Who was worse?

[Vivolkha]

Hitler, he intentionally tried to wipe out an entire people, in a way that is truly beyond cruel.

After that Stalin, who killed numerous people to stay alive.

And the numbers for Mao are just absurd, and the famine was not planned, but a result of circumstances and bad decisions.

Problem is that, once Mao learnt the disastrous consequences of his own policies, he did not abandon them at all. He didn't care, he carried on with them and actually doubled down.

[Ayissor]

That doesnt really matter considering Hitlers entire ideology was aimed the utter annihilation and enslavement of multiple races and ethnic groups in Europe and the annexation of land. The Slavic deaths alone would have been well over 100 million after enough time.

Arguable. Given the ever changing definition of Aryan and the tendency of many officials to believe a lot of Slavs could be Aryanized, the actual scale of the killings probably wouldn't have been nearly that high.

I'd say 100 is a conservative estimate considering 200 million people lived in the USSR at that time, and that's not all the Slaves in Europe.
So yeah, it would probably be that high if not higher.

[Risastorstein]

Hitler was pretty shitty for Germans too. Germany lost even more territory that ended up in Slavic hands, he started a war that cost millions of German lives and half of his country became a Communist puppet. Quite a bad leader if you ask me.

[Pacomia]

Hard to say. I think all are equally evil. I do think it might be important to point out that death counts aren’t really an evilness measurement system. What if you killed 2 million Nazis?

[East Ustya]

Hitler, he intentionally tried to wipe out an entire people, in a way that is truly beyond cruel.

After that Stalin, who killed numerous people to stay alive.

And the numbers for Mao are just absurd, and the famine was not planned, but a result of circumstances and bad decisions.

Problem is that, once Mao learnt the disastrous consequences of his own policies, he did not abandon them at all. He didn't care, he carried on with them and actually doubled down.

Source?

[Balticonia]

I would say that Hitler and Stalin can both share the infamous title of "most evil man in history."

And yet, they fought each other

[Risastorstein]

Why is there only the number of Holocaust victims for Hitler in the poll? We should add the total number of European casualties during WW2.

[East Ustya]

Why is there only the number of Holocaust victims for Hitler in the poll? We should add the total number of European casualties during WW2.

I think they put those under Stalin.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

>Hitler "only" having 11 million victims
>Not counting every soldier and civilian who died on both sides as a direct result of his efforts to establish the New Order

[Balticonia]

Why is there only the number of Holocaust victims for Hitler in the poll? We should add the total number of European casualties during WW2.

Hitler did not single handedly cause WWII.

[Balticonia]

>Hitler "only" having 11 million victims
>Not counting every soldier and civilian who died on both sides as a direct result of his efforts to establish the New Order

You know Stalin fought in that war too

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Why is there only the number of Holocaust victims for Hitler in the poll? We should add the total number of European casualties during WW2.

I think they put those under Stalin.

Doubt he had any desire to start a global conflagration. Hitler knew full well what the consequences of invading Poland would be.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Why is there only the number of Holocaust victims for Hitler in the poll? We should add the total number of European casualties during WW2.

Hitler did not single handedly cause WWII.

No, but he's largely and mostly to blame.

[Diopolis]

Arguable. Given the ever changing definition of Aryan and the tendency of many officials to believe a lot of Slavs could be Aryanized, the actual scale of the killings probably wouldn't have been nearly that high.

I'd say 100 is a conservative estimate considering 200 million people lived in the USSR at that time, and that's not all the Slaves in Europe.
So yeah, it would probably be that high if not higher.

I'd say half the slavs in eastern europe being declared able to the teutonized doesn't sound unlikely at all- more like the bare minimum. And we forget that a lot of the ethnicities out there got declared aryan, like the latvians, most of the ugro-finnic groups, and even some of the slavs(like croats).

[Risastorstein]

Why is there only the number of Holocaust victims for Hitler in the poll? We should add the total number of European casualties during WW2.

Hitler did not single handedly cause WWII.

I'm pretty sure he did. No invasion of Poland = no WW2.

[Balticonia]

I think they put those under Stalin.

Doubt he had any desire to start a global conflagration. Hitler knew full well what the consequences of invading Poland would be.

Should we attribute WWIs casualties to Gavrilo Princip?

[Balticonia]

Doubt he had any desire to start a global conflagration. Hitler knew full well what the consequences of invading Poland would be.

Should we attribute WWIs casualties to Gavrilo Princip?

Should we attribute the casualties of the Civil War to Abraham Lincoln? If he had not been elected, the South would not have rebelled.

[Page]

Hitler is worse because the deaths of millions caused under his regime was particularly intentional and malicious. Not only did Hitler deliberately have millions of Jews and Slavs murdered, it was nazi aggression that set off World War 2, particularly the Eastern Front, the most horrific conflict in human history.

The Soviets carried out many inexcusable atrocities during WW2 (as well as before and after), but they suffered as a nation more than any other in human history. Many of Stalin's crimes, both those against German civilians and the purges in the USSR, occurred under the unimaginably awful conditions of the Eastern Front. The brutality of the nazis does not excuse Soviet war crimes, but it created the conditions in which these war crimes could be rationalized as justifiable or necessary. Humans subjected to brutality become brutal. Elie Weisel wrote about a man in a nazi concentration camp who savagely beat his own father for a piece of bread. People in Leningrad under siege murdered and cannibalized their neighbors because they were starving. Brutal conditions make brutal people.

And as for the deaths attributed to both Stalin and Mao, it must be acknowledged many were not the result of murderous intent. The famines that occurred cannot be deemed natural, but they were to some extent the result of poor planning and incompetence rather than malice. Mao having farmers forge steel in their own backyard rather than growing food, that's appallingly incompetent but not consciously homicidal.

[Yogluwia]

They all aren't that different to be honest. They all were totalitarian warmongers with minimal regard for human life.

On a pure lives lost value, Mao is empirically worst.

It is still acceptable in non-outcast circles to deny Stalins genocides and that gets my blood boiling. In terms of allure to modern people as inspiration for evil, I find him the worst in this regard.

Hitler is...well...complicated. He started the deadliest war in human history because he wanted Germans to have magic Slavic dirt. He did hate Jews, Slavs, and the Disabled and a pretty large number of them got killed in a genocidal war crime of big enough fame to have sapped almost all other use of the once-general term "holocaust," but interestingly, most of this happened during the war. Hate may have been building in peacetime, but the mass killings didn't start then. Germany was ostensibly on the up and up. There were no famines of incompetence. Whether that makes him better or worse of a leader or person is really in the eye of the beholder.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

>Hitler "only" having 11 million victims
>Not counting every soldier and civilian who died on both sides as a direct result of his efforts to establish the New Order

You know Stalin fought in that war too

I'm not talking about Stalin, obviously.

Why is there only the number of Holocaust victims for Hitler in the poll? We should add the total number of European casualties during WW2.

Hitler did not single handedly cause WWII.

Let's not pretend Hitler wasn't the one who directly pointed the Western world towards total war.

Doubt he had any desire to start a global conflagration. Hitler knew full well what the consequences of invading Poland would be.

Should we attribute WWIs casualties to Gavrilo Princip?

Why not?

[East Ustya]

Hitler is worse because the deaths of millions caused under his regime was particularly intentional and malicious. Not only did Hitler deliberately have millions of Jews and Slavs murdered, it was nazi aggression that set off World War 2, particularly the Eastern Front, the most horrific conflict in human history.

The Soviets carried out many inexcusable atrocities during WW2 (as well as before and after), but they suffered as a nation more than any other in human history. Many of Stalin's crimes, both those against German civilians and the purges in the USSR, occurred under the unimaginably awful conditions of the Eastern Front. The brutality of the nazis does not excuse Soviet war crimes, but it created the conditions in which these war crimes could be rationalized as justifiable or necessary. Humans subjected to brutality become brutal. Elie Weisel wrote about a man in a nazi concentration camp who savagely beat his own father for a piece of bread. People in Leningrad under siege murdered and cannibalized their neighbors because they were starving. Brutal conditions make brutal people.

And as for the deaths attributed to both Stalin and Mao, it must be acknowledged many were not the result of murderous intent. The famines that occurred cannot be deemed natural, but they were to some extent the result of poor planning and incompetence rather than malice. Mao having farmers forge steel in their own backyard rather than growing food, that's appallingly incompetent but not consciously homicidal.

And nobody even bothers to ask WHY Mao did that.

I know, but nobody cares.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Doubt he had any desire to start a global conflagration. Hitler knew full well what the consequences of invading Poland would be.

Should we attribute WWIs casualties to Gavrilo Princip?

He's part of the reason, sure, but Mr. Princip was not the head of state with the active power to start and declare a war. He is not on the same level as the Fuhrer.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Should we attribute WWIs casualties to Gavrilo Princip?

Should we attribute the casualties of the Civil War to Abraham Lincoln? If he had not been elected, the South would not have rebelled.

South's fault for rebelling for the sake of their selfish conceptions.

[Risastorstein]

Doubt he had any desire to start a global conflagration. Hitler knew full well what the consequences of invading Poland would be.

Should we attribute WWIs casualties to Gavrilo Princip?

Did he formally declare war in the name of Serbia or was he just some looney terrorist? Was Lincoln the first to declare war?

[Concorde Aegis]

Doubt he had any desire to start a global conflagration. Hitler knew full well what the consequences of invading Poland would be.

Should we attribute WWIs casualties to Gavrilo Princip?

I say we blame the entire 20th century on Gavrilo Princip.