Who was worse,Hitler or Stalin?

[Yorkopolis]

And how large were their communities?

I'd imagine they were fine.

And compare that to the populations and size of superpowers like the USSR, the USA and China, you think communism could wok on nations that size of those?

Communism requires the demolishing of the state and central authority. Besides some form of fading abstract idea of national unity, those nations would cease to exist.

I'd imagine communism working on small communes, like how anarchism worked in Revolutionary Catalonia, but unless you're the size of Monaco, Liechtenstein or Luxembourg, I can't see communism and anarchism working on such a large scale. Besides, the nations would probably continue existing, they would just be really small (let's say about the size of Catalonia, somewhere around that), and they would be collectively organized. I can imagine a sort of "World Committee for Communes" existing, but I honestly can't imagine countries the size of Russia switch to anarchism/communism that fast. Besides, even a country the size of the Netherlands/Belgium already can't become anarchist, they are already too big to be organized like anarchism, it would require extreme decentralization to the point where the country almost becomes a loose confederation of countries instead of an actual solid country.

As for the question; I'd rather go for Hitler and his Hitlerian followers. Even though most of the German people "loved" Hitler in some way or another, I can imagine them (and especially the Jews) living in a state of perpetual fear. Not that this wasn't the case during Stalin and the Great Purge, but Hitler liked going extremely massively aggressive against people he didn't like..something that caused 25.000 excess deaths.

[Gokturkistan]

In my opinion,Stalin was way worse.He starved his own people to death and his police forces would interrogate people for not looking like they were starving to death.

Nonsense. The famine is only blamed on the Soviet Union by Capitalists and Ukrainian Neo-Fascists (who usually, specifically blame Kaganovich because he is a Jew) and implied to be created by them on purpose (which wouldn't make sense) because Socialist nations are held to a different standard. Why don't we blame the rulers of the UK and Capitalism/Imperialism for the famines in India and Ireland, or blame the Presidents of the US for the Great Depression and the Kansas Dust Bowl? These are comparable to the Soviret Famine; the difference is that large famines were a fact of life in what was the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union and had been a regular occurrence for centuries.

The second claim is the most ridiculous and seems to be based more on Pol Pot's atrocities; Pol Pot the "Communist" (ha!) who supported the monarchy, feudalism and "racial superiority" and was supported by the US and UK Governments who tried to restore the Khmer Rouge to power after its justified overthrow by Marxist-Leninist Vietnam!

[Person012345]

Why don't we blame the rulers of the UK and Capitalism/Imperialism for the famines in India and Ireland, or blame the Presidents of the US for the Great Depression and the Kansas Dust Bowl? These are comparable to the Soviret Famine; the difference is that large famines were a fact of life in what was the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union and had been a regular occurrence for centuries.

We do? Although India is a tad different in that the East India company wasn't the government. But the government didn't do enough to alleviate them for sure. They left it to private corporations in one case, which obviously failed miserably (because lolcapitalism).

[Ordo Drakul]

Hitler was removed from power and his legacy is to be the most evil man remembered today. Stalin died of old age in power, and still has apologists and a living legacy of evil still in power-guess who was worse.

Hitler

Oh yeah-Hitler killed millions of jews, gypsies, blacks, and homosexuals-at least Stalin was an equal opportunity genocidal maniac...

[Gokturkistan]

Why don't we blame the rulers of the UK and Capitalism/Imperialism for the famines in India and Ireland, or blame the Presidents of the US for the Great Depression and the Kansas Dust Bowl? These are comparable to the Soviret Famine; the difference is that large famines were a fact of life in what was the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union and had been a regular occurrence for centuries.

We do? Although India is a tad different in that the East India company wasn't the government.

I have not mentioned the East India Company (who worked on behalf of the British Crown... and were eventually removed from this position for doing such a bad job). I was referring to the Great Bengal Famine of 1943 (as well as other less famous famines in that era) which was when India was oppressed governed directly by the British Government and not the East India Trading Company. The Irish Potato Famine is even more damning if we go by the logic that is used by anti-Soviets; Ireland is in the British Isles right next to the island of Great Britain. Does Queen Victoria, as head of state, get called a murderer for her government's handling of the famine in Ireland? Does the Prime Minister as main administrator? No. Because the UK/British Empire is/was a capitalist nation; which is ridiculous as they were economically and culturally more advanced in both the 1840s-1850s and 1940s than the Soviet Union was in the 1930s.

[Anacasppia]

Stalin - because he had a greater impact than Hitler. Of course, that was because he lived longer and his regime survived far longer.

[Esperanza Perdida]

Stalin never tried to exterminate an entire race.

[Voisko]

Stalin has far more deaths to his name than hitler does. Not to mention communism. Should be pretty easy to figure out.

Of course, neither even come close to Mao.

Come on now, we were having an intelligent discussion.

[Old Tyrannia]

You can't measure someone's evil by body count alone. You need to look at the reasons for that body count too. This is why I consider Hitler to be far worse than Stalin- because, unlike Stalin, who created his body count through paranoia, Hitler knowingly and deliberately made it his goal to exterminate an entire race simply for existing. In essence, even if a hypothetical Jew followed every single law of Nazi Germany to the letter, singing Hitler's praises 20 times a day, gleefully hunting down anti-Nazis with a bloodthirstiness that would scare the Gestapo, etc etc, he would still get thrown in a concentration camp just because he was Jewish. Obviously this hypothetical Jew never existed, but in any case, he certainly would have survived in Stalin's USSR if he was a model Stalinist, singing Stalin's praises 20 times a day, and gleefully hunting down anti-Stalinists with a bloodthirstiness that would scare the NKVD.

This. Although Stalin was hardly a lover of the Jews, if I remember correctly. Josef Stalin did some incredibly horrible and evil things, but he did so to hold on to power and protect himself. So although he was clearly paranoid, we can at least understand why he acted the way he did. Adolf Hitler, by contrast, ordered the extermination of around 11 million people based on something as completely immaterial as their race. It's like randomly deciding to kill everyone who is left-handed. Stalin was a selfish, ruthless and utterly amoral bastard, but there was rationale behind his actions. Hitler was a psychotic maniac.

[Asgarnnia]

This whole thread feels like discussing whether donkey shit smells worse than dog shit. I wouldn't recommend smearing either on your face.

... You know, unless you're into that.

[Person012345]

We do? Although India is a tad different in that the East India company wasn't the government.

I have not mentioned the East India Company (who worked on behalf of the British Crown... and were eventually removed from this position for doing such a bad job). I was referring to the Great Bengal Famine of 1943 (as well as other less famous famines in that era) which was when India was oppressed governed directly by the British Government and not the East India Trading Company. The Irish Potato Famine is even more damning if we go by the logic that is used by anti-Soviets; Ireland is in the British Isles right next to the island of Great Britain. Does Queen Victoria, as head of state, get called a murderer for her government's handling of the famine in Ireland? Does the Prime Minister as main administrator? No. Because the UK/British Empire is/was a capitalist nation; which is ridiculous as they were economically and culturally more advanced in both the 1840s-1850s and 1940s than the Soviet Union was in the 1930s.

You just said "Indian famines" so my mistake. As for all those, yes I'd blame the government (to a certain degree) for not providing.

I think maybe we are arguing cross purposes, as I don't really think stalin is a "murderer" for the famines - making bad policy decisions regarding farming just makes you incompetent and being so ideological/power hungry that you won't take obvious steps to correct it is also wrong. I blame him more for the purges and such.

[Zokoria]

Hitler. Because he killed a lot of Jewish people as well as gays.

Obviously, Stalin was better than him though.

[Wickedly evil people]

rather like comparing Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy.

[Kilobugya]

Hitler used horrible means to try to reach an horrible end. Stalin used horrible means to try to reach a relatively sane end. While both were horrible, Hitler is definitely worse.

[L Ron Cupboard]

rather like comparing Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy.

Well obviously the one that was a clown was more evil.

[AETEN II]

Hard to believe there are five pages of debate on whether one evil totalitarian mass murderer was worse than the other. They were cast in the same mould. They had the same objectives (personal power and using it to build their version of a utopian society) and the same methods (intensive propaganda and destroying anyone who didn't fit in with the masterplan). It doesn't matter if your targets are jews, kulaks or whatever - both regimes depended on murder, slavery and terror to get things done. That's no way to run a society.

Hitler and Stalin were very different and it is foolish to compare them as one of the same. Hitler was one of the pyschopaths, a nutjob (but a devoius one at that) who came from a family of mental illness and was beaten by his father. Normally this would land one a cold death in alley, homeless. But because Hitler also had a cunning streak, he was able to hide his pyschopath self from the people and appear as a beacon of hope to Germany in the depression.

Stalin was a cut-throat politician who scurried up the Communist ladder, breaking the rungs under him to ensure nobody else could scurry up. He also killed everyone he rose above. E.G. your average cunning politician coupled with an extreme hunger for power.

The difference between Hitler and Stalin is that Hitler is a bit easier to spot in the modern era, Stalin can and does happen to this day.

[Bambi Praxis]

Hitler or Stalin?

Well, it would have to be their genetically-engineered love-child, made with two Y chromosomes from sperm stolen by a Finnish double agent (or triple, if rumors about Churchill getting it up are true). Historians and geneticists have suspected the existence of this creature for fifty years and have given Him the provisional name Shitlin.

In 1985, this suspicion firmed-up into a theory. The real Shitlin is alive and living among us! Be on the lookout for a suspiciously dark-haired Aryan man, with a mustache and a mighty drinking habit. Scientists predict that he will have the stature and personal characteristics of a four year old boy. This should make him easy to identify due to the mustache and the drinking.

This is a matter of some urgency. In less than five years, Shitlin may be unborn and thus escape the judgment of the International Comedy Court.

[Loworld]

hitler was worse, at least stalin didint want to kill any non-aryan.

[Ukrazistan]

The question is formulated quite ridiculously. What are we supposed to debate, really? Obviously, Hitler was worse; that said mainly because he attempted "to rule the world", and wipe out an entire rase. Stalin was an insensitive, cold-blooded and senseless tyrant who slaughtered loads of people. So in terms of killings, Stalin was worse, but in terms of actions and doings, Hitler was - probably - worse.

[Ukrazistan]

This whole thread feels like discussing whether donkey shit smells worse than dog shit. I wouldn't recommend smearing either on your face.

... You know, unless you're into that.

Agreed to the fullest.

[Yorkopolis]

Well, analysis should perhaps happen on base of what they did and how they did it and to reach what end. On one end, we have Stalin, who rose in ranks in the CPSU to become the deputy leader of the USSR and eventually become the leader of the USSR, and on the other we have Hitler, who just popped out of nowhere and managed to become a genocidal maniac. Stalin and Hitler both built a totalitarian society, without a lot of drastic differences, the only few really being the Hitlerite Myth of the Aryan Race and the way they looked at the working class.

What we have to consider, is that Stalin was just acting in the name of the Communist Party, and was just acting as leader, who tried to rule his country in the way fitting his personal ideology, something we later defined as Stalinism. The Great Ukrainian Famine and the Russian famines and other Soviet famines under Stalin, weren't done on purpose, they were rather caused by economic and societal mismanagement on the government's part. The Great Purge, was purely caused by massive paranoia, which is something that any regular human can have, while the Great Purge did not kill as many as Hitler ordered his people to do. Hitler, on the other hand, deliberately starved the people in Poland and other Slavic-inhabited territories occupied by Nazi Germany, which was not caused by economic nor societal mismanagement, and therefore we can argue that the starvation of Slavic peoples in Eastern Europe by Nazi Germany was something done on-purpose. The starvation of Hitler's own people in cities like Berlin, Dresden, etc. was not caused by the Nazi government, rather by the massive bombardments that happened on a daily basis from '44 to '45. The Holocaust was the consequence of Hitler ordering Himmler and others to formulate a "Final Solution regarding the Jewish question", and they did, and then put it into practice in the form of concentration camps, etc. This was all done deliberately.

Therefore, because Hitler deliberately decided to starve the Slavic peoples, gas millions of others, etc. we can argue that Hitler was far, far worse then Stalin would ever have been, and had Hitler continued and lived on, even more people would have died.

[Texacoe]

You can't measure someone's evil by body count alone. You need to look at the reasons for that body count too. This is why I consider Hitler to be far worse than Stalin- because, unlike Stalin, who created his body count through paranoia, Hitler knowingly and deliberately made it his goal to exterminate an entire race simply for existing. In essence, even if a hypothetical Jew followed every single law of Nazi Germany to the letter, singing Hitler's praises 20 times a day, gleefully hunting down anti-Nazis with a bloodthirstiness that would scare the Gestapo, etc etc, he would still get thrown in a concentration camp just because he was Jewish. Obviously this hypothetical Jew never existed, but in any case, he certainly would have survived in Stalin's USSR if he was a model Stalinist, singing Stalin's praises 20 times a day, and gleefully hunting down anti-Stalinists with a bloodthirstiness that would scare the NKVD.

This is a wise country

[Kazarogkai]

You can't measure someone's evil by body count alone. You need to look at the reasons for that body count too. This is why I consider Hitler to be far worse than Stalin- because, unlike Stalin, who created his body count through paranoia, Hitler knowingly and deliberately made it his goal to exterminate an entire race simply for existing. In essence, even if a hypothetical Jew followed every single law of Nazi Germany to the letter, singing Hitler's praises 20 times a day, gleefully hunting down anti-Nazis with a bloodthirstiness that would scare the Gestapo, etc etc, he would still get thrown in a concentration camp just because he was Jewish. Obviously this hypothetical Jew never existed, but in any case, he certainly would have survived in Stalin's USSR if he was a model Stalinist, singing Stalin's praises 20 times a day, and gleefully hunting down anti-Stalinists with a bloodthirstiness that would scare the NKVD.

not actually all that true stalin's main man Nikolai Yezhov(guy who lead the Soviet Secret police during the Great Purges) even though he had done so much for Stalin eventually fel out of favor and became an Un-person, it didnt matter that much if you were a di hard loyalist if he "thought" you would be against him, you would be eliminated and eliminate any trace you existed.

Before


After he fell from favor



Also personally i would rather live under Hitler than Stalin reason? Stalin killed anyone didn't matter who you were as long as he felt like it you would die, Hitler was more specific he targeted a certain group of people so if you weren't one of them you would relatively be "OK". Same reason why killers without a specific victim are so scary and dangerous you never know who is next, they will go after anyone so everyone in their path better be careful. Finally another problem with Stalin is if you were living under his rule is, there is no hope. In the end everyone went after Hitler and defeated him no one ever went after Stalin they just stood by and watched. Only hope is when he died how long that takes you dont know for sure, the future isn't looking all that bright. Year after year under his rule would wear people down and eventually hope would be lost for their is no hope no one is coming to rescue you no one cares there wont be a Knight in shining Armour to save you there wont be great warriors jumping over the concrete border wall or bombers with stars coming into that grey sky because you are of no importance nobody cares about for you are nothing to them you are simple trash and of no importance in comparison to being friends with the man that calls himself your leader you are... Alone seemingly to many forever


I refuse to pick who is worse though they both are pretty horrible we shouldnt be glamorizing them.

[Bambi Praxis]

Before
(Image)

After he fell from favor
(Image)

That's a pretty good shoop for 1940. Water-paint for the water, and crayon for the gunwale I'm thinking.

[4years]

Hitler was worse, but I hate stalin more.