NationStates Jolt Archive

Who's the most influential man in history, Hitler, Stalin or Elvis*?


*What has that guy done besides making music?

Sex everyone up?

i went with stalin. his horrible country lasted longer and the ideology he ruined was less unpleasant to begin with.

Sex everyone up?

Elvis was not a politician, although there's probably more Elvis fans than neo-Nazis. Hitler was the most biographed person of the 20th Century.

i went with stalin. his horrible country lasted longer and the ideology he ruined was less unpleasant to begin with.

Is it because Hitler murdered Jews that Stalin is easier to forgive?

Stalin started the space program.

And a bunch of bad stuff

Is it because Hitler murdered Jews that Stalin is easier to forgive?

...wait, who said i forgave him? don't put words into my mouth, please. especially unsupportable ones.

Stalin started the space program.

And a bunch of bad stuff

25% of the world was living under communist tyranny by the time of his death.

25% of the world was living under communist tyranny by the time of his death.

and 20 something million dead in the gulag's. dark times indeed.

Stalin. His ideology spread further than Hitler's, he ruled more people, and he had a way cooler mustache. Yes, I'm shallow and puerile when it comes to my dictators.

On the other hand, Elvis has probably more fans than any other artist to this day, and they're certainly more fanatical ('Cept maybe Jackson's.). I haven't looked into it, but I'll wager the music he popularized had a large effect on the following five decades of music.

Also, no Elvis = no Bubba Ho-Top. So even if Stalin was more influential, I'm going to have to go with Elvis on the strength of Bruce Campbell and Ossie Davis.

and 20 something million dead in the gulag's. dark times indeed.

Don't forget how he inspired bastards like Mao and Pol Pot. Instead of killing actual enemies, the Stalinists prefer to kill their own people while claiming that bloodletting leads to a stronger nation.

Stalin. His ideology spread further than Hitler's, he ruled more people, and he had a way cooler mustache. Yes, I'm shallow and puerile when it comes to my dictators.

On the other hand, Elvis has probably more fans than any other artist to this day, and they're certainly more fanatical ('Cept maybe Jackson's.). I haven't looked into it, but I'll wager the music he popularized had a large effect on the following five decades of music.

Also, no Elvis = no Bubba Ho-Top. So even if Stalin was more influential, I'm going to have to go with Elvis on the strength of Bruce Campbell and Ossie Davis.

I prefer Hitler, because I admire nationalism and I've actually experienced communism (well, Deng's reforms are exactly communist). I'm more drawn to the Hitler image because he looks good in a uniform (like Chiang Kai-shek) and appears to be very mesmerizing. I admit that I have no shame in admiring Hitlerist nationalism (NOT racism).

Elvis? What has that guy done with politics?

Is it because of the Western bias in this forum that the votes for Elvis have to surpass that for Stalin?

Is it because of the Western bias in this forum that the votes for Elvis have to surpass that for Stalin?

Going to have to go with, probably. Seriously, how can anybody think that guy was more influential Uncle Joe.

Going to have to go with, probably. Seriously, how can anybody think that guy was more influential Uncle Joe.

Why don't ya ask your American buddies? If it weren't for the Arctic convoys (which the Russians continue to deny until recently), the Ivans would have all starved to death!

I believe that Stalin was even more influential than Hitler, because if it weren't for Stalin, I doubt that the Cold War would have ever happened. The Cold War was more influential in the long run than WWII, because it lasted 46 years, while WWII only lasted for six. The Cold War was the reason for countless political changes, hot wars, nuclear proliferation, and many technological advances (because as we all know, nothing motivates governments to fund scientific research more than an imminent threat).

Stalin killed 5 times more people than Hitler and 8 times more people than Elvis and lasted longer and started a longer conflict.

Stalin killed 5 times more people than Hitler and 8 times more people than Elvis and lasted longer and started a longer conflict.*Tongue in cheek humor gauge explodes*

Stalin killed 5 times more people than Hitler and 8 times more people than Elvis and lasted longer and started a longer conflict.

Brilliant!

Hitler built up his country far quicker than Stalin. Hitler's empire (at it's peak) rivalled that of Genghis Khan. Hitler was much more enigmatic than Stalin.

Hitler built up his country far quicker than Stalin. Hitler's empire (at it's peak) rivalled that of Genghis Khan. Hitler was much more enigmatic than Stalin.

That’s the thing, though. Hitler had to rely on his charisma to be influential. Stalin, on the other hand, didn’t need to generate public support.

Is it because Hitler murdered Jews that Stalin is easier to forgive?

Stalin was no friend of the Jews, either. Nor a friend of anyone, for that matter.

As for WWII v. the cold war being more influencial, you gotta wonder how long it would have taken a country develope the nuclear bomb if WWII hadn't created the need (or the preception of the need, if you prefer) for the ultimate weopon. And what's the cold war without nukes? So for that, and other reasons, I vote Adolf.

That’s the thing, though. Hitler had to rely on his charisma to be influential. Stalin, on the other hand, didn’t need to generate public support.

Stalin needed henchmen, while Hitler had exceptional oratory. Stalin spoke Russian with a heavy Georgian accent, while Hitler's speeches can easily make a professor jump to his feet and go "Seig... heil!"

Why don't ya ask your American buddies? If it weren't for the Arctic convoys (which the Russians continue to deny until recently), the Ivans would have all starved to death!
Bollocks. The Arctic convoys were vital for our war effort, but because of the lend-lease logistical supplies (lorries, jeeps, and the like) and not because of tinned meat.

Stalin was no friend of the Jews, either. Nor a friend of anyone, for that matter.

As for WWII v. the cold war being more influencial, you gotta wonder how long it would have taken a country develope the nuclear bomb if WWII hadn't created the need (or the preception of the need, if you prefer) for the ultimate weopon. And what's the cold war without nukes? So for that, and other reasons, I vote Adolf.

Good post, son. Bravo!

To be honest, Hitler was actually more loved by his own people than Stalin!

Prior to the Nazis, the most anti-Semitic place on Earth was Russia. Stalin's anti-Semitism (although not the point of racial genocide) was stirred up by Trotsky and Lenin (both were Jews). Stalin felt that these men (despite one of them he had to suck up to) hindered his rise in the Party.

After the war, Stalin's xenophobia expanded due to the fear of the creation of Israel might divert the attention and loyalty of Russian Jews. To 'combat' this, Stalin banned Jews from the military and some of the country's best universities.

Under Nazi occupation, the Ivans were more easily motivated to kill and beat Jews than resist the Nazis! An American reporter recorded the words of a Ukrainian peasant after the war: "Hitler was the devil. Stalin is much worse!" (Just to show how much they hated him and his retarded communism.)

Russian soldiers entering into lands of Germany and Czechoslovakia were disillusioned by what the refugees had left behind- radios, proper funiture, expansive food stock. They realized that Stalin's socialist paradise was only an illusion, which is why, veterans who were not careful could end up in the gulags.


Hitler was also very close to developing the A-bomb. They had a very dedicated facility in occupied Norway and there are recent revelations that the Nazis had a fission reactor but had to destroy and hide it from the advancing Americans. They were fairly advanced, unlike the Ivans who had to steal secrets about the bomb from the Americans!

Bollocks. The Arctic convoys were vital for our war effort, but because of the lend-lease logistical supplies (lorries, jeeps, and the like) and not because of tinned meat.

Which ever way you look at it, the Americans should be thanked.

"Gratitude is a dog's disease."

- Stalin

It wasn't until Putin that they realized that they couldn't have done it alone. We can conclude that America helped to feed and arm the 'trophy brigades'.

Which ever way you look at it, the Americans should be thanked.

"Gratitude is a dog's disease."

- Stalin

It wasn't until Putin that they realized that they couldn't have done it alone. We can conclude that America helped to feed and arm the 'trophy brigades'.

It wasn't until Khrushchev, Sino. Nikita publicly thanked the Allies for their assistance in Camp David '59, IIRC.

The USSR definitely could defeat Germany on its own, albeit with more bloodshed and deaths.

It seems to me that you're a bit anti-Russian, aren't you?

It seems to me that you're a bit anti-Russian, aren't you?

Let's just say that I'm not as expert on the subject as you and nor have I heard many good things about the USSR.

I can assure you that I'm very anti-communist.

Let's just say that I'm not as expert on the subject as you and nor have I heard many good things about the USSR.
Neither did I... especially on Internet forums. :-)

I'm an anti-communist too, and that's owing to the fact that I lived under the Communist Government.

The USSR definitely could defeat Germany on its own, albeit with more bloodshed and deaths.


That's certainly hard to say. If Germany was fighting on only one front, with all it's resourses dedicated to one enemy, it would have been hard for even the Russians to repulse the attack.

But then again, if Hitler never figured out that invading Russia in the winter is a bad idea, I doubt he would have ever been able to conquer Russia. But bloodier and deadlier, you got that right.

I'm an anti-communist too, and that's owing to the fact that I lived under the Communist Government.

My father told me all those f*ckin' horror stories from Mao's Cultural Revolution. That made me a hardline anti-communist.

[QUOTE=Olantia]
The USSR definitely could defeat Germany on its own, albeit with more bloodshed and deaths.
[QUOTE]

That's certainly hard to say. If Germany was fighting on only one front, with all it's resourses dedicated to one enemy, it would have been hard for even the Russians to repulse the attack.

But then again, if Hitler never figured out that invading Russia in the winter is a bad idea, I doubt he would have ever been able to conquer Russia. But bloodier and deadlier, you got that right.
In 1941 and 1942 the USSR fought Germany (on land, I mean) on its own. In 1943 and the first half on 1944 - almost on its own We were not defeated then.

A common mistake. Htler invaded the USSR on 22 June, that hardly can be counted as winter.

Great Stalin was truly the most inspirational man ever. There is far too much to list at the accomplishments of the great leader. And to believe his people didn't love him is just being naive. Countless millions mourned his death and millions attended his funeral, whereas upon Hitler's death there was no population to mourn his death. Stalin held more power in his hands then any other person in history, and he controlled the largest amount of land, from the biggest country in the world (Russia) to most of Asia and half of Europe. It was also him that brought socialism to its strongest point and had the United States scared shitless because many believed thanks to Stalin world socialism COULD have been achieved... unfortunately morons like Khruschev fucked everything up.

That's certainly hard to say. If Germany was fighting on only one front, with all it's resourses dedicated to one enemy, it would have been hard for even the Russians to repulse the attack.

But then again, if Hitler never figured out that invading Russia in the winter is a bad idea, I doubt he would have ever been able to conquer Russia. But bloodier and deadlier, you got that right.

If Hitler knew patience, he would have defeated the British first, ableit it very bloody operation for the Lufwaffe, Kriegsmarine and Heer. By the time that's done, the Americans would have continued to stay neutral, Russian industry would still be struggling to keep up with Germany.

The British wouldn't be stupid enough to cry to the Russians for liberation, they might even join with Hitler in the slaughter of the descendents of Genghis Khan. It'll be ultra-bloody, but the USSR would eventually lose, or simply move beyond the Urals and continue with petty resistance. That is, if Hitler's generals managed to prepare for the winter.

With a one-sided conflict in Europe, the Japanese attack on Pearl Habor will simply undergo betrayal by Hitler, so it'll be the case of a Nazi Europe and an American Pacific, with Hitler somewhere in Siberia, struggling to keep his power after a disastrous defeat.

Hitler's ambitions never die, he'll soon pick a fight with America over the issue of the Jews and what shall become of the world by then? (Both Germany and America would have nukes.)

In 1941 and 1942 the USSR fought Germany (on land, I mean) on its own. In 1943 and the first half on 1944 - almost on its own We were not defeated then.

A common mistake. Htler invaded the USSR on 22 June, that hardly can be counted as winter.

I'll admit you're better qualified on me than this, although I thought that Hitler didn't listen to his generals (Guderian, I think was a major one) who urged him not to let so many troops sit in the Russian winter, the first one to role around after the invasion.
And the lutwaffe (sp?) forces in the east must have been somewhat depleted, with so many in the west fighting the RAF, not to mention a large number of troops preparing for Operation Sealion.

Great Stalin was truly the most inspirational man ever. There is far too much to list at the accomplishments of the great leader. And to believe his people didn't love him is just being naive. Countless millions mourned his death and millions attended his funeral, whereas upon Hitler's death there was no population to mourn his death. Stalin held more power in his hands then any other person in history, and he controlled the largest amount of land, from the biggest country in the world (Russia) to most of Asia and half of Europe. It was also him that brought socialism to its strongest point and had the United States scared shitless because many believed thanks to Stalin world socialism COULD have been achieved... unfortunately morons like Khruschev fucked everything up.

Don't forget that many preferred Khruschev's easing of restrictions over Stalin's strangle hold on everyone lives. They may have marched and wept for his funeral, but after Khruschev's consolidation of power, they exibited great eagerness in destalinizing the land.

I'll admit you're better qualified on me than this, although I thought that Hitler didn't listen to his generals (Guderian, I think was a major one) who urged him not to let so many troops sit in the Russian winter, the first one to role around after the invasion.
And the lutwaffe (sp?) forces in the east must have been somewhat depleted, with so many in the west fighting the RAF, not to mention a large number of troops preparing for Operation Sealion.

Hitler was too greedy. He failed to learn the important lesson of WWI and kept only one front. Guderian also warned Hitler to prepare for the Russian counter attack, but Hitler scoffed at the intel. report and believed that Russians were too p*ssy.

One thing I have no respect for is the lack of discipline the Russian armed forces. Be it WWII or today in Chechnya, they commit rape and looting as a tactic.

Hitler was too greedy. He failed to learn the important lesson of WWI and kept only one front.

And let's not overlook the Napoleon similarities: at war with both Britian and Russian, can't finish Britian off so he turns east and strikes at Russia, gets to Moscow but in the end is driven back from whence he came. The invasion of Russia, and the Penninsular War, were enough to sow the seads of Napoleons demise. Hitler could have studied the history of European warfare a little better, or at least listen to thost that did.

And let's not overlook the Napoleon similarities: at war with both Britian and Russian, can't finish Britian off so he turns east and strikes at Russia, gets to Moscow but in the end is driven back from whence he came. The invasion of Russia, and the Penninsular War, were enough to sow the seads of Napoleons demise. Hitler could have studied the history of European warfare a little better, or at least listen to thost that did.

Not even looking back to Napoleon, he would have had some sense in him, as he had fought in WWI.

Despite his two Iron Crosses, there's no concrete evidence that Hitler killed anyone during the war. He worked mostly as a messenger and had close brushes with death.

Dont forget that Stalin used retaliation as means of aggression. Everywhere his troops crossed, the country becomes a Soviet satellite state (read colony). An example would be the nationalistic Poles of the Warsaw Uprising being dismissed as "fascist" by Beria.

Examples of commies trying to take things into their own hands with the Hugarian Uprising and the Prague Spring ended in bloodshed by advancing Soviet troops. This shows how imperialistic the USSR was with their 'governors' of the colonies being puppet dictators mirroring Moscow's every move.

Although American troops were stationed in Western Europe as part of NATO's initiative, their numbers were far fewer than the endless garissons of Soviet troops in Warsaw Pact countries. European NATO countries believed that should Soviet agression come to the fore, American deaths (no matter how few) would bring America into the war (this was to prevent the U.S. returning to isolationism). The Soviets on the other hand limited arms development of their underling nations and garissoned excessive forces like conquerors.

The Red Army's definition of liberation is when one has to surrender all their property, freedom and women to the Ivans, then live under brutal repression and work as a production line slave.

Who's the most influential man in history, Hitler, Stalin or Elvis*?


*What has that guy done besides making music?
If I am to answer the question asked in the poll, I would have thought to go with Stalin because his legacy, such as it was, lasted longer than Hitler's (I don't count the Ernst Zundels of the world because they're insignificant), and was more widespread. Granted Elvis's influence will probably last just as long (or longer), and be just as widespread but I'd just figure that defining political landscapes and shaping borders is more profound an impact than music. Then again, I realize, what can possibly be more profound than music? Politics, violence and terror can, with enough effort, be looked at in such a way that one is completely indifferent to them.. but try to listen, really listen, to some music without feeling something. Sometimes corny, yes. Sometimes stupid, yes. But always there is some response. Go Elvis!

However, if I was to answer your question as it is stated above, Johannes Gutenberg blows them all away with his printing press. What did Stalin and Hitler's armies fight for? What defined and still defines how people live their lives? Ideas. How do those ideas spread? The printing press. Without it where would we be?

If I am to answer the question asked in the poll, I would have thought to go with Stalin because his legacy, such as it was, lasted longer than Hitler's (I don't count the Ernst Zundels of the world because they're insignificant), and was more widespread. Granted Elvis's influence will probably last just as long (or longer), and be just as widespread but I'd just figure that defining political landscapes and shaping borders is more profound an impact than music. Then again, I realize, what can possibly be more profound than music? Politics, violence and terror can, with enough effort, be looked at in such a way that one is completely indifferent to them.. but try to listen, really listen, to some music without feeling something. Sometimes corny, yes. Sometimes stupid, yes. But always there is some response. Go Elvis!

However, if I was to answer your question as it is stated above, Johannes Gutenberg blows them all away with his printing press. What did Stalin and Hitler's armies fight for? What defined and still defines how people live their lives? Ideas. How do those ideas spread? The printing press. Without it where would we be?

More people in the world know about Stalin and Hitler than Elvis. He's just some singer popular in the West. Gutenberg may have invented the printing press in the West, but the Chinese had their first. Pity how they didn't initiate the modern world.

Another reason why Hitler is more influencial is because of the emotional nature of Nazi propaganda, as opposed to the communist method of pseudo-intellectual discussion. We all know that politics is bullsh*t, but Nazi bullsh*t can easily draw attention. I rather watch the Nuremburg rallies and Hitler speaking than a Stalin-era May 1st parade.

I'm not surprised that Hitler still leads the charge with 50% of the votes. Maybe I should have included Michael Jackson.

I would say that ,of the three, Hitler was the most influential, as he inspired extreme nationalisim in the most of his people and led them to believe that they were supreme and would follow him in the revitalisation of germany, the double-crossing of france and the united kingdom in both the treaty of munich (treaty to protect czechoslovakia, its violation led to the occupation of czechoslovakia by germany with the set up of a puppet slovakia controlled by germany) and the benelux neutrility (promise by germany to respect neutrility of holland, belgium and luxembourg, violation led to their occupation,the flanking of the maginot definsive line on the franco-german border and the fall of france) and the rest of the second great war.

Mind you, this doesn't mean that he was right or his legacy lasted longer, and it doesn't mean I agree with him or his racist beliefs, but of the three he was so influential that he caused the start of the most terrible conflict in human history which led to the creation of the atomic bomb.

If Hitler knew patience, he would have defeated the British first, ableit it very bloody operation for the Lufwaffe, Kriegsmarine and Heer. By the time that's done, the Americans would have continued to stay neutral, Russian industry would still be struggling to keep up with Germany.
...
Germany wasn't able to conquer the British Isles in 1941. The RAF and the Home Fleet provided the UK with two superb lines of defence. Operation Sealion had already been postponed indefinitely.

...

The British wouldn't be stupid enough to cry to the Russians for liberation, they might even join with Hitler in the slaughter of the descendents of Genghis Khan. It'll be ultra-bloody, but the USSR would eventually lose, or simply move beyond the Urals and continue with petty resistance. That is, if Hitler's generals managed to prepare for the winter.

...
What makes you think that 'the USSR would eventually lose'?

Regarding the winter of 1941-1942... Hitler attacked the USSR in June, thus his vaunted generls had five whole months until the onset of the winter (that particular winter was nothing to write home about, BTW).

...

Hitler's ambitions never die, he'll soon pick a fight with America over the issue of the Jews and what shall become of the world by then? (Both Germany and America would have nukes.)
Jews as an issue for the USA in 1940s? They were more like a non-issue, I'd like to say. During WWII the USA considered all efforts to save Jews from the Holocaust as an unnecessary distraction. Proofs? The Bermuda Conference of 1943, for example.

I'll admit you're better qualified on me than this, although I thought that Hitler didn't listen to his generals (Guderian, I think was a major one) who urged him not to let so many troops sit in the Russian winter, the first one to role around after the invasion.
And the lutwaffe (sp?) forces in the east must have been somewhat depleted, with so many in the west fighting the RAF, not to mention a large number of troops preparing for Operation Sealion.
Hiler attacked in June. The Luftwaffe quickly achieved air supremacy on the Eastern Front -- our losses in aeroplanes were terrible (like our losses almost in everything). The Soviet Western front (which was approximately on the territory of present Bellorussia) was crushed (its commanders were shot after a speedy court-martial, of course -- the Politburo wanted blood).

Operation Sealion was postponed indefinitely in September 1940.

My point is, Germany did best it can in the war against the USSR. It's not the fault of Hitler and their generals that they weren't be able to defeat the USSR -- it is the 'fault' of my grandfathers.

The West is brain dead.

Whereas Hitler targetted the destructive elements of society, Stalin and the Bolsheviks focused on precisely the opposite: those individuals who's intellect shined brightest were killed

Hitler saved Western Europe from the real killing machines of the 20th century: the Soviet gulags

For one thing, the Soviet government was, from 1917-1945, composed mostly of non-Russians, with virtually all NKVD / Kommisars being of Jewish descent.

Germany wasn't able to conquer the British Isles in 1941. The RAF and the Home Fleet provided the UK with two superb lines of defence. Operation Sealion had already been postponed indefinitely.

It Hitler had the patience to delay the attack on the USSR and focus on Britain (German industry was superior), be it a long and bloody conflict, the industrial capacity and political fanaticism would be enough to defeat the British. Britain was already relying on U.S. armaments.

Having captured the industry of Britain, the Nazis eye towards the east.

What makes you think that 'the USSR would eventually lose'?

Regarding the winter of 1941-1942... Hitler attacked the USSR in June, thus his vaunted generls had five whole months until the onset of the winter (that particular winter was nothing to write home about, BTW).

The USSR (despite the population) could not match up Germany industrially. With the blitzkrieg quickly occupying food producing areas like the Ukraine, it would be a matter of time before the Russians starve. (Continuing from my previous point, that is, if America refuses to partake in this conflict after the demise of Britain.)

The war with the USSR would be the bloodiest war in history, due to the backwardness of Russian industry (compared to that or Germany) and the potential of exacting revenge on the communists, there is a chance that Germany will defeat a fragmenting Russia and stretch it's territories to the Urals.

Jews as an issue for the USA in 1940s? They were more like a non-issue, I'd like to say. During WWII the USA considered all efforts to save Jews from the Holocaust as an unnecessary distraction. Proofs? The Bermuda Conference of 1943, for example.

Hitler commented that the governments of Allies were dictated by the Jews. That's hardly the case as boatloads of German Jews as refugees were turned away at British and American ports as they were simply carrying Jews. Anti-Semitism was prevalent in the West for the first half of the last century, although usually no the levels of Czarist Russia or Nazi Germany.

Close to the end of the war, when Hitler was deporting Hungarian Jews to places like Auschwitz, a leading Hungarian Jew named Brandt was 'appointed' as Adolf Eichmann's diplomat for a deal with the Allies. The Nazis planned to 'sell' 100,000 Jews for 10,000 trucks (promised their use only on their Eastern Front). The idea was to create a rift between the Western Allies (Britain and America) and the USSR. The British deemed it a case of blackmail and refused. The true nature of the refusal was "to prevent further arrival of Jews to the United Kingdom".

Was the above paragraph too unbelievable? When the Germans occupied France and the nearby Channel Islands on the French coast (the only British territory to be under German occupation), with the collaboration of the British Police on the island, a total of three Jews were rounded up and sent to the camps. The police there believed that Jews should not be on the island and agreed with the Nazis.

Such a case is a clear example of the Western despise of Jewry. However, a Jewish brigade in the British Army arrived from Palestine to fight the Nazis. During the postwar occupation, they conduct their own campaign of justice by abducting and secretly killing SS officers that they believe were responsible for the Holocaust. One member, Moshe Tavor later joined Mossad and was involved in bringing Eichmann to trial.

If the West was so friendly to the Jews then I don't understand why despite being so settled in their adopted countries, Zionism had so much appeal.

The West is brain dead.

Whereas Hitler targetted the destructive elements of society, Stalin and the Bolsheviks focused on precisely the opposite: those individuals who's intellect shined brightest were killed

Hitler saved Western Europe from the real killing machines of the 20th century: the Soviet gulags

For one thing, the Soviet government was, from 1917-1945, composed mostly of non-Russians, with virtually all NKVD / Kommisars being of Jewish descent.

Is that a pro-Nazi post?

The concentration camps were Hitler's gulags. Hitler payed as much to individualism as Stalin. Hitler killed intellectuals who were of no use to him (not even close to the extent of Stalin, but they were still intellectuals). Hitler targetting the destructive elements of society? Does that imply that Jews are ultimately destructive elements of German (and Western) society?

Sino - You seem like a well-read individual, and your curiosity of things you as yet don't fully understand, is an asset. I suggest you study the subject of the Jews, and why men of great genius have so focused their attention upon them. May I recommend a book? The author, Israel Shahak, is a Jew and an Israeli who decided to shed some light as to why his people have been so hated. The book is entitled, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion : The Weight of Three Thousand Years", and can possibly, but unlikely, be found at a library. Your best bet, however, would be to purchase it. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0745308198/qid=1121160245/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/002-7533375-8848828?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Sex everyone up?



WTF are you on Colodia?

Are you anti-Semitic by any means? I actually admire the Jews, I admire their nationalism and drive to suceed. I also admire their undying nationalism. Surprisingly enough, I also admire Hitlerist nationalism, but not his racism.

WTF are you on Colodia?

He means that Elvis was a sex symbol and got all the (men &) women excited. He did sing songs largely related to love.

As far as I know about being "sexed up", over here, we have a TV advertisment for Viagra and it's some rather raunchy Elvis song playing as background music. Viagra being a drug for that generation, I wasn't surprised.

Stalin held a great legacy that spread beyond the USSR. Hitler rather was influenced by people like Mussolini, his work seemed to have ended fascism, not influenced further progress. Elvis...well, he was just the King.

Stalin held a great legacy that spread beyond the USSR. Hitler rather was influenced by people like Mussolini, his work seemed to have ended fascism, not influenced further progress. Elvis...well, he was just the King.

If Stalin was so interesting then he would be even more biographed than Hitler. Hitler was madder than Stalin. He manifested this madness in his eloquence. Even seen a Stalin speech that was appealing and stirred up public emotion? Hitler may have absorbed a lot from others but his regime was more original than Stalin's.

The only political impact Elvis had was when he joined the army briefly. I'm sure it helped to boost recruitment.

If Stalin was so interesting then he would be even more biographed than Hitler. Hitler was madder than Stalin. He manifested this madness in his eloquence. Even seen a Stalin speech that was appealing and stirred up public emotion? Hitler may have absorbed a lot from others but his regime was more original than Stalin's.

The only political impact Elvis had was when he joined the army briefly. I'm sure it helped to boost recruitment.

Now that's not entirely true, during the invasion of russia stalin was able to rally the soviet army and turn the tide against the germans.

Also, Stalin was papranoid and in the mid-30's started a series of purges, arrests and deportations to labor camps.

Stalin was an incredibly brutal and paranoid individual. His psychosis has been well-documented, and was responsible for the destruction of the Soviet officer class in 1937. One mustn't forget that Stalin was not a Russian, but a Georgian. Thus, he didn't have the extreme degree of love and affection towards the Russian people as did Hitler with the Germans. Stalin's rule was based almost exclusively on fear. Germans didn't fear Hitler; Jews and social deviants did.

however, The Bloody Iron-fisted rule of stalin turned the backward soviet union into a super-power

If Stalin was so interesting then he would be even more biographed than Hitler. Hitler was madder than Stalin. He manifested this madness in his eloquence. Even seen a Stalin speech that was appealing and stirred up public emotion? Hitler may have absorbed a lot from others but his regime was more original than Stalin's.

The only political impact Elvis had was when he joined the army briefly. I'm sure it helped to boost recruitment.

I think you will find the reason why Hitler is more biographed is because its a more relevant subject to western culture. You dont find a great amount of biographies on Mussolini, the founder of Fascism, so its not as if influence is the key. Hitler was our great enemy and a strange character. I have to disagree strongly that he was madder than Stalin - Yes, he had some views we would consider as mad, but anti-semitism to take the main one was incredibly common back then. Stalin was a paranoid murdering bastard who killed 4 times as many people, and that was without a reason. Im not justifying the holocaust, but at least it had a purpose (and as it happens, Hitler did not create the holocaust) whereas Stalins killings were repression or paranoia.

As for the originality of his regime, it was no more original than Stalins. He basically copied the ideology of Mussolini and put a few suitable amendments to mould it to his thoughts. Stalin likewise copied the ideology of Lenin and put a few suitable amendents. Neither Stalin nor Hitler had much to go by except for the one similar leader that had already existed.

Hitlers speeches may have been quite powerful but how much of the ideology lasted? As soon as the regime came down, no one dared to believe in it. No one would admit to supporting the regime when it is clear that a massive part of the population did. Stalin also had the power around himself, just not so much with the speeches. You know when Stalin died, the people incarcerated in the gulags were terrified because they thought their last chance of salvation was over! Stalin also had the power over the people and the power over their minds, he just used different methods.

Yes and as other people have said, Stalin made the USSR the second most powerful state in the world. Hitler brought Germany down with him. He built Germany, but he took his bricks back with him.

I think you will find the reason why Hitler is more biographed is because its a more relevant subject to western culture. You dont find a great amount of biographies on Mussolini, the founder of Fascism, so its not as if influence is the key. Hitler was our great enemy and a strange character. I have to disagree strongly that he was madder than Stalin - Yes, he had some views we would consider as mad, but anti-semitism to take the main one was incredibly common back then. Stalin was a paranoid murdering bastard who killed 4 times as many people, and that was without a reason. Im not justifying the holocaust, but at least it had a purpose (and as it happens, Hitler did not create the holocaust) whereas Stalins killings were repression or paranoia.

As for the originality of his regime, it was no more original than Stalins. He basically copied the ideology of Mussolini and put a few suitable amendments to mould it to his thoughts. Stalin likewise copied the ideology of Lenin and put a few suitable amendents. Neither Stalin nor Hitler had much to go by except for the one similar leader that had already existed.

Hitlers speeches may have been quite powerful but how much of the ideology lasted? As soon as the regime came down, no one dared to believe in it. No one would admit to supporting the regime when it is clear that a massive part of the population did. Stalin also had the power around himself, just not so much with the speeches. You know when Stalin died, the people incarcerated in the gulags were terrified because they thought their last chance of salvation was over! Stalin also had the power over the people and the power over their minds, he just used different methods.

Yes and as other people have said, Stalin made the USSR the second most powerful state in the world. Hitler brought Germany down with him. He built Germany, but he took his bricks back with him.

There is even a form of a communist goverment which is called "Stalinist"

Abbasia - Your view of things is narrow indeed. The Soviet Union decapitated the most intelligent and successful segment of Eastern European society. Tens of millions of innocent people. Russia's industrialization was inevitable, Stalin or no Stalin, and it's development would've been far more dynamic and lasting had the Czar crushed the Bolshevik movement and remained neutral during the First World War. Eastern Europe still has not yet recovered from the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union.

Abbasia - Your view of things is narrow indeed. The Soviet Union decapitated the most intelligent and successful segment of Eastern European society. Tens of millions of innocent people. Russia's industrialization was inevitable, Stalin or no Stalin, and it's development would've been far more dynamic and lasting had the Czar crushed the Bolshevik movement and remained neutral during the First World War. Eastern Europe still has not yet recovered from the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union.

Great, then Stalin was more influential then? We arent talking positive effects necessarily. We are talking legacy and change to the future. Anyway, you talk about the Tsar staying neutral - Well he didnt. Bolshevism kept Russia independent twice!

It Hitler had the patience to delay the attack on the USSR and focus on Britain (German industry was superior), be it a long and bloody conflict, the industrial capacity and political fanaticism would be enough to defeat the British. Britain was already relying on U.S. armaments.

Having captured the industry of Britain, the Nazis eye towards the east.

...
No, it won't. The 1974 staff wargame in Sandhurst that was concerned with such possible development of WWII was won by 'the British', not by 'the Germans'. The supply chains of the German invading forces were cut by the Royal Navy. BTW, Roosevelt in 1941 wasn't thinking about his re-election, and he could full well enter the war (the autumn of 1940 was different, of course).



The USSR (despite the population) could not match up Germany industrially. With the blitzkrieg quickly occupying food producing areas like the Ukraine, it would be a matter of time before the Russians starve. (Continuing from my previous point, that is, if America refuses to partake in this conflict after the demise of Britain.)

...
Maybe the USSR couldn't match up Germany industrially, but it did. The loss of Ukraine didn't result in a catastrophe, or the USSR would have been starving in the first winter of war.

The war with the USSR would be the bloodiest war in history, due to the backwardness of Russian industry (compared to that or Germany) and the potential of exacting revenge on the communists, there is a chance that Germany will defeat a fragmenting Russia and stretch it's territories to the Urals.
...
That's ridiculous, Sino. We won our part WWII with OUR weapons, not with some Western equipment. The lorries and jeeps were indispensable, but the tanks and guns even more so. 'Exacting revenge'? Sorry, you have to read up on that. Your perception of the political situation in the USSR of 1941 is... strange. It was a 'people's war' against a terrible enemy.

Since I judge a human's worth on how many other humans they manage to eliminate, I'd have to say STALIN IS THE GREATEST.

Hitler loses points on account of his crappy mustache. Plus I think its unfair to pick on a specific group of people. I believe in indiscriminate killing.

I'm not sure how many people Elvis killed.

Are you anti-Semitic by any means? I actually admire the Jews, I admire their nationalism and drive to suceed. I also admire their undying nationalism. Surprisingly enough, I also admire Hitlerist nationalism, but not his racism.
Oh, now I see.

Abbasia - Your view of things is narrow indeed. The Soviet Union decapitated the most intelligent and successful segment of Eastern European society. Tens of millions of innocent people. Russia's industrialization was inevitable, Stalin or no Stalin, and it's development would've been far more dynamic and lasting had the Czar crushed the Bolshevik movement and remained neutral during the First World War. Eastern Europe still has not yet recovered from the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union.

I am not saying russia wouldn't have survive without stalin, but what I am saying what he has done good to the soviet union, but I agree that stalin unleashed such a great terror upon eastern europe that after stalin's reign ended, Nikita Krushchev Began a process of de-stalinization.

Not even looking back to Napoleon, he would have had some sense in him, as he had fought in WWI.


Oh, I wasn't saying that he should have known about the Napoleonic Wars more than he should have known about WWI. I just think that WWI was a different dynamic, while the Napoleonic Wars and WWII had a similar one.
Germany, as well as all other countries involved in WWI, wasn't really out for world domination, as I understand it, but to increase its empires at the expense of its enemies. Hitler and Napoleon wanted complete European dominance.

Because of Hitler, we live in the World we do today.
Without Hitler, we wouldn't have had WWII. And look at the Global effects of that war. Off the top of my head, so naturally I'm missing some:
WWII helped make the US the supreme World power it is, by destroying so much of Europe's infrastructure it took them years to recover.
It caused the misplacement of some 5 - 10 million refugees, most of whom never returned to their original homes. That sort of mass emmigration changed the make-up of lots of countries. And of course it caused the deaths of at least 50 million. It was the first modern war in that more civilians were killed than soldiers for the first time in history. It changed military tactics.
WWII caused the formation of the Soviet Bloc - would those East-European countries have been invaded and occupied by the Soviets if not for WWII? I'd seriously doubt it.
Because of the war, it caused the destruction and the subsequent modernisation of Japan. The UK lost India because of the WWII (of course it would have happened eventually but not so soon) and indeed lost their last remaining bits of their empire. It also had the same effect with the Dutch and French losing their colonies.
It caused the Vietnam war, which started soon after WWII. The Malay emergency in the 50s, as well as the Korean war were direct consequences of WWII.
WWII led to the formation of the Israeli state and the UN.
It led to the creation of nuclear weapons, which in turn caused the global arms race and M.A.D. (no, not the comic!). It also hastened the invention and use of the jet engine, which has become a vital part of travel in today's world.



So that's my two-bits.

Who's the most influential man in history, Hitler, Stalin or Elvis*?


*What has that guy done besides making music?

Well, all three have one thing in common: each is/was the subject of a massive personality cult.

Stalin was an incredibly brutal and paranoid individual. His psychosis has been well-documented, and was responsible for the destruction of the Soviet officer class in 1937. One mustn't forget that Stalin was not a Russian, but a Georgian. Thus, he didn't have the extreme degree of love and affection towards the Russian people as did Hitler with the Germans. Stalin's rule was based almost exclusively on fear. Germans didn't fear Hitler; Jews and social deviants did.

I refute that claim of Stalin having an anti-Russian bias. Stalin was a Russian chauvinist, a product of an 'outsider' (much like the Austrian Hitler and Corsican Napoleon) taking the reins of a country which may not see him as one of the their own.

However, when Stalin was the 14th Commissar under Lenin, being in charge of the nationalities (i.e. non-Russians), Stalin refused Lenin's plans of giving them greater freedoms over cultural issues.

Stalin's Russian chauvinism can also be seen with the mass starvation of Ukrainians during the 1st Five-Year Plans, he used starvation as a tool to defeat separatist sentiments among that race.

The postwar Stalin waged brutal campaigns against nationalities that have collaborated with the Germans, by deporting them to harsh environments. Collaboration would be inevitable under any occupation. Stalin's method of punishing them is by deporting entire communities, rather than prosecuting the responsible individuals.

If Stalin was all for building up the Soviet Union, did he not realize the harmful effect of his purges on the military, the economy and scientific development.


By implying that Jews feared Hitler, unlike the ordinary German. Are you arguing on the grounds that Jews (despite having settled in the land for so long, knowing the culture, speaking the language and having German citizenship) are not German, but "enemies from within"?

Hitler. Hitlers name is beyond Stalin... people that don't even know their history will automatically put Hitler as being the number one bad man.

Hitler and Napoleon wanted complete European dominance.

I doubt that Hitler and Stalin wanted just Europe. Hitler was already invading North Africa with Mussolini. In 1944, Himmler had expressed future plans (after world domination) of extending the "Final Solution" to include Negroes and Orientals.

Stalin's communist rhetoric after the war exploited the Marxist theory of communism liberating the human race. Throughout the Cold War, this mentality was a cheap disguise for Soviet dominance of other countries (primarily in the Eastern Bloc). Stalin had wanted Mao to act as a puppet and extend the Warsaw Pact to China, but Mao was more nationalistic than Stalin had imagined. Mao also drove out the meagre Soviet garisson in Dalian asa gesture of defiance to Stalin.

'Exacting revenge'? Sorry, you have to read up on that. Your perception of the political situation in the USSR of 1941 is... strange. It was a 'people's war' against a terrible enemy.

By exacting revenge, I refer to the various groups of collaborators among the ethnic minorities that the Nazis could get a hold of. Collaboration with Germans were more common amongst non-Russian ethnicities under occupation as the Germans had capitalized on their historic hatred against the brutal repression under Russia, dating back even to Czarist times.

http://www.feldgrau.com/articles.php?ID=54

'People's War' is a communist terminology, just like 'liberation'.


Such a mentality can also explain why captured Indian troops volunteered in special units in the Wehrmacht, so that they could kill Britons.

http://www.feldgrau.com/articles.php?ID=8

Abbasia - Your view of things is narrow indeed. The Soviet Union decapitated the most intelligent and successful segment of Eastern European society. Tens of millions of innocent people. Russia's industrialization was inevitable, Stalin or no Stalin, and it's development would've been far more dynamic and lasting had the Czar crushed the Bolshevik movement and remained neutral during the First World War. Eastern Europe still has not yet recovered from the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union.

It is because of the Czar's inability to carry out effective reforms suitable for a modern political state that the communist virus managed to effectively infect and take over Russia.

I agree that Russian industrialization would be inevitable, but Stalin's Five-Year Plans sped up the process dramatically. By 1939, the USSR was the 3rd in the world for industry.

I agree with the Provisional Government's Kerensky in denouncing the Bolsheviks as secret German agents as they promoted peace with the enemy by telling the people that it was the Czar's war. The end result (when the Bolsheviks took power) was the Brest-Litovsk Treaty with Germany which termed the losses from Russia of:

- 60 million people
- 5000 factories
- 1/3 of it's agricultural land
- 75% of its coal and iron reserves
- Reparations

The foolish Bolsheviks anticipated that it would not last due to the coming of a worker's revolution in Germany too. It was only made invalid because of Versailles.

The unpatriotic communists would the prefer to engage in a bloody civil war with their own people. As a reward for closing Germany's Eastern Front and sending in a few million more troops to fight in the Western Front. It was not surprising that the Western nations aided the White Armies with limited equipment and troops (large scale aid could not be possible as WWI had shatter much of their economy).

If the military geniuses like Trotsky and Lenin actually bothered to continue the war against Germany, at least so many disgruntled troops returning from the front would not be so easily persuaded by the White generals. Continuing their participating in WWI would have cancelled the Russian bloodbath of over 5 million deaths.

It appears that the communists were more willing to kill those of their own race then actual foreign enemies. This was mirrored by Stalin killing more Soviets than Germans. We can also conclude that the Russians became a loser of WWI along with Germany's allies due to victimization by communism.

Stalin, Stalin, Stalin, that man and his posse (yes, I used the word posse) killed more people than Hitler and the Nazis. Sad isn't it, people think the Holocaust killed the most peope, and yet, it did not. Stalin is the one who influenced Hitler, so obviously Hilter cannot be the most influentional man and Elvis...well it's Elvis, there isn't much to say about him. I'll stick with Stalin.

Stalin, Stalin, Stalin, that man and his posse (yes, I used the word posse) killed more people than Hitler and the Nazis. Sad isn't it, people think the Holocaust killed the most peope, and yet, it did not. Stalin is the one who influenced Hitler, so obviously Hilter cannot be the most influentional man and Elvis...well it's Elvis, there isn't much to say about him. I'll stick with Stalin.

It's because of Hitler being more racist and anti-Semitic than Stalin, that he's considered the most evil man in history. If it wasn't for WWII, Israel would not have been created so quickly.

If Marx wasn't a Jew, perhaps the Jews would have been persecuted less under the Nazis. Marx was a traitor to his race.

Who's better at posing for photos?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Adolf_Hitler_Bigger.jpg/460px-Adolf_Hitler_Bigger.jpg

Of course Hitler was bad, it's just that it was more out there and openly broadcasted so the world would know and that's why it sticks out in history. You never here people talk much about the horrifying things that happened under Stalin or another example, you never hear about the Rape of Nanjing, Horrible things happened there. All we hear about in history is Hilter, yes it was a major part and I'm not doubting that, but we can't forget what else happened and who Hitler admired. Both Hitler and Stalin were equally evil and both a very high death toll under their rule.

Hitler was the first politician to campaign using the aeroplane. I'm not surprised that he favored blitzkrieg tactics.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Imagine if people said, google Godwin's Law!!!!! This disscussion was dead before it became a discussion. None-the-less, you people forget that the USSR lasted waaaaaaaaay longer than Hitler, so of course they killed more people. Also, where the hell do you get off saying Stalin influenced Hitler? Where did he ever even hint that he was influenced by Stalin? If you don't believe me, try reading Hitler's book that he wrote in prison.

Most definitely Adolf Hitler. So much power, so little time. The Nationalistic ideals were amazing. Unfortunately he got too greedy & impatient.

Most definitely Adolf Hitler. So much power, so little time.

I quite agree. Although Stalin did kill more people, Hitler was definitely more influential. And even though I like Elvis, I don't think he counts in this.

Here's a rare photo of Nazi-era Berlin:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/BerlinNaziEra.jpg

Here's a rare photo of Nazi-era Berlin:

Those guys sure knew how to advertise.

Those guys sure knew how to advertise.

The Nazis talked you sh*t then show you the sh*t to demonstrate that it's genuine sh*t. Stalin's propaganda is nothing more than boring sh*t about ideological and unrealistic sh*t. the USSR's collapse proved that communism is sh*t, but there are still many neo-communists running about not knowing that what their sh*t tastes like and they attempt to stir up sh*t to revive Marx's rotten ideological failure sh*t.

Hitler was more influential. He started WW2(a war that killed many people across the world is showing a lot of influence), he killed many jews and that is why we have to remember the holocaust, he also is more popular than Stalin(I swear that some people in my country are morons, they do not even know who Stalin is but Hitler is known by everyone and his name is abused by everyone).

Hitler's influence can even be seen today as various politicians call each other Hitler as a means of attacking the views of others.

Nazi Germany was more liveable than Stalinist Russia. Ordinary Germans did not have to fear Hitler as much as Russians had to fear Stalin. During the war, Hitler copied many of Stalin's hostile policies towards popular freedoms. Listening to the BBC could risk being informed to the Gestapo by one's zealous neighbore.

The Nazis talked you sh*t then show you the sh*t to demonstrate that it's genuine sh*t. Stalin's propaganda is nothing more than boring sh*t about ideological and unrealistic sh*t. the USSR's collapse proved that communism is sh*t, but there are still many neo-communists running about not knowing that what their sh*t tastes like and they attempt to stir up sh*t to revive Marx's rotten ideological failure sh*t.

How eloquent.

Hitler was more influential. He started WW2(a war that killed many people across the world is showing a lot of influence), he killed many jews and that is why we have to remember the holocaust, he also is more popular than Stalin(I swear that some people in my country are morons, they do not even know who Stalin is but Hitler is known by everyone and his name is abused by everyone).

Yet no one mentions that more Soviet P.O.W.s died in the camps than Jews. And no one makes museums for the Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, political enemies, communists, anarchists, invalids, disabled, Russians, Gypsies, and other ethnicities and groups that perished in German hands. It bothers me how much we fixate on the Jews than these other groups who suffered much more, especially the Soviets, and particularly the Russian Soviets. Perhaps we are obsessively pro-semite. Oh, and by the way, Arabs are semites as well. So if you use the term "anti-Semite", you also mean Arabs and others in that particular ethnic group. :rolleyes:

Yet no one mentions that more Soviet P.O.W.s died in the camps than Jews. And no one makes museums for the Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, political enemies, communists, anarchists, invalids, disabled, Russians, Gypsies, and other ethnicities and groups that perished in German hands. It bothers me how much we fixate on the Jews than these other groups who suffered much more, especially the Soviets, and particularly the Russian Soviets. Perhaps we are obsessively pro-semite. Oh, and by the way, Arabs are semites as well. So if you use the term "anti-Semite", you also mean Arabs and others in that particular ethnic group. :rolleyes:

I don't agree with Hitler's racism. However, the deaths of homosexuals, political criminals, communists, anarchists and other social trash would be beneficial to any state. If I govern a country, I'd turn these bastards into ash, just like Hitler.

Have you ever read about Russian atrocities committed in every war from the Czars to even today's conflict in Chechnya? Makes you wonder whether Hitler was right about calling them descendents of Genghis Khan because of their orgies of rape, looting, destruction and killings. Further evidence of your communist bias has been revealed by your claims that more Soviet POWs died than Jews in the camps. Even if you count the fact that Stalin shoved former Soviet POWs (despite rejoining the Red Army to fight bravely once more) into gulags after the war, where many of these heroes perished, they would fail to match up the numbers of Jews.

Many Slavic POWs were forced to work to death or succumb to starvation with highly inadequate food supplies, they had the pleasure to face a death as prisoners of war, whereas Jews are executed without knowing. If one is a soldier, he should expect the possibility of dying in enemy hands, as a prisoner if a battlefield death was rejected by fate. The Nazis lied to Jews and gypsies, claiming resettlement, while they were forced on cattle trains, then told to take a shower at the platform. Even upon entering the gas chambers, the Sondercommandos told them to "hurry up, the water's getting cold".

The death camps, although originally designed for enemies of the Nazi regime and political prisoners from occupied territories have evolved to focus on the killing of Jews. Under Nazi logic, the Jews were the lowest of the low, so their death would be crucial and foremost. This can also explain why Slavic POWs and the ethnicities managed to be treated slightly better than the Jews in the camps.

Hitler classed alcoholics as anti-social, along with homosexuals. They were sent to experimental deaths in the earliest gas chambers, paving the way for preferred method of killing in concentration camps. If Stalin followed suit and killed all of Russia's drunks, he would surely depopulated the Soviet Union! LOL!

The Nazis also bent their logic. They hated all non-Aryans but recruited Indian legions (to cause trouble for the British), created units of anti-Russian Slavs and even Croat Muslims (out off Himmler's fascination with that religion* and his perverted views of Croat Muslims being racially Aryan). Whoever was anti-Jewish will be beneficial to Nazis. Arab muftis in Palestine were even invited to review SS troops!


*Himmler admired Muslims as fearless warriors. If the Nazis could rally all of the world's Muslims, that would create serious trouble for the British. Of course, that was purely wishful thinking. The Croat Muslim legion proved how obsessed the Nazis were towards wiping out the Jews.

How eloquent.

Just speaking like a typical White man.

Stalin. His ideology spread further than Hitler's, he ruled more people, and he had a way cooler mustache. Yes, I'm shallow and puerile when it comes to my dictators.

Hitler may be a man who was not sure about how to shave but at least he didn't have a face scarred by smallpox. Stalin had be avoid bright lights and all official photos were heavily retouched to hide the pock marks.

As for the man that ruled the USSR with an iron fist: Lenin had been bad enough, but Stalin liquidated ANYONE who did not follow the party line, purged his advisors, forced all science, art, literature and music into utilitarian channels, made countless underground Christians into martyrs and confessors, starved people in the breadbasket of Russia (the Ukraine) on purpose, sent millions of people into labor camps for the most trivial matters, oversaw the subversion of technology and the scorching of the earth in parts of Siberia... and unlike Hitler, he got away with it and left a residue.

And if people had only been more patient during the Great War, Russia could have had that enthusiastic fellow, Alexei II, welcome the best developments of the twentieth century, winning everyone over with a combination of charm and decisiveness. But that would have been too nice, and too good for us all.

...

And if people had only been more patient during the Great War, Russia could have had that enthusiastic fellow, Alexei II,
...
The Tsesarevich was a haemophiliac child, and it was doubtful that he could survive for long. The failure to preserve the Russian Provisional Government of 1917 was more detrimental to our fate, I'd say.

I deeply admire the character of the little Tsesarevich Alexei. Alas, I too doubt that if he had ever lived long enough to become Tsar he would have lived long enough to do the sorts of things he would have liked to have done. But he certainly would have welcomed the most benign developments of the 1920's... please forgive my utopian exclamation earlier. At best he would have symbolized the hopes of a nation even if his reign would have been brief.

Young Alexei and his family were slain in the early hours of the morning this date in 1918.

I went with Hitler, because, as much of as bastard as he was, he brought an entire country from its knees to being one of, if not the most powerful nation in the world at the time. His nationalism was amazing, and it inspired an entire country to follow one man. Have you ever seen pictures of the Nuremburg Rallys. They were all behind him, blindly, but they were with him. Not unlike Churchill if you think about it, rallying the coutry with bold speeches. Only in that respect though...

I don't agree with Hitler's racism. However, the deaths of homosexuals, political criminals, communists, anarchists and other social trash would be beneficial to any state. If I govern a country, I'd turn these bastards into ash, just like Hitler. I guess we can be thankful that you're not in charge then.

Just speaking like a typical White man. That's a little bit of a silly racist generalisation, don't you think?

Stalin.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Imagine if people said, google Godwin's Law!!!!! This disscussion was dead before it became a discussion. None-the-less, you people forget that the USSR lasted waaaaaaaaay longer than Hitler, so of course they killed more people. Also, where the hell do you get off saying Stalin influenced Hitler? Where did he ever even hint that he was influenced by Stalin? If you don't believe me, try reading Hitler's book that he wrote in prison.

Hitler denied it vociferously. And if there's one thing I know about politicians, it's that if they can't stop denying something it's probably true. :D

Wait, where is the famous Mao Tse Tung? I mean, he did control (then) 1/4 of the world's population, and he was a bastard. Read the biography. 70 million dead in peacetime.

Wait, where is the famous Mao Tse Tung? I mean, he did control (then) 1/4 of the world's population, and he was a bastard. Read the biography. 70 million dead in peacetime.

Other than in China, Mao's reputation has failed to be heard and understood in detail around the world. More people can mention Stalin's purges or the Holocaust than Mao's idiotic actions.

The Tsesarevich was a haemophiliac child, and it was doubtful that he could survive for long. The failure to preserve the Russian Provisional Government of 1917 was more detrimental to our fate, I'd say.

At least the Provisional Government would betray Russian land and people to Germany in a surrender. Lenin's Bolshevik gang had to mobilize the people under the slogan of "Peace! Bread! Land!" (which would have even made Marx laugh) to betray their own country. This was collective betrayal, shepherded by the criminal Bolsheviks.

Hitler denied it vociferously. And if there's one thing I know about politicians, it's that if they can't stop denying something it's probably true. :D

Hitler never denied nor affirmed about knowing of the Holocaust and it's because of this, Holocaust deniers can argue that Hitler should be innocent of mass murder of Jews and let the guilt be passed to those who were present in Wanssee.

That's a little bit of a silly racist generalisation, don't you think?

Why is it that White people are allowed to be as racist as they like and society believes that's the correct conduct? I have my right to make fun of the White man as much as I like or want!

I guess we can be thankful that you're not in charge then.

You should regret that I'm not in charge...

“Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong.”
- Adolf Hitler

In earlier posts, you mentioned the greatness of Hitler, except for the Rascism he had. Well...

"Everyone respects terror. Therefore I shall spread terror." -Hitler

^I like this quote.

In earlier posts, you mentioned the greatness of Hitler, except for the Rascism he had. Well...

"Everyone respects terror. Therefore I shall spread terror." -Hitler

^I like this quote.
There are a lot of outstanding quotes from Mr Schicklgruber... I'd like to offer this.

"I don't see much future for the Americans... It's a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities... My feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance... Everything about the behavior of American society reveals that it's half Judaized, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold together?"

In earlier posts, you mentioned the greatness of Hitler, except for the Rascism he had. Well...

"Everyone respects terror. Therefore I shall spread terror." -Hitler

^I like this quote.

That one's good, but these ones are better:

“The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.”

“There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland.”

“The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.” (A make-belief Jewish conspiracy was the common denominator.)

“What luck for rulers, that men do not think.”

“The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.”

“Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized.” (Seig heil indeed!)


I wished the Nazis had them collected and published in a little red book. LOL!

"Ein Volk! Ein Reich! Ein Fuhrer!" (One people! One Empire! One Leader!)

That slogan that basically sums up what the Nazis stood for.

I've gone with Hitler, not only because of the whole killing, Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Slavs, Disabled People, Trying to conquer Europe malarkey...but also because the legacy he left particular in engaging Russia in war, which allowed the Russians to install puppet/satellite communist states across Eastern Europe and bring about the Iron Curtain and the Cold War era... if they hadn't already been welcomed as "liberating" forces due to the German occupation of Eastern Europe in the war it is doubtful in my mind, whether the rest of the world would have allowed such a back-door satellite takeover of so many states...as nearly all the states in the Eastern Bloc kowtowed to Moscow and the Kremlin.

Stalin's policies shaped those of the entire world for over fifty years. Not even Hitler can say that.

I've gone with Hitler, not only because of the whole killing, Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Slavs, Disabled People, Trying to conquer Europe malarkey...but also because the legacy he left particular in engaging Russia in war, which allowed the Russians to install puppet/satellite communist states across Eastern Europe and bring about the Iron Curtain and the Cold War era... if they hadn't already been welcomed as "liberating" forces due to the German occupation of Eastern Europe in the war it is doubtful in my mind, whether the rest of the world would have allowed such a back-door satellite takeover of so many states...as nearly all the states in the Eastern Bloc kowtowed to Moscow and the Kremlin.

Very well said.

Stalin's policies shaped those of the entire world for over fifty years. Not even Hitler can say that.

If it wasn't for his victory in WWII, I doubt that his perverted ideology could spread any further.

Elvis, only because he didn't kill nearly as many people as Stalin or Hitler...

...

Well, actually, I would pick Stalin by a landslide because he was by far more successful in his campaign then Hitler was, only reason Hitler is a more popular name is because he killed American's, and Stalin didn't (well... yeah... you got the point)

Only reason Elvis would be able to touch Stalin is because the greatest movie ever, Bubba Ho-Tep

You do know that I added the Elvis option purely for humor.