NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think Hitler or Stalin would have done with Islamic extremists? You don't need to pull any punches.

Killed all the muslims. Simple as that.

He wouldn't kill them...he would torture, dismember, force slavery, assault, genocide and murder...but he would definitely not keep them alive.

Oh wait that was the point wasn't it?

It depends on where the islamic extremists would have been. If, for example, the islamic extremist would have endangered the lives of german people, Hitler would have eliminated the threat. But I find it questionable, that an islamic extremist would have wanted to do anything in the Nationalist Germany?
But if some extremists, whose great obsession is to kill every single person in your country, by blowing them up....wouldn't you have the extremists eliminated? Or would you ask them nicely to leave?

We don't need to speculate, Stalin massacred the Chechens.

Hitler, on urging from Himmler, organized Waffen SS formations of Bosnian Muslims. (Himmler said they were racially aryan but had just converted to islam over the centuries... This was his way of justifying inducting them into the SS)

Ally with them to use them against his enemy (remember the British had significant interests in the region); unless they were in his way. If that were the case, he'd probably try to crush them.

Hey, i don't think Stalin and Hitler should share an arguement, i mean, Hitler was a megalomanical psyco, Stalin on the other hand was efficient, he changed a country in disaster in 1920 to a country that won the war in Europe. While i agree Stalin's methods were harsh, ie. killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people through sending them to the gulags (labour camps) and through his secret police (i can't recall the name), you've got to admit his creation of the 5-Year plans (to grow the USSR industrially), collectivisation (taking food from the peasants to give to the cities), and the purges ("getting rid" of all his political competion allowed him to reach his agendas swiftly), were pretty damn effective. But really, saying Stalin and Hitler are a lot alike is just plain dumb, sure they both rejuvinated their respective countries (Hitler facilitated Germany's rebuilding process after the really REALLY unfair Treaty of Versilles was imposed on them) but other than that, they don't have much in common at all, it's like saying there was no difference between the Romans and the Barbarian Tribes simply because they both lived a loooong time ago...

...but dealing with the question, they would have both only done anything had they threatened their political, economic or military base of power, had they done that, they would have been...liquidated...muahahahaa...

Well they would do EXACTLY what we NEED to do with them. This is one of the FEW things we need to lake a lesson from Hitler or Stalin on. Those muslims are KILLING Americans and that MUST be stopped in ANYWAY.

Well they would do EXACTLY what we NEED to do with them. This is one of the FEW things we need to lake a lesson from Hitler or Stalin on. Those muslims are KILLING Americans and that MUST be stopped in ANYWAY.

Well, i'm sure you'd have a secure future in the Third Reich if it still existed, i mean, i'm sure Hitler could identify with that statement

well, lets see, the nazis quite liked the Moslems (due to a random statement made by Nieztche during a hissy fit): but if (adopts Doctor Who logic) Islamic terrorists had attacked the US BEFORE Germany started invading everyone, hitler would most likely have jumped on the "war on terrorism" bandwagon right away... then backstabbed the Yanks & hired osama bin laden as a PR advisor. (the Führer is still a bit of a pop idol in the middle east, i understand)
Of course, the reason 21 - century Islamic activists have become quite so lovable is their exposure to insane Western left - wing intellectuals (as well as being shafted by Israel, but you might have noticed that little factoid yourselves), which again made them default allies of the soviets. untill Afghanistan, of course...

For some reason their religion teaches them to kill non believers.

I am so pissed with the affair that if i had it my way i'd nuke both america and the arab world, to wipe to areas of scum off the planet.

(I do not mean all americans. I'd have the nice ones evacuated. like you guys for example.)

Let me think. Stalin would have killed them - like he did with the Chechens and other groups who opposed his rule (the number of victims go into several million (estimates up to 20 million).
Hitler would have used the muslims to kill the jews.
It is as easy as that.

The Islamic religion does NOT teach its followers to kill unbelievers, and Muslims are not violent people. It's all interpretation and ALL religions have their extremists.

For the record, are you aware that there is a passage in the Old Testament that says never to help a foreigner if he is severely hurt and instead give priority to a fellow countryman nearby who is simply lost? (Or something to that effect)? I wish I knew the verse name, but I threw out my Bible. Anyhow, just think how you could interpret that...

The Islamic religion does NOT teach its followers to kill unbelievers, and Muslims are not violent people. It's all interpretation and ALL religions have their extremists.
For the record, are you aware that there is a passage in the Old Testament that says never to help a foreigner if he is severely hurt and instead give priority to a fellow countryman nearby who is simply lost? (Or something to that effect)? I wish I knew the verse name, but I threw out my Bible. Anyhow, just think how you could interpret that...
That is true. But we have to realize that Islam is in its Middle Age like christianity was 500 years ago. I wouldn´t like to life at that time as well. The cruelty of the Reconcista or the witch trials as well as the accusation against jews to be responsible for the plague and the persecution of them is indefensible. But today the threat which could be caused by such ideologies of hatred is much bigger than at that time. Today there are modern weapons, WMD but also conventional "weapons" like planes, subways, e.g. which could be used for terrorists attacks. The threat is real and it is huge. It is there as it was when fanatics took over Germany in the 1930s or when Soviet Russia tried to spread its influence in the world, killing its internal opponents in millions, occupying East Europe for 45 years and forcing puppet governments on it and wageing wars of agression in Korea and Afghanistan and other places.
The US has saved Europe from its biggest threats: from Nazi-Germany and Soviet Russia. And it saved Asia from its biggest threats: from imperialists Japan and Soviet Russia.
And I believe today the US has to face the next challenge. Saving the world from Islamists terrorism and in the future from Chinese expansionism. The first may be fought out in a hot war the later rather in a new Cold War scenario.
But if it is fought out and freedom and democracy have prevailed the world is going to be a better place.

shipped em to siberia

Hey, i don't think Stalin and Hitler should share an arguement, i mean, Hitler was a megalomanical psyco, Stalin on the other hand was efficient, he changed a country in disaster in 1920 to a country that won the war in Europe. While i agree Stalin's methods were harsh, ie. killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people through sending them to the gulags (labour camps) and through his secret police (i can't recall the name), you've got to admit his creation of the 5-Year plans (to grow the USSR industrially), collectivisation (taking food from the peasants to give to the cities), and the purges ("getting rid" of all his political competion allowed him to reach his agendas swiftly), were pretty damn effective. But really, saying Stalin and Hitler are a lot alike is just plain dumb, sure they both rejuvinated their respective countries (Hitler facilitated Germany's rebuilding process after the really REALLY unfair Treaty of Versilles was imposed on them) but other than that, they don't have much in common at all, it's like saying there was no difference between the Romans and the Barbarian Tribes simply because they both lived a loooong time ago...

...but dealing with the question, they would have both only done anything had they threatened their political, economic or military base of power, had they done that, they would have been...liquidated...muahahahaa...


Actually they say Stalin was classed by a leading Russian psychiatrist as paranoid and insane. However, an hour later, the psychiatrist was found shot dead. So I think that as for sane and insane goes, Hitler was sane, Stalin was insane. At least Hitler was sane in the beginning, before his parkinsons was full blown.

Actually they say Stalin was classed by a leading Russian psychiatrist as paranoid and insane. However, an hour later, the psychiatrist was found shot dead. So I think that as for sane and insane goes, Hitler was sane, Stalin was insane. At least Hitler was sane in the beginning, before his parkinsons was full blown.
Hitler has actually a lot of parallels with Napoleon.
Napoleon also conquored Central Europe first before he tried an assault on Britain and after that failed he turned against Russia. That was his defeat. Hitler repeated the same mistakes. Well: there is a difference of course. Hitler was a racialists and a paranoid anti-semite. That led to the Holocausts. And due to the technical advancement the wars were much more bloody as well. But aside that he was like Napoleon actually.

Mufastoria,
Don't sell either of these psychos short. Adolf Hitler was Time magazines Man of the Year in 1939(?), and I believe he was in the running for the Man of the Century a few years ago because he changed the topography of the modern world more than almost anyone in the last century. Stalin was simply Lenin's hatchet man. In reality, Stalin had the shoulders of giants to stand on (Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, Engells, etc). He wasn't wasn't the father of a system, just a ruthless political operator whose main concern was power consolidation, not any social experiments. The same can be said of Hitler to an extent, except that when Stalin took over in 1924, there was already a system in place for him. Hitler had to create momentum starting from nothing, and managed to create one of the most powerful military/industrial complexes the world had ever seen at that point. And he did it in a little over a decade.
Stalin would have allied himself to the Muslims, undoubtedly, and used them to combat his enemies. However, as time passed and the demand for oil grew, he would slowly turn on them.
Hitler, on the other hand, refused the help of able-bodied Ukrainian men in his advance on Russia, referring to them as 'Slavic vermen.' He would refuse the help of Islam out of racism. Whether or not he could stop terrorism would be immaterial because he would be willing to exterminate Arabs down to the last man, if that's what's he deemed necessary.

He would refuse the help of Islam out of racism. Whether or not he could stop terrorism would be immaterial because he would be willing to exterminate Arabs down to the last man, if that's what's he deemed necessary.
You are wrong in that respect. There was actually close contact between the German occupying force and the Albanian (Muslim) population in Kosovo. Serbia was the arch-enemy in that respect. And the great mufti of Jerusalem as well as the mufti of Sarajevo allied themself with Hitler. Germany used to have good relations to the Middle East due to the period before under the emperor (Turkey (Baghdad-train), Persia, Afghanistan). Persia actually renamed itself into Iran (land of the Aryan race). The same string can be followed in respect to Afghanistan. So he would most certainly allied himself with them against the Jews and against the Soviets if he had the opportunity to do so.

Stalin would have allied himself to the Muslims, undoubtedly, and used them to combat his enemies. However, as time passed and the demand for oil grew, he would slowly turn on them.
That is rather unlikely, sine he had to battle resistance of the muslim populatin in its own country. In 1944 he was able to regain Checheny and massacred the Chechens. The main reason for the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 was that the Islamic revolution in Iran which already sprang over to Afghanistan would furtherly spring over into the weak stomach of the USSR (Central Asia, Caucasus). And it did. Today they are independent countries - though with post-communists regimes and strong islamists opposition. There even was a civil war in Tadzikistan and many conflicts in the Caucasus. And there is more to come. So, quite frankly spoken Russia today has much more interests to ally itself with the US against terrorism than the other way around.

That is true. But we have to realize that Islam is in its Middle Age like christianity was 500 years ago. I wouldn´t like to life at that time as well. The cruelty of the Reconcista or the witch trials as well as the accusation against jews to be responsible for the plague and the persecution of them is indefensible. But today the threat which could be caused by such ideologies of hatred is much bigger than at that time. Today there are modern weapons, WMD but also conventional "weapons" like planes, subways, e.g. which could be used for terrorists attacks. The threat is real and it is huge. It is there as it was when fanatics took over Germany in the 1930s or when Soviet Russia tried to spread its influence in the world, killing its internal opponents in millions, occupying East Europe for 45 years and forcing puppet governments on it and wageing wars of agression in Korea and Afghanistan and other places.
The US has saved Europe from its biggest threats: from Nazi-Germany and Soviet Russia. And it saved Asia from its biggest threats: from imperialists Japan and Soviet Russia.
And I believe today the US has to face the next challenge. Saving the world from Islamists terrorism and in the future from Chinese expansionism. The first may be fought out in a hot war the later rather in a new Cold War scenario.
But if it is fought out and freedom and democracy have prevailed the world is going to be a better place.It is not religion the problem. It is the backward behavior.
Just take the death penalty. Some muslims are still using it, but they are not alone and other muslims are not using it.

It is not religion the problem. It is the backward behavior.
I don´t see any religion or any nationality as a problem. They are all part of our world. But I see extremis - regardless of the corner and its colour as a problem.
And today Islam is in its Middle Ages. The threat of radical Islam is real. And due to the fact that Middle Age and modern technology can come together (planes, trains, car bombs, WMDs) the threat is much higher than during the European Middle Age which was already cruel enough.
Therefore we need to fight terror and those who harbour them. And we need to stress the issue of problematic countries like Iran or Syria. I prefer diplomatic solutions. But the use of force can´t be excluded as a last resort.

I don´t see any religion or any nationality as a problem. They are all part of our world. But I see extremis - regardless of the corner and its colour as a problem.
And today Islam is in its Middle Ages. The threat of radical Islam is real. And due to the fact that Middle Age and modern technology can come together (planes, trains, car bombs, WMDs) the threat is much higher than during the European Middle Age which was already cruel enough.
Therefore we need to fight terror and those who harbour them. And we need to stress the issue of problematic countries like Iran or Syria. I prefer diplomatic solutions. But the use of force can´t be excluded as a last resort.
Iran and Syria are not the main problem.
The main problem is backward behavior. It happens in Europe and in the US as well.
Threatening Iran of use of force is irresponsible and dangerous.

Iran and Syria are not the main problem.
The main problem is backward behavior. It happens in Europe and in the US as well.
Threatening Iran of use of force is irresponsible and dangerous.
Irans nuclear program is irresponsible and dangerous. That is not only the opinion of the US and Britain but also of France and Germany.
If Iran does not comply it may face serious consequences. We don´t know how far Iran got. Probably it is already to late and we are going to see a North-Korea like situation.
But pressure needs to be put on Iran. The regime is a threat to the peace of the region and the world if it is refusing to stop its plutonium production which can be used for nukes and has nothing to do with civilian use of nuclear power. Iran must comply or face serious consequences. I hope the Mullahs don´t make a miscalculation in that respect.

Irans nuclear program is irresponsible and dangerous. That is not only the opinion of the US and Britain but also of France and Germany.
If Iran does not comply it may face serious consequences. We don´t know how far Iran got. Probably it is already to late and we are going to see a North-Korea like situation.
But pressure needs to be put on Iran. The regime is a threat to the peace of the region and the world if it is refusing to stop its plutonium production which can be used for nukes and has nothing to do with civilian use of nuclear power. Iran must comply or face serious consequences. I hope the Mullahs don´t make a miscalculation in that respect.A threat to the peace? Did you read what you just said?
Why do you think would Iran develop nuclear weapons? BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER THREAT.

I think you didn't get the situation there. The UN and the US have lost all credibility. Iraq and Afghanistan have been attacked with nearly no reason. Iran is just in the middle and they already know the US is eyeing on them and that they can't do a fucking thing about that. Any non-suicidal country would try to defend themselves. It's called the arm race. And Iran is not the leading nation in that domain. Threatening Iran of force is irresponsible and foolish.

Once upon a time, there was diplomacy between countries. Now everything seems to be fucked up.
Quite frankly, I'd rather have the wise leaders of Iran have the nuclear bomb that those irresponsible leaders we have on the west. Their nuclear weapons was supposed to be defensive. Going around threatening every country because you have the biggest military is a backward behavior.

The US has saved Europe from its biggest threats: from Nazi-Germany and Soviet Russia.WHAT?

the islamic religion doesn't tell muslim to kill believe, it is the religious sects among the muslim community that do that, there are weird christians as their are weird muslims. muslims are always backlashed, but no one talks about what some christians do.

Hitler
He would exterminate every Muslim in his "final solution" to the terrorist problem.

Stalin
He would kill all the inhabitants of cities where the terrorists came from. He would use his nuclear weapons too.

Mufastoria,
Don't sell either of these psychos short. Adolf Hitler was Time magazines Man of the Year in 1939(?),



37 or 38, I believe it was 1938 he was the man of the year.

Knowing Hitler, he'd probably place all the Muslims in concentration camps. After all, they didn't fit his quota for a "superior race"

Sigh, lets go through this again... For a variety of reasons, most of them origionating from Victorian philosophers that were literally insane, hitler did not see the moslems as a "race", and considered many middle eastern groups "aryan" (The Iranians actually are, according to the proper definition of the word). i know it may seem confusing, because contemporary nazis (especially European ones) are pretty anti - Muslim, but thats because (gasp!) nazis are not exactly the most reliable people around.
Also, hitlers sucess isnt something we ought to respect him for. rather, it should make us worried about ourselves. Mr "kill all Moslems" is a nice illustration of that.
There are quite central passages (Mosaic law) in the Old testament that support proper treatment of non - Jews ("for you were aliens in the land of Egypt." Of course, that was right before good old "genocide" Joshua...) you realize of course, that if there actually was passages in it stating the opposite, Moslems would be obliged to consider them too?.
Finally, the radical Moslems think they are fighting a perfectly moral defensive war. thats why they think its proper to bring religion into it. and they are not "medival": they would propably be a lot more sensible if they were. They are our contemporaries, and use ideas such as the absolute state, direct theocracy and anti - imperalism, just like us in the West.

The US has saved Europe from its biggest threats: from Nazi-Germany and Soviet Russia. And it saved Asia from its biggest threats: from imperialists Japan and Soviet Russia.


Wrong Wrong Wrong. The US helped in Europe, it was the Soviets that actually went in there an did the dirty work in Germany in WWII, and as for "saving Europe from Soviet Russia", the Soviet Union collapsed due to internal and external pressures, the US only "nudged" the USSR towards collapse (such as developing a Star Wars Defence System so that, when the USSR tried to follow suit, it would be too much for their already fragile economy at the time, which is exactly what happened) and as such only helped, she hardly "saved" Europe and Asia from the USSR. As for Japan, if you call a full blown Atomic Strike against innocent people a victory, you're friggin nuts. I'm all for patroitism, but this is just a load of nationalistic crap.

Wrong Wrong Wrong. The US helped in Europe, it was the Soviets that actually went in there an did the dirty work in Germany in WWII, and as for "saving Europe from Soviet Russia", the Soviet Union collapsed due to internal and external pressures, the US only "nudged" the USSR towards collapse (such as developing a Star Wars Defence System so that, when the USSR tried to follow suit, it would be too much for their already fragile economy at the time, which is exactly what happened) and as such only helped, she hardly "saved" Europe and Asia from the USSR. As for Japan, if you call a full blown Atomic Strike against innocent people a victory, you're friggin nuts. I'm all for patroitism, but this is just a load of nationalistic crap.

Interesting perspective...one that is granted by actions of 60 years ago. The USSR barely had an economy. The internal and external pressures were from competing with free market economies while having none itself...hardly a 'nudge'. If the US had done nothing in 1941, what is the possibility England survives on its own? zip. How much support did the USSR receive from the US? The 'dirty work' was pretty much all over Europe and it belittles the actions of the non USSR allies suggesting their work was, what...antiseptic??

seas

The USSR barely had an economy.

They were the second largest in the world.

They were the second largest in the world.
Military power. But economically Japan and Germany were standing always before it.
Todays Russian economy is as big as the one of the Netherlands. And the Netherlands are having 15 million people and Russia 150 million.
Agreed: the USSR was stronger. But it never was that strong. And that was the reason they had to spent 20% of their GDP for defense only to catch up with the American who were only spending about 5%. And that shows the relation of the economies of the US and the USSR.

Wrong Wrong Wrong. The US helped in Europe, it was the Soviets that actually went in there an did the dirty work in Germany in WWII, and as for "saving Europe from Soviet Russia", the Soviet Union collapsed due to internal and external pressures, the US only "nudged" the USSR towards collapse (such as developing a Star Wars Defence System so that, when the USSR tried to follow suit, it would be too much for their already fragile economy at the time, which is exactly what happened) and as such only helped, she hardly "saved" Europe and Asia from the USSR. As for Japan, if you call a full blown Atomic Strike against innocent people a victory, you're friggin nuts. I'm all for patroitism, but this is just a load of nationalistic crap.
The US played a key role. That doesn´t reduce the role other countries played. Whether all military strikes were appropiate from todays perspective is another question. You mentioned Nagasaki and Hiroshima but you probably never heard of the Dresden fire storm or the mass bombardements of cities in central Europe.
But again: the two countries started a war of aggression and where much more brutal than that. That shouldn´t be forgotten either.

In my post i was only referring to the comments being rather egocentric on the US part. It was a truly global war, and the US did indeed play a key role, i can't deny that and i don't plan to, i was simply stating my objection to your statement over US "saving" Europe when it was really a combined effort, however you must agree that if anyone "saved" Europe, it would be the USSR, for it was indeed the Soviets that invaded and took Berlin on their own. I just want to make it clear that i am not bellitling the actions of the US in WWII, i'm just stating that by saying they "saved" Europe is a hell of an overstatement.
In addition, while there may have been worse attacks than that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, such as the ones you suggested, you're failing to see the long term effects of the Manhatten Project, ie. the subsequent mass production of Nuclear Weapons and the introduction of a way man can completely destroy the Earth and every human being on it, therefore the US was hardly the saviour of anything.

edit: Just a point in note, if the US was truly the saviour of Europe as you suggested, then how the hell do you explain the isolationist attitudes that led the US coming into the War years after it began, as it did in WWI, i mean, sitting back and watching Europe destroy itself...reeeeeeaaaaaal heroic...

In my post i was only referring to the comments being rather egocentric on the US part. It was a truly global war, and the US did indeed play a key role, i can't deny that and i don't plan to, i was simply stating my objection to your statement over US "saving" Europe when it was really a combined effort, however you must agree that if anyone "saved" Europe, it would be the USSR, for it was indeed the Soviets that invaded and took Berlin on their own. I just want to make it clear that i am not bellitling the actions of the US in WWII, i'm just stating that by saying they "saved" Europe is a hell of an overstatement.
In addition, while there may have been worse attacks than that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, such as the ones you suggested, you're failing to see the long term effects of the Manhatten Project, ie. the subsequent mass production of Nuclear Weapons and the introduction of a way man can completely destroy the Earth and every human being on it, therefore the US was hardly the saviour of anything.

edit: Just a point in note, if the US was truly the saviour of Europe as you suggested, then how the hell do you explain the isolationist attitudes that led the US coming into the War years after it began, as it did in WWI, i mean, sitting back and watching Europe destroy itself...reeeeeeaaaaaal heroic...Actually Britain, the USSR and France saved the US as much as the US saved them.

In my post i was only referring to the comments being rather egocentric on the US part. It was a truly global war, and the US did indeed play a key role, i can't deny that and i don't plan to, i was simply stating my objection to your statement over US "saving" Europe when it was really a combined effort, however you must agree that if anyone "saved" Europe, it would be the USSR, for it was indeed the Soviets that invaded and took Berlin on their own. I just want to make it clear that i am not bellitling the actions of the US in WWII, i'm just stating that by saying they "saved" Europe is a hell of an overstatement....
The USSR didn´t liberate Europe. It occupied half of it up unti 1991 and forced its form of government on those countries. Really a great saviour.
The US liberated half of Europe and put pressure on the totalitarian USSR, which eventually led to its withdrawl from Eastern Europe and even its collapse.
And that liberated the rest of Europe.

In addition, while there may have been worse attacks than that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, such as the ones you suggested, you're failing to see the long term effects of the Manhatten Project, ie. the subsequent mass production of Nuclear Weapons and the introduction of a way man can completely destroy the Earth and every human being on it, therefore the US was hardly the saviour of anything.....
I think that without the nukes their would have been an hot war between the US and the USSR. Just think about 1962. The fear of mutual complete destruction kept the peace. Without that there would have been an hot World War III and not just proxy wars.

edit: Just a point in note, if the US was truly the saviour of Europe as you suggested, then how the hell do you explain the isolationist attitudes that led the US coming into the War years after it began, as it did in WWI, i mean, sitting back and watching Europe destroy itself...reeeeeeaaaaaal heroic...
Well, the US is not that interventionistic than many people accuse it to be. It was at that time rather isolationistic. But you can´t criticize the US for both.
And if you want to be cynical: the strategy was actually smart since it allowed the US to become the only western super power while the European powers marginalised themself. You can call that winfall-profits. The USSR had the same advantage. Though they were of course much more harmed due to the war and had just a crappy political and economic system. They were a totalitarian dictatorship. I don´t see much of a difference between Stalin and Hitler and if you really look into Stalins record in his domestic policy (minorities, other social groups, religion, church) you wouldn´t see much difference either. The killings go into many millions. It was therefore just logical that the Cold War happened. The first signs for that were already there during the war.
The US due to its decisivness and strength pushed the USSR down - also economically due to the arms race which the USSR couldn´t stand anymore at the end. No country can spent 20% of its GDP for defense in the long-run. Its collapse was just a matter of time at the end. It happened much faster than most expected though. And the US deserves most of the credit for it - but also its allies in Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Japan, Federal Republic of Germany and the rest of the European allies and the other allies in the world.