NationStates Jolt Archive

In my government and politics class, we are learning about communism right now, and my teacher made quite an interesting little rant:

Stalin and Hitler killed about the same number of people, but Stalin was much more sinister because whereas Hitler was an irrational maniac who based his decisions on hatred that made no sense, Stalin was a rational man who was cold and calculated with his decisions. Stalin was not guided by any morals or predecents, or traditions, because the czars were overthrown, and he could do as he liked. Basically, Stalin's line of thinking went like this: I'm at point A and I need to get to point B. In order to do that, I'll have to kill untold millions of people. Ok, let's do it.

I find it interesting how we are taught at school about the Holocaust and its horrors, but we aren't taught about Stalin's monstrosities, like, for example, forced starvation in Ukraine. Agree or disagree?

I love how Stalin is always tied to communist theory, the two don't have much in common. Do we call Nixon's mistakes contemporary American ideaology? They were both pretty messed up, but I think Stalin had some idealism within him, but he was more rational than Hitler.

In my government and politics class, we are learning about communism right now, and my teacher made quite an interesting little rant:

Stalin and Hitler killed about the same number of people, but Stalin was much more sinister because whereas Hitler was an irrational maniac who based his decisions on hatred that made no sense, Stalin was a rational man who was cold and calculated with his decisions. Stalin was not guided by any morals or predecents, or traditions, because the czars were overthrown, and he could do as he liked. Basically, Stalin's line of thinking went like this: I'm at point A and I need to get to point B. In order to do that, I'll have to kill untold millions of people. Ok, let's do it.

I find it interesting how we are taught at school about the Holocaust and its horrors, but we aren't taught about Stalin's monstrosities, like, for example, forced starvation in Ukraine. Agree or disagree?
Stalin was more evil than hilter, but george bush is more evil than Stalin

Stalin was more evil than hilter, but george bush is more evil than Stalin
Bullshit.

I am infinitely more respect for Stalin than for Hitler.

I also find this interesting. Usually when we approach the early Soviet Union in any class, I get a passing remark about "Stalin's cleansings". Yet any discussion about Hitler turns into a very descriptive account of his many crimes.

They break about even in my opinion. Stalin has more in common with Mao then Hitler, so perhaps they can't be directly be compared.

Stalin was more evil than hilter, but george bush is more evil than Stalin

Um...

No.

Bush is an idiot, but he's not evil.

ON-TOPIC:

I think they are both utter evil, but I think that for stopping Hitler, Stalin deserves just a little respect. He did SOMETHING right.

DISCLAIMER:

I AM NOT SUPPORTIVE OF STALIN. I BELIEVE HE WAS A TERRIBLE TYRANT. I AM ONLY SAYING HE DID DO ONE THING RIGHT. AGAIN, I DO NOT SUPPORT STALIN'S BELIEFS. OR HITLER'S.

"I am infinitely more respect for Stalin than for Hitler."


Having respect for someone does not make them less evil.

What about Mao?

Stalin and Hitler are both about as bad as each other in my book.

Yes, Stalin was a ruthless killer. But, you have to admit, he was efficient. NOt that it makes a difference as to whether he is bad, but his killings did serve a purpose. Stalin actually killed people to achieve a goal, as where hitler just killd people cause of racial bias.

Oh, and to the moron, Soviestan, who said Bush is more evil than Hitler, that is utter bullshit.

Yeah, I hate bush as much as the next man. But he is not a mass murderer on the scale of Hitler and Stalin. Hell, he doesn't even compare to Pinochet.

its really hard to draw the fine lines when comparing homicidal maniac world leaders. is pol pot LESS evil because he didnt have as many cambodians to work with?

Stalin was in power much longer than Hitler and had many more citizens at his disposal to "murder" at his convenience than Hitler ever did.

Nobody in our known earthly history went to so much trouble and to such great lengths for the purpose of murdering so many people in such little time and with such industrial efficiency.

Tell your history teacher that Hitlerian evil and atrociousness is comparable to nothing. Not even Stalinism.

"I am infinitely more respect for Stalin than for Hitler."


Having respect for someone does not make them less evil.

What about Mao?
Mao was backwards when it came to Marxist-Leninist theory, so I turn my shoulder to him.

Hitler killed more with a much smaller population from which to kill and almost kept level with Stalin. Hitler based his killings on race Stalin on a somewhat more noble ideology. Hitler was much worse, image what he'd have done in a country of however many hundreds of million Russia was.

Actually I met a man who knew Stalin personally - he was the son of a Soviet official and lived in the Kremlin along with Stalin and the rest. Apparently Stalin was basically a paranoid headcase, to the extent that he was forbidden to exchange even a passing greeting with the dictator for fear that the family would be brought under suspicion. Many history books will back that up. Not really sure about Hitler; from what I know he was more sinister than Stalin. Not to defend either one of these megalomaniacs.

In my government and politics class, we are learning about communism right now, and my teacher made quite an interesting little rant:

Stalin and Hitler killed about the same number of people, but Stalin was much more sinister because whereas Hitler was an irrational maniac who based his decisions on hatred that made no sense, Stalin was a rational man who was cold and calculated with his decisions. Stalin was not guided by any morals or predecents, or traditions, because the czars were overthrown, and he could do as he liked. Basically, Stalin's line of thinking went like this: I'm at point A and I need to get to point B. In order to do that, I'll have to kill untold millions of people. Ok, let's do it.

I find it interesting how we are taught at school about the Holocaust and its horrors, but we aren't taught about Stalin's monstrosities, like, for example, forced starvation in Ukraine. Agree or disagree?
I think Hitler was worse. Stalin wasn't all "cold and calculated" he was one paranoid bastard that perpetually thought he was going to get overthrown. Actually, can I change my vote to that they are both douches beyond the comprehension of mortals?

I think Mao had a few somewhat redeeming qualities. He led the Chinese people to victory, he looked at the peasantry as a revolutionary force, which Lenin and Marx had not done, and the Great Leap Forward deaths cannot completely be blamed on him. It's debated that he had little idea of the massive failure of his economic programs, but during the Cultural Revolution, he was a complete maniac. I like some of his theories much more than how he ruled.

I hate how Stalin used the term Communism as a front for what really was a brutal dictatorship. I say he was worse than Hitler. But Hitler's still evil.

Actually, Stalin killed a lot more people than Hitler. Hitler is thought to be more evil because the Holocaust was, for lack of a better word, "publicized", where as Stalin operated in secrecy. Even to this day, we do not know how many people Stalin had executed, but with Hitler, we have a good estimate.

Now whether or not Stalin is more evil than Hitler is hard to tell. Stalin was extremely paranoid. His paranoia caused him to fear and mistrust his people, and so he had them executed. Hitler, on the other hand, was a genocidal maniac. He used brutal methods to kill people. Stalin, as far as I know, usually lined up the so-called "traitors" in front of a firing squad.

So, no, I disagree that Stalin was more evil than Hitler, but I am not saying Hitler was more evil than Stalin.

Um...

No.

Bush is an idiot, but he's not evil.


yes, he is his secret wars around the world have led to far more innocent dead than hilter and stalin combined.

Hitler is worse than Stalin, but Mao is worse then them both.

yes, he is his secret wars around the world have led to far more innocent dead than hilter and stalin combined.

I doubt one of Bush's "Secret Wars" could have killed over 100 million people in the world.

I believe 20 or so million people died under Stalin's regime.

yes, he is his secret wars around the world have led to far more innocent dead than hilter and stalin combined.

Really? 30 million + dead due to Bush? And I suppose you have some evidence for this? Besides a severe case of BDS.

I think they are both utter evil, but I think that for stopping Hitler, Stalin deserves just a little respect. He did SOMETHING right.
And I think that, for standing up against the most evil and lethal man in human history when none of the rest of the world would ever grow the balls to do so, Hitler deserves just a little respect.
Stalin was worse, but, regretfully, it is the victors who get to write the histories.

I wonder if Hitler didn't invade Poland and commit those atrocities (with ther world knowing it). Would there have been a greater chance of going to war with the Soviet Union over Germany?

yes, he is his secret wars around the world have led to far more innocent dead than hilter and stalin combined.

Be that a troll I see before me??:D

For me it's a tossup, they were both psycho mother's who deserved a large caliber round in the head for the shit they put their respective countries through.

If Germany wasn't aggressive, the Germans and the Soviets would remain allies. I would assume that communism would have spread to western europe, and there would have been some earlier cold war with the capitalists and the communists.

How do you measure evil?

...sure, they killed millions. Yes, the millions could not defend themselves. But if you think about it, it passed with time. What does that matter now, who was worse? Hitler did it over a short period of time, Stalin spent many, many years on his killings.

But what does that matter? We don't have to deal with either right now. We have a different world, and I'm curious how you see it.

I wonder if Hitler didn't invade Poland and commit those atrocities (with ther world knowing it). Would there have been a greater chance of going to war with the Soviet Union over Germany?

Probably. I once read a quote, I forget who said it, but it was something along the lines of "If it looks like Germany is winning, then we'll help the Soviets. And if it looks like the Soviets are winning, then we'll help the Germans."

yes, he is his secret wars around the world have led to far more innocent dead than hilter and stalin combined.

You must be mentally challenged or extremely ignorant: Choose one.

Let's break this down -

A definition of evil is that they are willingly doing harm with knowledge and no care on what their victims are experiencing. Stalin and Hitler both put up two interesting arguments:

Hitler's argument is his irrationality at the end of the war, though more interestingly his ability to turn things around for better or worse. He brought Germany out of proverty and debt from France after the Treaty of Versailles, but he also gave the Nazi party (which was more socialist at the time) a bad name. Now Nazis are tied to solely killing Jews, not anymore just another worker party that dotted pre-WWII Germany.

Stalin was the head of the USSR, the asthetic Communist empire at the moment. He ruled with more of a totalitarian fist however, and his government, Stalinism, which is simply modified idealistic communism, could be only barely be called Communism by true definition.

Who is more evil? Hitler. Why? I'll explain why I think so.

Hitler has knowledge and hatred against the Jewish population. He is certainly aware of the things happening to the Jewish people, the gassings, the mass executions, all infamously accumulating into the Holocaust. Also, to make matters worse, he incited anti-Semitism around the world, and also began a genocidal rampage in a massive war. Supplies were even diverted from the Western front on to keep killing off the Jews, even in the waning days of the War. He is acting on mens rea, knowledge of harmful intent through actus rea, harmful action more than Stalin. His actions were done without any proper reason, just hatred, a feasible larva for evil.

Stalin did kill of many people, though many of them were killed due to incompetence and ignorance of the government in their reconstruction. Things such as the starvation of Ukraine were done to make them submit to the USSR, a function with a logical reasoning - simply economics. The more they have behind the USSR Industrial Machine, the more they have to fight against America, the emerging second superpower. To the USSR, and Stalin, they are gearing to defend themselves and possibly launch an assault against the United States, and they want everyone under their fist behind their back. They have done bad things, though with a more reasonable logic behind it.

Hitler is more evil, killing off people because of sheer hatred. He is doing things out of hatred, with no real logical reasoning behind it.
Stalin is more reliant on economics, thinking like a machine and a computer rather than a human being. That doesn't make him more evil, however. He does not hold grudges against entire peoples and attempt to wipe them out - he views everyone equally as a possible assistment to his empire.

Hitler is hatred.
Stalin is efficiency.

Hatred is much more prone to evil acts than efficiency. This is my view.

I would like to remind people that the number of deaths do not indicate a level of evil. Mao's many deaths were a series of famines and incompetent design. It shows he isn't the smartest person, though it doesn't mean he is the most evil.

I'm an extreme liberal, communist in fact, but there is no possible way that Bush has killed than more than Hitler and Stalin... That's just stupid.

And I think that, for standing up against the most evil and lethal man in human history when none of the rest of the world would ever grow the balls to do so, Hitler deserves just a little respect.
Stalin was worse, but, regretfully, it is the victors who get to write the histories.

Think.

If Stalin had not declared war... the war would have either:

a. Been very, very costly. We might still not have recovered.

b. Been lost.

Well... given that Stalin assisted the invasion of Poland, he breaks out even with Hitler there. But Stalin also helped keep many nations free of fascist control - even if it WAS for a rather self-interested cause - and in doing so prevented the death of quite a few people. He also industrialized and modernized Russia despite the cost in human lives, and for that should be... well, not commended, but at least elevated above Hitler, who generally obliterated nations, then set up slave camps within those conquered nations and worked people to death. He also had a far more sound philosophy than Fascism, even if he didn't follow it. He was a monster, and not at all Communist as claimed, but he wasn't quite the monster Hitler was.

I believe Stalin said this: "One death is a tragedy, one million deaths are a statistic"

Pretty cold-hearted if you ask me

You must be mentally challenged or extremely ignorant: Choose one.

Personally, I think he's just a radical liberal who's rallying to the flag of anti-Bushism. He's either consciously making up facts, or only listens to one side of the media bias.

Nothing wrong with liberals, or conservatives for that matter, just radicals on either side.

I'm mixed. Hitler was a blatant sociopath. However, Stalin's regime not only killed people by the millions but many were completely erased to the point of editing photos to delete people.

I believe Stalin said this: "One death is a tragedy, one million deaths are a statistic"

Pretty cold-hearted if you ask me

Yes, but, very sadly, it is true...

I HATE Bush. But I don't see what he has to do with this thread. So, the talking about Bush should end.

I think Mao had a few somewhat redeeming qualities. He led the Chinese people to victory, he looked at the peasantry as a revolutionary force, which Lenin and Marx had not done, and the Great Leap Forward deaths cannot completely be blamed on him. It's debated that he had little idea of the massive failure of his economic programs, but during the Cultural Revolution, he was a complete maniac. I like some of his theories much more than how he ruled.
no

mao was just as much of a homicidal maniac as stalin was. he killed milllions, many of them good communists, for no reason other than that he imagined they might threaten his power.

personally i "double dip" the chinese deaths blaming all of them on stalin as well as mao. mao only gained and maintained power because of stalin and stalin tacitly agreed to all of mao's massacres. (at least up until they had their falling out)

can't really say they were evil since they both didn't kill for kicks. Stalin wanted a utopia and followed the old “cant make an omelette without breaking eggs routine” though he may of also been incompetent at points in his rule Hitler is pretty much the same only he valued some eggs more this difference is only a cultural thing though as Hitler grew up around extreme racism and the whole blood poisoning idea.

so no they weren’t evil they just had views that turned out to be wrong in hindsight

I believe Stalin said this: "One death is a tragedy, one million deaths are a statistic"

Pretty cold-hearted if you ask me

"A single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic."
That's what is says. But as cold-hearted as is it, it's true. Have you ever lost a loved one? A friend? Do you feel sad? If you do, then it's natural. If you don't, then you seem fairly detached. But feeling the death of a friend or relative is normal, it's still a single death.

Yet everywhere you see death on the news, for example, Hurricane Katrina. Did you weep for the people of Hurricane Katrina? Most likely not, unless you're a sensitive person.

Hitler killed more with a much smaller population from which to kill and almost kept level with Stalin. Hitler based his killings on race Stalin on a somewhat more noble ideology. Hitler was much worse, image what he'd have done in a country of however many hundreds of million Russia was.


So killing based on race is worse then killing based on class and ideas? Sheesh am I glad I do not have your conscience.

So killing based on race is worse then killing based on class and ideas? Sheesh am I glad I do not have your conscience.

Actually, Communism would have been good if it weren't ruled by a maniacal sociopath, but let's not get into that.

Um...

No.

Bush is an idiot, but he's not evil.

ON-TOPIC:

I think they are both utter evil, but I think that for stopping Hitler, Stalin deserves just a little respect. He did SOMETHING right.

DISCLAIMER:

I AM NOT SUPPORTIVE OF STALIN. I BELIEVE HE WAS A TERRIBLE TYRANT. I AM ONLY SAYING HE DID DO ONE THING RIGHT. AGAIN, I DO NOT SUPPORT STALIN'S BELIEFS. OR HITLER'S.
I agree with what you said. Had he not pushed Hitler back, I would consider him worse than him.

So killing based on race is worse then killing based on class and ideas? Sheesh am I glad I do not have your conscience.

I'd say you took that a bit out of context. I believe the reference was to the overall (supposed) goals and ideals of Stalin... such as a world free of all the "-isms" where everyone was equal to everyone else.

So killing based on race is worse then killing based on class and ideas? Sheesh am I glad I do not have your conscience.
Amazing hypocrisy, isn't it? Death is death. Stalin held no value for human life. I think he was as bad, if not worse than Herr Hitler.

I agree with this to an extent... I am doing History 12 right now, and we had a good discussion about this too. The conclusion that we came to was that Hitler was worse than Stalin because stalin killed pretty much indescriminately, where as Hitler found minority groups and persecuted. Unless you were a Kulak, everyone had the same chance of being eliminated by stalin, if you were a Kulak, I guess you got some preferential treatment :) anyways... Stalin didn't pick on any particular group, but just the people who stood in his way... therefore, Hitler was worse because of his anti-semetic/homosexual, gypsie etc policies

In my government and politics class, we are learning about communism right now, and my teacher made quite an interesting little rant:

Stalin and Hitler killed about the same number of people, but Stalin was much more sinister because whereas Hitler was an irrational maniac who based his decisions on hatred that made no sense, Stalin was a rational man who was cold and calculated with his decisions. Stalin was not guided by any morals or predecents, or traditions, because the czars were overthrown, and he could do as he liked. Basically, Stalin's line of thinking went like this: I'm at point A and I need to get to point B. In order to do that, I'll have to kill untold millions of people. Ok, let's do it.

I find it interesting how we are taught at school about the Holocaust and its horrors, but we aren't taught about Stalin's monstrosities, like, for example, forced starvation in Ukraine. Agree or disagree?

I agree with this to an extent... I am doing History 12 right now, and we had a good discussion about this too. The conclusion that we came to was that Hitler was worse than Stalin because stalin killed pretty much indescriminately, where as Hitler found minority groups and persecuted. Unless you were a Kulak, everyone had the same chance of being eliminated by stalin, if you were a Kulak, I guess you got some preferential treatment :) anyways... Stalin didn't pick on any particular group, but just the people who stood in his way... therefore, Hitler was worse because of his anti-semetic/homosexual, gypsie etc policies
Er, so what? Death is still death. Neither had any regard for human life. They were both monsters.

I believe Stalin said this: "One death is a tragedy, one million deaths are a statistic"

Pretty cold-hearted if you ask me
Ten million. It's my national motto...
A thread about me. I'm honoured.

Hitler: Killed 6 million Jews, plus untold millions of gays, gypsies, 'cripples', 'workshy', etc.

Stalin: Killed over 50 million. Lowest generally accepted estimate of deaths during Stalin's leadership is 40 million, highest is 80 million. Anne Applebaum (who has written the most detailed history on the Gulag system under Stalin) claims around 60-70 million.

Hitler: Started a world war that was ultimately responsible for the deaths of over 80 million people. As to who is actually responsible for those deaths, I'll decline to comment.

Now, the Holocaust. The Wannsee conference in 1941, where the 'final solution' was agreed upon, had nearly every high ranking Nazi official present. Except one. Hitler. His hatred for the Jews is legendary, and was well-known in Germany at the time. However, it cannot just be said that people like Heydrich, Goebbels, Himmler, etc, were 'following orders'. They knew exactly what they were doing when they were at Wannsee. Hitler should be shouldered with the vast majority of the responsibility, as he knew what was going on and could have stopped it, but he was not the one who came up with the plan, and nor did he order it.

The Gulag system. Probably responsible for around 30-40 million deaths (Applebaum claims 40 million). Was Stalin entirely responsible for all these deaths? He did not micro-manage in the way that Hitler tried to do. He gave orders, often vague, that were then acted upon by zealous officials, most of whom owed their power to Stalin, and would do anything for him, not to make him happy, but to avoid his renowned paranoid streak.

Stalin could also be claimed to be responsible for millions of other deaths. The KGB in his reign were responsible for millions, and, as far as records seem to tell, most of these had death warrants signed by Stalin. However, there is dispute about this - obviously Stalin couldn't have read 20 million death warrants in his time as leader. On each one there is a red cross. It has never actually been determined whether Stalin intended the crosses to mean 'death', 'freedom', or 'send to Gulag'. Testimony from officials under Stalin indicates that they had to guess, and usually, to stay on the safe side, they'd execute.

I'm not trying to give excuses for either man. Both were clearly evil - both tried to eradicate Jews from their respective countries. Both had systems of work and death camps set up in their respective countries.

I'm just trying to question what for at least some of you will be strongly held beliefs that each man is solely responsible for the deaths in their countries. It is highly unlikely either man knew the magnitude of the number of lives lost in their systems. Even we don't know now from the thousands of records that survived from each country.

I agree with this to an extent... I am doing History 12 right now, and we had a good discussion about this too. The conclusion that we came to was that Hitler was worse than Stalin because stalin killed pretty much indescriminately, where as Hitler found minority groups and persecuted. Unless you were a Kulak, everyone had the same chance of being eliminated by stalin, if you were a Kulak, I guess you got some preferential treatment :) anyways... Stalin didn't pick on any particular group, but just the people who stood in his way... therefore, Hitler was worse because of his anti-semetic/homosexual, gypsie etc policies
Actually Stalin, or at least his system, picked on Jews, homosexuals, and the workshy as well.

Well... given that Stalin assisted the invasion of Poland, he breaks out even with Hitler there. But Stalin also helped keep many nations free of fascist control - even if it WAS for a rather self-interested cause - and in doing so prevented the death of quite a few people. He also industrialized and modernized Russia despite the cost in human lives, and for that should be... well, not commended, but at least elevated above Hitler, who generally obliterated nations, then set up slave camps within those conquered nations and worked people to death. He also had a far more sound philosophy than Fascism, even if he didn't follow it. He was a monster, and not at all Communist as claimed, but he wasn't quite the monster Hitler was.

Opinion, pure opinion. You may think of Fascism what you wish, but quite a few countries in the former Ostblock you can hear how they would have preferred to be under Hitler then Stalin. Paticularly Lithuania made an infamous statement about it, the President refused to attend the Victory celebration in Moscow stating that there was no liberation from Fascism just enslavement and forced impoverishment by the Soviets, and that Lithuania has sufferred more and worse then it had ever under the Nazis. Some Bulgarian politicians issued similar statements a while ago. That is hardly obliterating nations now is it?

As for more sound philosophy, that really depends now doesn't it, That hangs on opinion, personal beliefs, etc.. Practically Fascism is a much more sound philosophy, it actually works. Look at how Spain prosperred in the economic boom in the 50s, yet they were Fascist. I have yet to see any communist country that doesn't impoverish its own people in the long run.

The only thing that seperates the two is racist issues. But even there it gets blurry, Chechenya? Also Jews were not permitted to hold office in Soviet Russia, and were considered second class citizens and on there passport it was required that the Jewry is mentioned. Not gassing them, but not exactly all tolerant now is it? Or I find it funny, that all Soviet leaders, in fact almost all important figures are white slavic, which while the dominant ethnic majority, is not all encompassing, Russia has quite a few sizeable minorities and yet not a single asian that I can recall was up there with Stalin, Lenin, Kruschev, Kalinin.

Actually Stalin, or at least his system, picked on Jews, homosexuals, and the workshy as well.
Which amuses me when I hear his worshippers detract Hitlerites. They were at least equally bad.

In my government and politics class, we are learning about communism right now, and my teacher made quite an interesting little rant:

Stalin and Hitler killed about the same number of people, but Stalin was much more sinister because whereas Hitler was an irrational maniac who based his decisions on hatred that made no sense, Stalin was a rational man who was cold and calculated with his decisions. Stalin was not guided by any morals or predecents, or traditions, because the czars were overthrown, and he could do as he liked. Basically, Stalin's line of thinking went like this: I'm at point A and I need to get to point B. In order to do that, I'll have to kill untold millions of people. Ok, let's do it.

I find it interesting how we are taught at school about the Holocaust and its horrors, but we aren't taught about Stalin's monstrosities, like, for example, forced starvation in Ukraine. Agree or disagree?

Stalin killed far more people than Hitler, but that's besides the point. Hitler was a rational man who killed people in order to (he thought) better his country's economy, whereas Stalin killed people out of paranoia. The Czar system was eliminated well before Stalin ever came to power. Lenin (as well as the interim gov't whose title escapes me at the moment) set the precedent for Stalin, and he outright broke that.

What Stalin did in Ukraine was similar to what Hitler did in the Jewish ghettos (Warsaw, etc.) and the concentration camps.

Stalin killed far more people than Hitler, but that's besides the point. Hitler was a rational man who killed people in order to (he thought) better his country's economy, whereas Stalin killed people out of paranoia. The Czar system was eliminated well before Stalin ever came to power. Lenin (as well as the interim gov't whose title escapes me at the moment) set the precedent for Stalin, and he outright broke that.

What Stalin did in Ukraine was similar to what Hitler did in the Jewish ghettos (Warsaw, etc.) and the concentration camps.
The Provisional Government.

First of all, when considering which tyrant (Hitler/Stalin ... the original focus of this topic) was worse, are you discussing casualties that were NOT a result of World War II? This is extremely important. It is approximated that there were 27 million Russian military casualties (9 million killed/missing, 18 million wounded) and 19 million civilian deaths during the World War II period. Some were killed as a direct result of the war (actually killed by the invading Nazi army), some were killed as an indirect result of the war (the starvation that resulted due to the scorched earth retreat of the Russian army, the massive amounts of grain that were requisitioned from peasants to supply the army, etc). Nazi Germany had 8.1 million military casualties (3.5 million killed/missing and 4.6 million wounded) and two million civilian deaths. Can these deaths be attributed to Hitler or Stalin? I'm quite sure Hitler was not on the front. Neither was Stalin. It would take further research to determine if these leaders actually gave the specific orders that caused such casualty rates and, frankly, I'm not up to it. Also, the numbers represent total casualties, not casualties experienced by one state as a result of the other state. Finally, war causes death. It's inevitable. I repeat, do these deaths count?

For sure, Stalin was the one that ordered collectivization and grain requisitioning which, in the winter of 1932 alone, caused five million deaths, which is slightly less than half of the twelve million deaths (Jew and non-Jew) caused by Hitler's regime and which is only ONE winter and which concerns ONLY peasants. Please also consider the workers, millions of whom died constructing projects such as Magnitogorsk, the Dnieper dam, the so-called Railway of Death, and many more. Also take into account the millions exiled and killed in the labor camps as a result of the Great Terror and the ensuing years of arrests, as well as those executed (number in the tens of thousands). Stalin's reforms caused the deaths of millions upon millions of people. These numbers do NOT deaths during World War II. Remember, as well, that Stalin's era lasted from 1924 or 1925, depending on your opinion of when Stalin actually gained power, until 1953. He had plenty of time.

Unfortunately, I do not have Hitler's non-war numbers, but I am quite sure that they cannot compare. Yes, he killed twelve million people during the Holocaust (some were prisoners of war, mind you). Yes, he had less time than Stalin. Yes, he had fewer people with whom to work. Nevertheless, I am still convinced that Stalin was the more evil dictator.

Then again, I am somewhat biased, being that my specialty is Slavic history.

I'm done.

Well, I'm a communist, but Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot all rank in the top 10 of my least favorite people throughout history (along with Andrew Jackson, Hernan Cortez, and a few others).

In my opinion, both Hitler and Stalin were physochotic nutjobs with no regard for human life. Stalin hid behind the communist name what was truly a horrible dictatorship of oppression, while Hitler hid behind a more socialist name.

I have to say, however, that Hitler is probably worse. He killed about 8 million people overall, not even counting many killed in his senseless war. Stalin only killed about 4 million according to USSR's records, 20 million according to the European Union's estimations, but I take the USSR's as I believe the EU may just be using the large number as a attack on the USSR.

And for those who said Hitler was not cold and calculating, you are incorrect. The man was genious, and insane genious maybe, but still a genious. He knew what he was doing, he awknowledged that. He wasn't some crazy shut in, he was cold, calculating, intelligent. Stalin was the same way, although he was very, very paranoid as mentioned.

So overall, Hitler is much worse, but Stalin is still evil to the millionth power. And I'm not even going to go into Mao and Pol Pot.

Stalin killed far more people than Hitler, but that's besides the point. Hitler was a rational man who killed people in order to (he thought) better his country's economy, whereas Stalin killed people out of paranoia. The Czar system was eliminated well before Stalin ever came to power. Lenin (as well as the interim gov't whose title escapes me at the moment) set the precedent for Stalin, and he outright broke that.

What Stalin did in Ukraine was similar to what Hitler did in the Jewish ghettos (Warsaw, etc.) and the concentration camps.
Hitler was by no means rational.

I have to say, however, that Hitler is probably worse. He killed about 8 million people overall, not even counting many killed in his senseless war. Stalin only killed about 4 million according to USSR's records, 20 million according to the European Union's estimations, but I take the USSR's as I believe the EU may just be using the large number as a attack on the USSR.

20 Million on average according to a consensus of historians. Estimates vary greatly. In my view, 20 million is a conservative estimate for how many Stalin killed. I am completely unconvinced of the validity of the USSR's records.

I don't belive either were evil. Just insane.

I must have missed that post from Ventinc. No bad thing as I'd probably have been so outraged it wouldn't have needed Jolt to stop me from posting anything coherent.

20 million is a conservative estimate of the number of people who died in the Gulag. In fact, it's not just conservative, it's flat out wrong. The best historians of the period favour the estimate 40 million, and since most records on the period have been open, no estimate has been below 25 million. Stalinist apologists in the 1970s were saying over 10 million died, so 4 million is completely absurd.

So we can all agree that if we were to make a clone containing the genes of both Hitler and Stalin, we have the most evil comination? :p

I must have missed that post from Ventinc. No bad thing as I'd probably have been so outraged it wouldn't have needed Jolt to stop me from posting anything coherent.

20 million is a conservative estimate of the number of people who died in the Gulag. In fact, it's not just conservative, it's flat out wrong. The best historians of the period favour the estimate 40 million, and since most records on the period have been open, no estimate has been below 25 million. Stalinist apologists in the 1970s were saying over 10 million died, so 4 million is completely absurd.

Well, I must disagree for the reason that the records of Russia, who has distanced itself from Stalin immensely and actually is the country where the attrocities took place, holds at 4 million. So that is the one I choose to believe.

You are entitled to your own opinion, however, as am I, so I will agree to disagree.

I must have missed that post from Ventinc. No bad thing as I'd probably have been so outraged it wouldn't have needed Jolt to stop me from posting anything coherent.

20 million is a conservative estimate of the number of people who died in the Gulag. In fact, it's not just conservative, it's flat out wrong. The best historians of the period favour the estimate 40 million, and since most records on the period have been open, no estimate has been below 25 million. Stalinist apologists in the 1970s were saying over 10 million died, so 4 million is completely absurd.
Exactly.

Well, I must disagree for the reason that the records of Russia, who has distanced itself from Stalin immensely and actually is the country where the attrocities took place, holds at 4 million. So that is the one I choose to believe.

You are entitled to your own opinion, however, as am I, so I will agree to disagree.

I suppose you also deny the holocaust?

Well, I must disagree for the reason that the records of Russia, who has distanced itself from Stalin immensely and actually is the country where the attrocities took place, holds at 4 million. So that is the one I choose to believe.

You are entitled to your own opinion, however, as am I, so I will agree to disagree.
Right. You've not heard of the phenomenon that is the 'destruction of records' then? Or the lesser-spotted 'no records ever existed'?

Well, I must disagree for the reason that the records of Russia, who has distanced itself from Stalin immensely and actually is the country where the attrocities took place, holds at 4 million. So that is the one I choose to believe.

You are entitled to your own opinion, however, as am I, so I will agree to disagree.
What about the Russia's vested interest in not being one of the countries in the world with the most homicidal rulers and governments in history? The USSR's records are discredited by most historians. If you choose to believe them, then do so with caution.

So we can all agree that if we were to make a clone containing the genes of both Hitler and Stalin, we have the most evil comination? :p
What about Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabe, Amin, Pinochet, Mussolini, Franco, etc?

Right. You've not heard of the phenomenon that is the 'destruction of records' then? Or the lesser-spotted 'no records ever existed'?
Or vested interests.

Or vested interests.
Or that, yeah. I preferred the sarcasm of my post. ;)

What about Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabe, Amin, Pinochet, Mussolini, Franco, etc?

How could I forget them :eek:

How could I forget them :eek:
I was really just pointing out that getting people on this forum to agree is like getting blood from a stone.

Well, too see what Stalin really was, all one needs to do is look at it's people:

When Stalin was alive he like to be the center of the State, called a city Stalingrad, re-wrote the national anthem, etc...

But the National Anthem is the interesting part, when he died, people stopped singing the words of the anthem. The ones that everybody knew where Staling was the center of the song. In other words, it didn't seem like the State wasn't fully proud of what he did as a leader.

And that's an important fact about the USSR, even if they followed a "Great Leader" apparently it didn' have to mean that they really liked him, only that he was probably the best solution at that time.

And that's an important fact about the USSR, even if they followed a "Great Leader" apparently it didn' have to mean that they really liked him, only that he was probably the best solution at that time.
So was Hitler thought of in this way. They were both pricks, let's not try and exonerate Stalin.

How do you measure evil?

...sure, they killed millions. Yes, the millions could not defend themselves. But if you think about it, it passed with time. What does that matter now, who was worse? Hitler did it over a short period of time, Stalin spent many, many years on his killings.

But what does that matter? We don't have to deal with either right now. We have a different world, and I'm curious how you see it.
I see where you're coming from, but I think it's important to know history so that the bad things don't happen again.
Probably. I once read a quote, I forget who said it, but it was something along the lines of "If it looks like Germany is winning, then we'll help the Soviets. And if it looks like the Soviets are winning, then we'll help the Germans."
Harry Truman.

Even though i'm a Communtist and a Jew, i think Stalin was definitly worse than Hitler, as evil as he was. Yeah, Hitler killed a huge load of people- probably around 10 million- but Stalin killed at least 20 million, at most 80 million, enough to make Hitler look like a pansy. We also tend to forget the fact that the Soviets in WWII killed almost everything that moved. Japanese prisoners (They did fight them); killed, then and there. German; interrogated, then killed then and there. Anyone who showed any sort of resentment to Soviet control; well,
:eek: :mp5: sums it up pretty well. He even killed perfectly normal people, just because they didn't shower him with praise. Hitler may have tried commit genocide against the Jews, Gypsys, and homosexuals; Stalin tried to commit genocide with just about every ethnic group he encountered.

As for Mr. Mao, all i have to say are the two words "Tianamen Square."

Let's break this down -

A definition of evil is that they are willingly doing harm with knowledge and no care on what their victims are experiencing. Stalin and Hitler both put up two interesting arguments:

Hitler's argument is his irrationality at the end of the war, though more interestingly his ability to turn things around for better or worse. He brought Germany out of proverty and debt from France after the Treaty of Versailles, but he also gave the Nazi party (which was more socialist at the time) a bad name. Now Nazis are tied to solely killing Jews, not anymore just another worker party that dotted pre-WWII Germany.

Stalin was the head of the USSR, the asthetic Communist empire at the moment. He ruled with more of a totalitarian fist however, and his government, Stalinism, which is simply modified idealistic communism, could be only barely be called Communism by true definition.

Who is more evil? Hitler. Why? I'll explain why I think so.

Hitler has knowledge and hatred against the Jewish population. He is certainly aware of the things happening to the Jewish people, the gassings, the mass executions, all infamously accumulating into the Holocaust. Also, to make matters worse, he incited anti-Semitism around the world, and also began a genocidal rampage in a massive war. Supplies were even diverted from the Western front on to keep killing off the Jews, even in the waning days of the War. He is acting on mens rea, knowledge of harmful intent through actus rea, harmful action more than Stalin. His actions were done without any proper reason, just hatred, a feasible larva for evil.

Stalin did kill of many people, though many of them were killed due to incompetence and ignorance of the government in their reconstruction. Things such as the starvation of Ukraine were done to make them submit to the USSR, a function with a logical reasoning - simply economics. The more they have behind the USSR Industrial Machine, the more they have to fight against America, the emerging second superpower. To the USSR, and Stalin, they are gearing to defend themselves and possibly launch an assault against the United States, and they want everyone under their fist behind their back. They have done bad things, though with a more reasonable logic behind it.

Hitler is more evil, killing off people because of sheer hatred. He is doing things out of hatred, with no real logical reasoning behind it.
Stalin is more reliant on economics, thinking like a machine and a computer rather than a human being. That doesn't make him more evil, however. He does not hold grudges against entire peoples and attempt to wipe them out - he views everyone equally as a possible assistment to his empire.

Hitler is hatred.
Stalin is efficiency.

Hatred is much more prone to evil acts than efficiency. This is my view.

I would like to remind people that the number of deaths do not indicate a level of evil. Mao's many deaths were a series of famines and incompetent design. It shows he isn't the smartest person, though it doesn't mean he is the most evil.
What I think my teacher was trying to say was that Hitler's hatred reached the point of insanity, so in a way he didn't know what he was really doing because he was so out of touch, but Stalin knew exactly what he was doing and he just didn't give a rat's ass.

That's all.

What I think my teacher was trying to say was that Hitler's hatred reached the point of insanity, so in a way he didn't know what he was really doing because he was so out of touch, but Stalin knew exactly what he was doing and he just didn't give a rat's ass.

That's all.
Indeed. They were both psychopaths, but Hitler was definitely nearer to insanity.

Indeed. They were both psychopaths, but Hitler was definitely nearer to insanity.
Right, and he was saying that insanity makes you less evil because you're not fully aware of what you're doing.

Mao was far greater evil than both.

Stalin is said to have killed between 15 - 30 million people(civillians)

Hitler is said to have killed 9 - 12 million people(holocaust) Though you can always blame Himmler for the Holocaust as well

Mao is beyond the 40 million range

---

Another thing, Stalin did NOT industrialize Russia. Russia was BOUND for industrialization WITH or WITHOUT Stalin as leader. Had Russia been a Democracy, who knows, they might even have surpassed the USA. Too late for that now. Russia is going down hill.

---

Another thing, Stalin did NOT industrialize Russia. Russia was BOUND for industrialization WITH or WITHOUT Stalin as leader. Had Russia been a Democracy, who knows, they might even have surpassed the USA. Too late for that now. Russia is going down hill.


Yeah I know is sad. The communists blew Russia's big chance, and instead if being the rising star they are the gutter.

At least China learned, the more they are moving away from Communism, the more they are recieving as they noticed by now.

Yeah I know is sad. The communists blew Russia's big chance, and instead if being the rising star they are the gutter.

At least China learned, the more they are moving away from Communism, the more they are recieving as they noticed by now.

Yes, China has learned. I believe over 50% of their economy is privitized now, which is good since 20 years ago it was 0%. And I'm sure as time goes on, it will probably reach 80%, and will surpass the USA by this time.

Capitalism works people, stick with it!