|
Post by clusium on Mar 21, 2017 4:45:44 GMT
Who was the more evil tyrant?
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 21, 2017 14:59:27 GMT
In terms of body count, easily Stalin. As far as villainy goes, easily Hitler. Stalin was an opportunistic brute while Hitler was a man on a mission.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Mar 21, 2017 18:29:03 GMT
In terms of body count, easily Stalin. As far as villainy goes, easily Hitler. Stalin was an opportunistic brute while Hitler was a man on a mission. Very interesting way to put it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 23:18:10 GMT
Who was the more evil tyrant? This is a question that has been posed for a long time, how do you weigh one mans' level of atrocity against another? The only deciding question that I can figure out is what were the motives that sent these two men eventually down the same inhuman path. Stalin did initially study to be a priest, believed and fought and sacrificed for the Communist cause and this was probably not an cynical ideological beginning as quite a few of his contemporaries fled while he stayed and fought alongside Lenin and the other Bolsheviks. On the other-hand, Hitler's very beginning was founded on hatred and revenge and though he ascribed to bringing back the down-trodden dignity of the German people, he used every tool of hate and vicious propaganda to remove first the communists and then to give this cultivated rage and angst a long-term objective of superior domination and extermination of those who he deemed unworthy to his distorted visions for the future progress of Europe and maybe the World. Stalin, was consumed by paranoia (some of it rightly justified, as he was always in the target of the West and his rivals) and his lust for the concentration of power. This is not a justification of the eventual horrors of his dictatorship or the singular mismanagement of the Russian people but did lead him to react to the events while Hitler, directly stated his Hateful ambitions in Mein Kampf as early as 1925 and set about deliberately fashioning them.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Mar 23, 2017 0:24:25 GMT
Who was the more evil tyrant? This is a question that has been posed for a long time, how do you weigh one mans' level of atrocity against another? The only deciding question that I can figure out is what were the motives that sent these two men eventually down the same inhuman path. Stalin did initially study to be a priest, believed and fought and sacrificed for the Communist cause and this was probably not an cynical ideological beginning as quite a few of his contemporaries fled while he stayed and fought alongside Lenin and the other Bolsheviks. On the other-hand, Hitler's very beginning was founded on hatred and revenge and though he ascribed to bringing back the down-trodden dignity of the German people, he used every tool of hate and vicious propaganda to remove first the communists and then to give this cultivated rage and angst a long-term objective of superior domination and extermination of those who he deemed unworthy to his distorted visions for the future progress of Europe and maybe the World. Stalin, was consumed by paranoia (some of it rightly justified, as he was always in the target of the West and his rivals) and his lust for the concentration of power. This in not a justification of the eventual horrors of his dictatorship or the singular mismanagement of the Russian people but did lead him to react to the events while Hilter, directly stated his Hateful ambitions in Mein Kampf as early as 1925 and set about deliberately fashioning them. Perhaps one of the most unfortunate outcomes of WWII, is that after Hitler had been defeated, the allies did not try take out Stalin also. They just let him stay in power.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 0:26:15 GMT
Stalin killed many, many more and also sought to control people's freedoms and basic rights.
Stalin also turned on his own whether they supported him or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 23:53:14 GMT
This is a question that has been posed for a long time, how do you weigh one mans' level of atrocity against another? Perhaps one of the most unfortunate outcomes of WWII, is that after Hitler had been defeated, the allies did not try take out Stalin also. They just let him stay in power. We have to recognize the depth of pro-Soviet propaganda during WWII and the change in perceptions by the public as Stalin being our steadfast ally in the East. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' fits this scenario and after the war the Allies had no intention of taking on the costs of rebuilding Eastern Europe as there was little financial or strategic gain to induce them to object to Stalin's continuing presence there. Not to mention that the newly founded 'Military Industrial Complex' needed a long-term global villain if it was to justify huge budgeted military expenditures during peace-time, the war-effort at this point made up too much of the post-depression economy that was looking like it might return after a post-war recession. The most interesting argument has been, did Stalin by accepting and believing in the Nazi-Soviet pact actually bring on the ruin of his own country by not investing heavily enough in modernizing and mobilizing an effective military deterrent if it did fail? www.sparknotes.com/biography/stalin/section9.rhtmlI am still guessing like all crimes that need a verdict, we have to examine the motive? 'Beyond the numbers killed remains the question of intent. Most of the Soviet killing took place in times of peace, and was related more or less distantly to an ideologically-informed vision of modernization. Germany bears the chief responsibility for the war, and killed civilians almost exclusively in connection with the practice of racial imperialism All in all, the Germans deliberately killed about 11 million noncombatants, a figure that rises to more than 12 million if foreseeable deaths from deportation, hunger, and sentences in concentration camps are included. For the Soviets during the Stalin period, the analogous figures are approximately six million and nine million. These figures are of course subject to revision, but it is very unlikely that the consensus will change again as radically as it has since the opening of Eastern European archives in the 1990s' www.nybooks.com/daily/2011/01/27/hitler-vs-stalin-who-was-worse/
|
|
NileQT87
Sophomore
Billowy Coat, King of Pain
@nileqt87
Posts: 532
Likes: 60
|
Post by NileQT87 on Mar 24, 2017 1:56:27 GMT
Stalin killed 7-10 million Ukrainians alone. Starved them to death in the 1930s. Stalin killed around 30 million non-combattants. 50 million including war casualties.
The only difference is that Stalin never had any Nuremberg Trials and nobody cared when the extent of his and Lenin's atrocities were only discovered after 1991 with the opening of the Soviet Secret Archives (which even include Lenin's direct order to kill the entire Imperial family, rather than just Nicholas and Alexei--it was hotly debated amongst the Bolsheviks--and they didn't stop at the immediate family that night). Stalin did far worse, but never received the show trial treatment and his atrocities weren't widely known during his lifetime.
Lenin himself killed 4 million. If ever there were someone who is widely praised by all the little Marxists worldwide still to this day, it's him. Lenin's Pravda even reported that Nicholas was dead, but the Imperial family had been moved to a safe location. It was Stalin who actually acknowledged that the family was even dead (and that was after a Frenchman smuggled out remains found in the first of the two mineshafts containing Botkin's dentures, Anastasia's dog and Alexandra's finger). The propaganda is what kept the extent of the Lenin/Stalin atrocities so quiet. Stalin was so bloody and paranoid (Trotsky was hunted down in Mexico and that was Lenin's propagandist!) that he had a lot of enemies even within his own government, hence why Khrushchev didn't protect Stalin's legacy at all the same way Lenin's was and he got stuffed in a vault rather than displayed in Red Square right along with Lenin (he was embalmed for display, too). Lenin also had a paranoid, bloody period, especially after he barely survived an assassination attempt in a crowd by a woman with a gun. He also benefits from a lower death toll in comparison to Stalin by virtue of him dying pretty early in his reign from syphilis. Lenin turned on the very Kronstadt sailors who facilitated his rise during the October Revolution. The Kronstadt sailors were asking for freedoms like freedom of speech, and instead, were faced with either running to Finland over the ice or digging their own graves in a forest and being shot over them (typical Bolshevik execution style).
Pol Pot killed 2 million.
The Ottoman Turks killed 2.5 million Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Orthodox Christians in the Armenian Genocide of 1915.
Fidel Castro executed about 80,000 (some estimates go up to 100,000). Ché Guevara, favorite t-shirt of college Leftists everywhere, was his executioner and a big fan of Mao.
Mao Tse Tung killed 70 million. He's one of the greatest mass-murderers in all of history.
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Mar 24, 2017 6:13:35 GMT
That's a great point, and I shudder to think what the world is becoming when murdering thugs such as Ché Guevara are held up as freedom fighters and heroes. A Robin Hood he sure wasn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 13:14:11 GMT
In terms of body count, easily Stalin. As far as villainy goes, easily Hitler. Stalin was an opportunistic brute while Hitler was a man on a mission. ^^^ This.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 23:51:21 GMT
That's a great point, and I shudder to think what the world is becoming when murdering thugs such as Ché Guevara are held up as freedom fighters and heroes. A Robin Hood he sure wasn't. NileQT87, I was going to bring up the Armenian genocide as one of the least talked about atrocities of the 20th century, grew up with a neighbor who had escaped this terrible event as a child and she lost her entire village and she only survived because her parents hide her and her brother in an old well and covered it up. It seems that when you become a NATO member, you get the kid gloves, luckily this has been corrected recently. Ché Guevara became one of the most chilling fanatics on this list as he more or less said that it was worth millions of people dying "We do assert, however, that we must follow the road of liberation even though it may cost millions of nuclear war victims. In the struggle to death between two systems we cannot think of anything but the final victory of socialism or its relapse as a consequence of the nuclear victory of imperialist aggression." “What?!” Khrushchev gasped upon reading Castro’s telegram on Oct. 28 1962. “Is he proposing that we start a nuclear war? That we launch missiles from Cuba? But that is insane! Remove them (our missiles) as soon as possible! Before its too late!” instructed the Soviet premier.
What if the United States had not come into the war and Germany managed to occupy most of Western and Eastern Europe with Hitler's oppressive regime and cleansing vision imposed upon them while constantly making plans for further expansion? Stalin, unfortunately for the Russian people, did tend to only cause widespread horror in his own sphere of influence but Hitler could easily of built a sustaining regime that overtime could exterminate 100's of millions. Though the spreading of Communism and the major conflicts that grew out of the Soviets and China extending there sphere's of influence might resemble this in fact, just add a competing Axis power and what a frightening period of human history we would have unleashed something akin to the Mongol advance on the known world.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Mar 26, 2017 18:59:08 GMT
Not sure.
|
|
|
Post by NewtJorden on Apr 7, 2017 1:22:57 GMT
I think Stalin was worst.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2017 8:46:05 GMT
Stalin was worse.
ANybody could be a victim for Stalin.
But most people where safe from Hitler as long as they just did what he wanted.
But both were bad but Stalin was actually worse than Hitler
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Apr 7, 2017 12:06:06 GMT
I'm sure that the millions who went to the mass graves, the gas chambers and the crematoriums, would be amazed, indeed gratified, to learn that they were only there because of their own naughty disobedience.
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Apr 12, 2017 18:33:10 GMT
The worst was the Great War. If we hadn't have had that pointless conflict, there is a good chance we wouldn't have had either one of these dictators/exterminators. I can only imagine what Europe would look like today if World War I hadn't been fought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 21:50:21 GMT
I'm sure that the millions who went to the mass graves, the gas chambers and the crematoriums, would be amazed, indeed gratified, to learn that they were only there because of their own naughty disobedience. Please you know what i mean. So don`t act like you are more stupid than you probably are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 21:51:07 GMT
The worst was the Great War. If we hadn't have had that pointless conflict, there is a good chance we wouldn't have had either one of these dictators/exterminators. I can only imagine what Europe would look like today if World War I hadn't been fought. World war II would never have happend if it had not been for World war 1. World War I is a direct cause of World War II.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Apr 19, 2017 16:52:38 GMT
Fidel Castro executed about 80,000 (some estimates go up to 100,000). Ché Guevara, favorite t-shirt of college Leftists everywhere, was his executioner and a big fan of Mao.Mao Tse Tung killed 70 million. He's one of the greatest mass-murderers in all of history. Very true. As tarathian123 noted, it's absolutely terrifying that this monster is lionized--nay, celebrated--by college-age leftists. The historical revisionism to suit ideological posturing is extraordinary and scary.
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Apr 27, 2017 16:09:23 GMT
The worst was the Great War. If we hadn't have had that pointless conflict, there is a good chance we wouldn't have had either one of these dictators/exterminators. I can only imagine what Europe would look like today if World War I hadn't been fought. World war II would never have happend if it had not been for World war 1. World War I is a direct cause of World War II. We might not have had the Bolshevik Revolution either in Russia. Or the problems going on in the Middle East as a result of the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire by France and the UK. The Ottoman Empire may still exist today in some form but for WW1.
|
|