Who was worse,Hitler or Stalin?

[Lucius Valentine]

I hate them both, but I chose Stalin simply because of body count.

If you're counting Stalin's and Mao's famine deaths, why aren't you counting Hitler's WWII civilian deaths? Is there a real difference between someone dying of starvation in Leningrad, as opposed to in Southern Russia or Northern China? Didn't think so.

Grover Furr? Is that you??

[Mighty Qin]

Timur Lenk and Hulegu Khan didn't live in worlds where proportionate deaths would've been possible, but they'd be in the running, as would Pol Pot and Reinhard Heydrich if one adjusts for total amount of evil possible in their situation/amount of evil done.

Many of the deaths attributed in these cases are a bit questionable, like with the "Great Leap Forward," Mao "murdered" 20 million people. A poorly timed and executed collectivization effort as a famine of epic proportions hit doesn't really equal "murdered 20 million," and the numbers are impossible to pin down, as with Stalin and Hitler. Incompetence, unstable conditions, and factors outside the power of either man, considerable though their power was, have to be factored in. Something smacks of Stalin being worse in a way because he took what might have turned out so much better, the U.S.S.R. under Trotsky, and corrupted his own party's ideology so thoroughly so as to discredit the system entirely for anyone who learned of the depths of his wrongs. Hitler at least did what he said he would do. I suppose it boils down to, "is it worse to go after domestic or foreign enemies and start wars," though both men did some of each. This question is like "who's worse, the guy that cut your balls or dick off?" They're each so beyond the pale, of such an incomprehensible level of sadistic madness, it's difficult to even ponder in depth.

[Napkiraly]

If you're counting Stalin's and Mao's famine deaths, why aren't you counting Hitler's WWII civilian deaths? Is there a real difference between someone dying of starvation in Leningrad, as opposed to in Southern Russia or Northern China? Didn't think so.

Grover Furr? Is that you??

Shof saying why aren't the civilian deaths of Hitler added if the famine deaths are added to Mao's and Stalin's body count isn't the same as denying that Stalin never committed any crimes. Serious strawman there buddy.

[Shofercia]

If you're counting Stalin's and Mao's famine deaths, why aren't you counting Hitler's WWII civilian deaths? Is there a real difference between someone dying of starvation in Leningrad, as opposed to in Southern Russia or Northern China? Didn't think so.

Grover Furr? Is that you??

Nope, I'm Shof. Feel free to counter the argument, although I doubt you can handle that.

[Shofercia]

Grover Furr? Is that you??

Shof saying why aren't the civilian deaths of Hitler added if the famine deaths are added to Mao's and Stalin's body count isn't the same as denying that Stalin never committed any crimes. Serious strawman there buddy.

Exactly! I'm perfectly fine with counting Stalin's Collectivization deaths, as long as Hitler's WWII civilian deaths and POW deaths are also counted, since a good chunk of those was due to either execution squads, or starvation. I'm just saying that counting Stalin's starvation-related deaths, while not counting Hitler's starvation-related deaths, is serious shitstorical revisionism.

[Distruzio]

How does one quantify a subjective evaluation?

By the number of deaths? Much of the conversation in this thread seems to be an example of how statistics can distract and delude.

That being said, my own opinion is that Stalin was the greater threat.

Mind you, I base this opinion on their ideological bent - not the number of deaths. Both men were villainous and depraved madmen. But, that is something that can be said about anyone wielding political authority to one degree or another. The differences between the two are just that, as well - measured in minute degrees.

At the very least, it can be said that Hitler acknowledged the existence of an individual. He may have rejected the value of individuality for certain classes and races of people, but (so far as I can tell) he didn't deny it's existence. Stalin, however, did. All individuality was, in the stalinist milieu, to be subsumed into the State. Hitler believed that individuality was to be best identified with and personified by the State rather than absorbed by it.

[Lucius Valentine]

Grover Furr? Is that you??

Nope, I'm Shof. Feel free to counter the argument, although I doubt you can handle that.

I never said I wasn't counting the famine deaths, or the civilians. Based on the sources I've read, Stalin killed more. Blaming Hitler for all of the deaths during WWII seems debatable as well.

[Shofercia]

How does one quantify a subjective evaluation?

By the number of deaths? Much of the conversation in this thread seems to be an example of how statistics can distract and delude.

That being said, my own opinion is that Stalin was the greater threat.

Mind you, I base this opinion on their ideological bent - not the number of deaths. Both men were villainous and depraved madmen. But, that is something that can be said about anyone wielding political authority to one degree or another. The differences between the two are just that, as well - measured in minute degrees.

At the very least, it can be said that Hitler acknowledged the existence of an individual. He may have rejected the value of individuality for certain classes and races of people, but (so far as I can tell) he didn't deny it's existence. Stalin, however, did. All individuality was, in the stalinist milieu, to be subsumed into the State. Hitler believed that individuality was to be best identified with and personified by the State rather than absorbed by it.

Hitler also stated that anyone who didn't fit his racial profiling mindwhack was "subhuman". But even to those of the so-called "superior race", Hitler guaranteed perpetual warfare, which denies individualist activities not only to said group, but also to every single country around them. And Stalin allowed individualism in certain aspects, i.e. if you were an athlete, or a fighter pilot, or...

[Distruzio]

How does one quantify a subjective evaluation?

By the number of deaths? Much of the conversation in this thread seems to be an example of how statistics can distract and delude.

That being said, my own opinion is that Stalin was the greater threat.

Mind you, I base this opinion on their ideological bent - not the number of deaths. Both men were villainous and depraved madmen. But, that is something that can be said about anyone wielding political authority to one degree or another. The differences between the two are just that, as well - measured in minute degrees.

At the very least, it can be said that Hitler acknowledged the existence of an individual. He may have rejected the value of individuality for certain classes and races of people, but (so far as I can tell) he didn't deny it's existence. Stalin, however, did. All individuality was, in the stalinist milieu, to be subsumed into the State. Hitler believed that individuality was to be best identified with and personified by the State rather than absorbed by it.

Hitler also stated that anyone who didn't fit his racial profiling mindwhack was "subhuman". But even to those of the so-called "superior race", Hitler guaranteed perpetual warfare, which denies individualist activities not only to said group, but also to every single country around them. And Stalin allowed individualism in certain aspects, i.e. if you were an athlete, or a fighter pilot, or...

As I said, "Hitler believed that individuality was to be best identified with and personified by the State rather than absorbed by it."

[Uelvan]

Nazi's started WWII
WWII amounted to 60 million casualties.
Whether directly responsible for every casualty there is or not, the war began because of him.

That's why I vote Hitler. Even if he may not have "killed more people" than Stalin, as historians would say, his actions lead to the death of more people I would argue, and to me, that is worse. It didn't help he was a bit crazy too.

[Narland]

I hate them both, but I chose Stalin simply because of body count.


Don't use Rex Curry for information. Ever.

As far as overall effect. Mao has the worst body count, then Stalin, then Hitler. As for quick brutality, Pol Pot is probably at the top, then probably Hitler.

If you're counting Stalin's and Mao's famine deaths, why aren't you counting Hitler's WWII civilian deaths? Is there a real difference between someone dying of starvation in Leningrad, as opposed to in Southern Russia or Northern China? Didn't think so.

I amended my post. I guess it boils down to whom one hates more, a cold and caculating international socialist turned uninational of the marxist-leninist stripe, or a bombastic emotionally unstable national socialist expansionist of the anti-semitic übermensch variety.

[Shofercia]

Nope, I'm Shof. Feel free to counter the argument, although I doubt you can handle that.

I never said I wasn't counting the famine deaths, or the civilians. Based on the sources I've read, Stalin killed more. Blaming Hitler for all of the deaths during WWII seems debatable as well.

If you're counting Hitler's WWII civilian deaths, than saying that Stalin killed more is ignorant. Also, how the fuck's it debatable? Is someone dying from starvation in Leningrad, any different from someone dying of starvation in Southern Russia or Northern China? It's not different! What is there to debate?

Now let's look at Stalin's deaths, while ignoring shitstorians like Robert Conquest:

Gulags: 1.3-1.6 million
Purges: 700 thousand - 1.4 million
Collectivization: 7.8 million (Holodomor is included)

Total: 10.8 million


Hitler's deaths:
WWII Civilians deaths in USSR alone: 14 million
Additional Soviet POW Deaths: 3 million
And there were other countries in WWII, fighting. In Poland, 6 million civilians died. And so on.


Really not that hard to do the math.

[Shofercia]

Hitler also stated that anyone who didn't fit his racial profiling mindwhack was "subhuman". But even to those of the so-called "superior race", Hitler guaranteed perpetual warfare, which denies individualist activities not only to said group, but also to every single country around them. And Stalin allowed individualism in certain aspects, i.e. if you were an athlete, or a fighter pilot, or...

As I said, "Hitler believed that individuality was to be best identified with and personified by the State rather than absorbed by it."

Yes, he said that. And Bush said that Iraq will pay for itself. I don't care what politicians say, I judge them by what they do. And by their actions Stalin was much better than Hitler.

[National Socialists of America]

Stalin. Can't believe we didn't let Nazi Germany steamroll the Soviet Union during WWII...

[Distruzio]

As I said, "Hitler believed that individuality was to be best identified with and personified by the State rather than absorbed by it."

Yes, he said that. And Bush said that Iraq will pay for itself. I don't care what politicians say, I judge them by what they do. And by their actions Stalin was much better than Hitler.

Well, I also explained that I based my subjective evaluation on their ideological bent rather than the number of deaths directly connected to each regime as they differed only by degree.

[Shofercia]

If you're counting Stalin's and Mao's famine deaths, why aren't you counting Hitler's WWII civilian deaths? Is there a real difference between someone dying of starvation in Leningrad, as opposed to in Southern Russia or Northern China? Didn't think so.

I amended my post. I guess it boils down to whom one hates more, a cold and caculating international socialist turned uninational of the marxist-leninist stripe, or a bombastic emotionally unstable national socialist expansionist of the anti-semitic übermensch variety.

I'm Russian. Hitler was killing us, because we were born. Stalin wasn't. Under Hitler, I wouldn't be able to survive. Under Stalin I would. Hitler invaded my country. Stalin had horrendous reforms, but did much less damage to my country than Hitler. It's as simple as that. So while I hate both, Hitler was clearly worse. When the choice is life in prison with parole, or to be killed after seeing your family killed in front of you, which do you choose? It's not a hard choice to make.

[Shofercia]

Stalin. Can't believe we didn't let Nazi Germany steamroll the Soviet Union during WWII...

Erm, Nazis lost Battle of Moscow, and were stalemated at Leningrad, before American aid was making a substantial contribution. Also, Nazis declared war on the US. Soviets didn't. Of course knowing all this would require passing middle school history.

[Shofercia]

Yes, he said that. And Bush said that Iraq will pay for itself. I don't care what politicians say, I judge them by what they do. And by their actions Stalin was much better than Hitler.

Well, I also explained that I based my subjective evaluation on their ideological bent rather than the number of deaths directly connected to each regime as they differed only by degree.

Right; what does that have to do with my point, that politicians should be judged based on their actions, not on their words?

[Distruzio]

Well, I also explained that I based my subjective evaluation on their ideological bent rather than the number of deaths directly connected to each regime as they differed only by degree.

Right; what does that have to do with my point,

That you were creating an argument where there wasn't one.

that politicians should be judged based on their actions, not on their words?

I did that as well.

[Lucius Valentine]

I never said I wasn't counting the famine deaths, or the civilians. Based on the sources I've read, Stalin killed more. Blaming Hitler for all of the deaths during WWII seems debatable as well.

If you're counting Hitler's WWII civilian deaths, than saying that Stalin killed more is ignorant. Also, how the fuck's it debatable? Is someone dying from starvation in Leningrad, any different from someone dying of starvation in Southern Russia or Northern China? It's not different! What is there to debate?

Now let's look at Stalin's deaths, while ignoring shitstorians like Robert Conquest:

Gulags: 1.3-1.6 million
Purges: 700 thousand - 1.4 million
Collectivization: 7.8 million (Holodomor is included)

Total: 10.8 million


Hitler's deaths:
WWII Civilians deaths in USSR alone: 14 million
Additional Soviet POW Deaths: 3 million
And there were other countries in WWII, fighting. In Poland, 6 million civilians died. And so on.


Really not that hard to do the math.

Source? From what I've gathered, both Stalin and Hitler killed around twenty-million.

Also, I retract my earlier statement of Stalin killing more than Hitler. However their death toll seems roughly the same.

http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin
http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#ww2ussr
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/?pagination=false
http://www.distributedrepublic.net/archives/2006/05/01/how-many-did-stalin-really-murder/
http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/how-many-did-stalin-really-murder/

[Yorkopolis]

Yes, he said that. And Bush said that Iraq will pay for itself. I don't care what politicians say, I judge them by what they do. And by their actions Stalin was much better than Hitler.

Well, I also explained that I based my subjective evaluation on their ideological bent rather than the number of deaths directly connected to each regime as they differed only by degree.

However, their actions leading to their count of deaths differ a lot. Where Stalin made many people starve on purpose to stop the rise of Ukrainian nationalism (which was not so much racist) is a lot less horrible than forcefully herding people together, denying them basic goods and than rounding them up towards concentration camps for being gassed.

Not to mention that the intent of Hitler was to destroy all Slavs, Jews, gays, lesbians, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other Untermenschen. In Mein Kampf, he stated something along the lines of "I will annihilate and completely destroy everyone who opposes me", thus signifying Hitler's intent. Hitler was hellbent on the destruction and to see the world burn, where Stalin was more a gangster who managed to forcefully starve many Ukrainians. Don't get me wrong, I believe Stalin was a mad fuck, but Hitler by far surpassed Stalin in every possible way in terms of who was worse. I'd even rather take Mao than Hitler any day, even though Mao's death count was extremely high too.

[Shofercia]

Right; what does that have to do with my point,

That you were creating an argument where there wasn't one.

that politicians should be judged based on their actions, not on their words?

I did that as well.

No you didn't. I explained to you that, despite Hitler's nefarious intentions, his actions treated everyone who wasn't of a "superior race" as subhuman, i.e. no individuality, and guaranteed perpetual warfare to the "superior race", and warfare is not an individualized activity. On the other hand Stalin's actions allowed individual activities, (those needed to reproduce,) in spite of his rhetoric.

[Dracoria]

What's a worse end to be reported in the papers, death by erotic rectal trauma or death by erotic asphyxiation? It's a tough choice.

[The glorious Hatsune Miku]

I hate them both, but I chose Stalin simply because of body count.

Stalin. People always forget Mao by the way.
(Image)

Don't use Rex Curry for information. Ever.

I don't know what is Rex Curry, I saw multiple versions of this image/data and only this one happens to be under 900 pixels wide.

[Yorkopolis]

Stalin. Can't believe we didn't let Nazi Germany steamroll the Soviet Union during WWII...

So, you approve and support the genocide of Jews, gypsies, gays, lesbians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Slavs, and any other Untermenschen? Not a big surprise considering your nation name, but still disgusting either way.