at the array of dictators and say, "Oh, well Dictator X has only murdered a hundred people, he's not so bad, at least not compared to Dictator Y who killed 1,000!". It just makes no damn sense at all. Are they murderers and obliterators of the rights of human beings or not? I think that's the only important question.

Jason

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
How can one look at the array of dictators and say, "Oh, well Dictator X has only murdered a hundred people, he's not so bad, at least not compared to Dictator Y who killed 1,000!". It just makes no damn sense at all.
Jason

You're not quite "with it", are you?

How can any rational person NOT see that a guy who kills 1000 people is worse than a guy who kills 100 people? He's responsible for 10 times as much death.

If the number of people murdered didn't matter, then you'd have all simple murderers on the same level as tyrants like Stalin and Hitler. The number of lives they are responsible for destroying definitely matters.

 

[Gibsons]

Quick way to think about this, which dictator would you rather be subject to, if you had to choose.

I'd much rather be a citizen in Castro's Cuba than Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR.

Tough to pick between Hitler and Stalin though, both are vile... might depend on your race.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: CPA
Patiently waiting for the first "GWB!" post.

Originally posted by: mzkhadir
George W. Bush is worse.

And there it is!

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Taejin

Originally posted by: CPA
Patiently waiting for the first "GWB!" post.

OMGWTF GWB IS WORSE:!?!?!?!?

I'm not saying that. I'm just waiting for the usual idiot suspects to come in and say it. We all know someone will.