Hitler Vs. Stalin

[DeletedUser]

Your opinion on Hitler and Stalin

 

[DeletedUser]

No one. They just followed at they belived.

I'm not saying that they was right, but their had their own motivations.

Stalin is more intelligent than Hitler, this I can tell you for sure.(and I'm not talking abot the hitler's defeat on the russian's winter, the history prove that hitler was not a moron doing that)

 

[DeletedUser]

They really kinda did the same thing, Stalin but his own people in "Death Camps" and Hitler put Jew in his "Death Camps". But Hitler was out for world domination. Hitler killed communist, Jews, the mentally ******ed, and homosexuals. They pretty much killed people who didn't fit in to there "perfect world". While Stalin killed his own people. And he sent criminals into a attack head on the Nazis with only grenades and if they tried to run away they would be shot by there own people.

 

[DeletedUser]

Who's more evil, Hitler or Stalin.

In terms of number of people killed by the government?

Neither ... Mao Tse Tung wins that award

Westerners, thinking they are the biggest and baddest. :dry:

 

[DeletedUser]

Neither.

There is no such thing as "evil".

 

[DeletedUser]

Okkkay than whos worse Hitler or Stalin

 

[DeletedUser8950]

Well, on terms of who's more "evil," (I kind of agree with Skull, imo "evil" depends on your perception) it's a much of a muchness really. Both of them did disgusting things, though most people seem to think Hitler is worse, simply because Stalin fought against the Nazi's in WW2. Hitler is percieved as far worse. Let's let wikipedia do the math:

Because of Hitler, at least 50 million people died

Calculating the number of victims

Researchers before the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union attempting to count the number of people killed under Stalin's regime produced estimates ranging from 3 to 60 million.[70] After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives also became available, containing official records of the execution of approximately 800,000 prisoners under Stalin for either political or criminal offenses, around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulags and some 390,000 deaths during kulak forced resettlement – for a total of about 3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.[71]
The official Soviet archival records do not contain comprehensive figures for some categories of victims, such as the those of ethnic deportations or of German population transfers in the aftermath of WWII.[72] Other notable exclusions from NKVD data on repression deaths include the Katyn massacre, other killings in the newly occupied areas, and the mass shootings of Red Army personnel (deserters and so-called deserters) in 1941. Also, the official statistics on Gulag mortality exclude deaths of prisoners taking place shortly after their release but which resulted from the harsh treatment in the camps.[73] Some historians also believe the official archival figures of the categories that were recorded by Soviet authorities to be unreliable and incomplete.[74][75] In addition to failures regarding comprehensive recordings, as one additional example, Robert Gellately and Simon Sebag-Montefiore argue the many suspects beaten and tortured to death while in "investigative custody" were likely not to have been counted amongst the executed.[8][76]
Historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 4 million to nearly 10 million, not including those who died in famines.[77] Russian writer Vadim Erlikman, for example, makes the following estimates: executions, 1.5 million; gulags, 5 million; deportations, 1.7 million out of 7.5 million deported; and POWs and German civilians, 1 million – a total of about 9 million victims of repression.[78]
Some have also included deaths of 6 to 8 million people in the 1932–1933 famine as victims of Stalin's repression. This categorization is controversial however, as historians differ as to whether the famine was a deliberate part of the campaign of repression against kulaks and others,[53] or simply an unintended consequence of the struggle over forced collectivization.[48][79][80]
Accordingly, if famine victims are included, a minimum of around 10 million deaths — 6 million minimum from famine and 4 million minimum from other causes — are attributable to the regime,[81] with a number of recent historians suggesting a likely total of around 20 million, citing much higher victim totals from executions, gulags, deportations and other causes.[82] Adding 6–8 million famine victims to Erlikman's estimates above, for example, would yield a total of between 15 and 17 million victims. Researcher Robert Conquest, meanwhile, has revised his original estimate of up to 30 million victims down to 20 million.[83] Others maintain that their earlier higher victim total estimates are correct.[84][85]

To be honest, again it's not really very clear. Hitler probably killed more, but Stalin let millions of people die from famine. Both killed millions via concentration camps/gulags, though Hitler once again more.

On terms of opression, both silenced anyone with different politicial views, usually brutally.
Both were responsible for the torture of many as well.

But does that still answer who is more "evil?"

e·vil (

v

l)adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est 1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

n.1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.

adv. Archaic In an evil manner.

It also depends on your perception of "casuing," as they did not personally kill millions of people, they only commanded it.

1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong

Like Skull said, both men had their own motivations, and both probably thought they were doing their countries good.

People forget, despite the crimes they commited both men (especially Salin) did good things for their countries. Hitler kickstarted a dead economy from scratch, and both men, paticularly Stalin, boosted their countries employment rate dramatically. Whilst it doesn't nearly justify what they did, people get caught up in blind hatred too much sometimes.

Anyway, I still haven't answered the question because in my opinion, tbecause here isn't really an answer. It just depends on your opinion, and what you make of their actions and motivations. Plus the word "evil" (I hate that word) is rather vauge and I agree with John, I don't really think there is such a thing.

Edit: Worse at what exactly? Expand, define.

 

[DeletedUser]

Changed it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Changed it.

Define worse

Worse in who won the war?
Worse in mustache fashion statements of the time?
Worse in education level?

The words are being to general ... try making a sentence in stead of one word ... like erm:

In terms of how Hitler and Stalin improved (or degraded) thier economy, who was more efficient and why?

Even then its debatable ... sure Hitler boosted a nonexistant economy in Germany, but post war germany was probably just as bad.

 

[DeletedUser]

Whose as in who was more bad. Hitler or Stalin.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is pointless. I'm a history teacher so I cannot see a way to argue about it. I can give you facts, but you alrdy did it on your second post.

There is no bad, no evil, no wrong.There is only your perception on what is good or bad difined by your own conduct code and your own laws.

 

[DeletedUser]

Rawdog, instead of repeating your question ad-infinitum, state your thoughts, your opinions and corroborating data.

 

[DeletedUser]

I changed to to opinions,

 

[DeletedUser]

Right, fine. If you're not going to toss your thoughts in this thread, there's no point to it. Are you doing some sort of class assignment?

 

[DeletedUser]

Stalin had the cooler mustache.

 

[DeletedUser]

And here's my opinion. Evil is evil and they were both evil. It does not matter who was worse, they both committed genocide in a massive scale. The problem with Hitler's notoriety, the holocaust, is that it underscores the horrendous crimes committed to people other than Jews, and overshadows the crimes committed by Stalin's regime. The misrepresented lesson is that we should avoid repeating genocide against Jews, when the real lesson should be to ensure we don't have a recurrence of dictatorships that foster genocide, and that we should destroy those governments at the first sign of their horrid acts.

The world has learned nothing. We pose a blind eye to the horrors of that time, just as we pose a blind eye to the horrors of today.

 

[DeletedUser]

Now it's fine for me.

Hitler: Great autrian soldier with a lot of thought. Very nice speecher, who conviced all germany and other countrys about what was "right" and "wrong" in the world. Sadly, he was not so smart as everybody though. He could just hold their fire against URSS or just kick italy from the alliance, so he could get all URSS on the planned time.

Stalin: The smarter of all great ditator of the world in my opinion. He won the WW2. Nothing more to say.

And the world learned much hellstrom. Thanks to this we all know what a person can do with the power of anger and hate. The war is the best way to make civilizations rich. We can see how germany is today. Not only germany. USA, France, England...

The actual world have much influence of the WW2

 

[DeletedUser]

Stalin: The smarter of all great ditator of the world in my opinion. He won the WW2. Nothing more to say.

What was so smart about throwing wave after wave of expandable flesh at the Germans?

 

[DeletedUser]

It worked.

For my opinion, Hitler and Stalin were both pretty bad. As Hellstromm has said, there is no good or evil, just a persons preference. For Hitler, Hitler was the leader of a mass genocide against the Jews and caused one of the biggest wars of all time. Stalin was more evil of the two. If you have the army to just throw against the enemy, because your country has more people, just throwing away needless lives is evil, but a strategy too. And thats what these two men were good at. And thats why these men are more remembered because of the damage they've caused and what they did then say Qaddafi or Idi Amin.

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't know if I'll be able to write this party of the war in english but I'll try to explain.

Before Hitler stabilish alliance with Stalin, he went to Russia to know what they could have to "help". The real intentions of Hitler, was to know what equipements, weapons, tanks they had. Stalin knew this, So when Hitler went to Russia, Stalin showed some very old bellic tecnology. So Hitler was happy with the idea to atk Russia after some time. As the war goed, the russians withdraw the alliance and stayed on neutral stance.
Stalin knew that Hitler would atk them. He spected that Hitler would atk Russia when he defeats England. So he putted few army to take care about the frontier of URSS on this mean time. But Hitler decided to take Russia faster. After big problems with Grecce and Malta the germany invasion on russian was delayed(what made hitler lost the war due the winter). So Hitler atked! The Russians was surprised, and most kills on sovietic soldiers was archieved at the begining of the invasion. Stalin hold Stalingrad to make Hitler stay on the Sovietic territory during some time, so the winter would come and give an nice advantage to russians. On the winter, both sides sufered with that. But the germans could not shot due the cold. But the sovitics could due turns-sun flower oil (I don't know if the flower name in english is it). So they managed to get the germans to germany again, and even better, they entered in berlin destroing everything.

I could be more especify, but my lack of good english make me don't tell some critical details that could prove my point.