Was Stalin more evil than Hitler?

[Liberaliter]

I'm going with neither are evil, because no-one is truly evil. But Stalin was a bit of a bigger dick for sure. Hitler is just more infamous because Stalin mostly just killed people that those in the west simply didn't care about, to put it bluntly.

If we can't call Stalin and Hitler evil then what can we use the word for? What's the point of having that word if there's not a scenario or a person we can use it to describe. I know people often use evil freely and rashly these days, but in the case of Hitler and Stalin surely it is justified.

 

[iDoom46]

F.D.R ordered a nuke that killed millions, and many more died of radiation poisoning, Japan had suffered from the radiation, and birth defects were higher than ever

F.D.R. didn't order the nuke dropped, Truman did. F.D.R died in office before WWII ended, remember?
Sorry I just can't stand historical inaccuracy.

OT: If I HAD to chose (like at gunpoint or something), I might say Hitler. Because, while Stalin did kill more people, he did it for an ideal that he strongly stood by, but Hitler killed people because "fuck the Jews". (By movie/TV/book fiction laws, that makes him a better villain because he's got a reason for being bad, not just being evil for the sake of it.)
Granted, Stalin was a WAY bigger dick, probably totally mad, and that staunch idealism probably made him way more dangerous than the realist Hitler ever was.

 

[Breaker deGodot]

F.D.R ordered a nuke that killed millions, and many more died of radiation poisoning, Japan had suffered from the radiation, and birth defects were higher than ever

Let's just remember that the alternative would have been attacking Tokyo head on, which would have caused just as many (maybe even more) deaths to the Japanese and American people. Plus, they would have happened all at once, rather than being spread out across a longer period. Really, I wouldn't say it was anywhere near as bad as what Stalin or Hitler did.

BTW, I would say that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il and Mao are really all about equal in terms of evil.

 

[Breaker deGodot]

the most evil was chamberlain, he just let everything happen.

I wouldn't call Chaimberlain "evil", per se. Just naive and stupid.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

dropping a warning nuke near Japan, asking them to surrender before you actually dropped one on an a city wouldn't of have costed any lives.

Ooooorrr they'd move American POWs into cities and use them as human shields. They saw no problem with using them as slave labor, so don't put it past them.

If they didn't surrender at that point, "warning" them wouldn't have done anything. At all.

It wasn't a good choice. But I'd say it was the BEST choice.

OT: Eh, I hold them to about the same degree of wickedness.

 

[jakko12345]

But Stalin saved us from the Martians!

Hahahaha what is this I dont even

Ahem, OT. I think what must be decided on is whether or not killing 20 million indiscriminately for the most part is more evil than targeting specific groups and killing 10 million. (not exact figures but you get the idea).

 

[Dense_Electric]

F.D.R ordered a nuke that killed millions, and many more died of radiation poisoning, Japan had suffered from the radiation, and birth defects were higher than ever

Uh, no. One, it was Truman who ordered the bombing, FDR died several months earlier. Two, the two bombs combined killed something like 200,000, depending on who you ask. Three, the bombs were dropped to prevent an invasion that would have killed millions of American and Japanese soldiers, not to mention far more Japanese civilians than died in all the firebombing and nuclear raids combined (I suppose it's also worth mentioning that the Tokyo firebombing raids killed far more people than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but I don't see anyone ever raising a fuss over that).

History, my friend, learn it.

As for the OP, I wouldn't call either man evil so much as clinically batshit insane. And on that ground, they were about equal - Hitler with his twisted, grandiose version of history and his raw arrogance, Stalin with his extreme paranoia and general disregard for even close family and friends. The fact that Stalin killed more people is merely a turn of circumstance, they were both prepared to stop at nothing to make sure their twisted beliefs were the only ones allowed to persist.

 

[CaptainTrilby]

I think in terms of just sheer "Don't give a fuck, kill them all", Stalin was evil. Just the Purges and the amount of people sent to the Gulags for annoying him was just mindboggling. Plus, the 5 Year Plans just ruined the livelhoods of quite a lot of peasant farmers and his policies in battles like Stalingrad was just terrible. While Hitler did kill for more ideological reasons and as well as killing the people next door, just some of the experiments he authorised and the general mood he inspired in Germany at the time were disgusting.

I don't think you can say one is more evil, because the opinion of evil is subjective. I think I'll say they were both horrible guys who did unspeakable things.

 

[Richardplex]

I'm going with neither are evil, because no-one is truly evil. But Stalin was a bit of a bigger dick for sure. Hitler is just more infamous because Stalin mostly just killed people that those in the west simply didn't care about, to put it bluntly.

If we can't call Stalin and Hitler evil then what can we use the word for? What's the point of having that word if there's not a scenario or a person we can use it to describe. I know people often use evil freely and rashly these days, but in the case of Hitler and Stalin surely it is justified.

We don't, it's a generic word without meaning. If a man has no reasons for doing 'evil', then he is a psychopath. If he just does it for shits and giggles, he is a sociopath. Otherwise, he has reasons, and is merely extremists. Either a utilitarian gone too far, or a selfish hedonistic utilitarianism, or some other form of ideology gone too far. Though the selfish guy you could probably get away with being evil, but really, to gain anything you must take from another, and *notices he's starting to ramble, and gets back on target*. Evil is just a word that applies to ideas of the devil and generic "evils" and those who worship them, not in reality (in my opinion, but I believe that all good and bad cancel out and everything is neutral in the end, so that's why I believe that).

TL;DR My argument for why Stalin isn't evil is fairly flimsy, so go nuts on calling him that. Hitler had his reasons though, so I wouldn't call him evil. Not to say that what he did was justifiable either though.

 

[Torrasque]

I had to answer this question in grade 12 social, and my answer remains the same:
They both killed a bunch of people for stupid reasons, but by factoring in Hitler's attempt at global conquest, that makes him the greater evil.
But Stalin was still a douchebag.

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

F.D.R ordered a nuke that killed millions, and many more died of radiation poisoning, Japan had suffered from the radiation, and birth defects were higher than ever

And a proper invasion of Japan would have killed so many more military personnel and civilians its not even funny. Millions more.

Anyways...Stalin probably. Hell, we were thinking of using Hitler as an ally AGAINST Stalin if I recall correctly.

dropping a warning nuke near Japan, asking them to surrender before you actually dropped one on an a city wouldn't of have costed any lives.

It can't really be judged which man was more evil. Both lived in their bubbles, a rich luxury lifestyle that only an evil dictator can afford. It's easy to order others to suffer while you yourself are living in comfort. And we can't really tell which them watched more of what they were doing.

Do you honestly believe that a country such as Japan would surrender? They may very well have not and then look at the costs of making a nuke.

 

[restoshammyman]

evil is a relative term. they are both good and evil depending on prospective.

 

[Nikolaz72]

I'm going with neither are evil, because no-one is truly evil. But Stalin was a bit of a bigger dick for sure. Hitler is just more infamous because Stalin mostly just killed people that those in the west simply didn't care about, to put it bluntly.

Same reason we dont see the Japaneese as dicks for killing 20 million chineese folks. But the Nazi's were.... Well both were deserved honestly.

 

[Kayhoff]

You know in RPGs, where a character reaches their max level and couldn't get any higher if they tried? That's where I figure both Hitler and Stalin were evil-wise.

 

[zehydra]

F.D.R ordered a nuke that killed millions, and many more died of radiation poisoning, Japan had suffered from the radiation, and birth defects were higher than ever

Nope. It was Truman.

However, you are indeed correct, and in my opinion, the deployment of the bomb was a war crime. But they got away with it, and are now dead.

OT: Do we really need to boil down someone's "evilness" into a numerical system?

 

[loc978]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Stalin. Hitler was certainly the more megalomaniacal of the two... but he was also out of touch with reality (don't believe me? Read a translation of Mein Kampf). If he was alive and in court, and his lawyer was pleading insanity, I'd believe him... and still push for the death penalty. Stalin, though... he was aware of every wrong he committed.

 

[Superior Mind]

As the wise Eddie Izzard pointed out Hitler is seen as the bigger evil because he started killing people other than his own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpcxfsjIIbM&feature=player_detailpage#t=60s

 

[zehydra]

F.D.R ordered a nuke that killed millions, and many more died of radiation poisoning, Japan had suffered from the radiation, and birth defects were higher than ever

And a proper invasion of Japan would have killed so many more military personnel and civilians its not even funny. Millions more.

Anyways...Stalin probably. Hell, we were thinking of using Hitler as an ally AGAINST Stalin if I recall correctly.

dropping a warning nuke near Japan, asking them to surrender before you actually dropped one on an a city wouldn't of have costed any lives.

It can't really be judged which man was more evil. Both lived in their bubbles, a rich luxury lifestyle that only an evil dictator can afford. It's easy to order others to suffer while you yourself are living in comfort. And we can't really tell which them watched more of what they were doing.

Do you honestly believe that a country such as Japan would surrender? They may very well have not and then look at the costs of making a nuke.

They would've eventually. We could've just completely barricaded the island. I think the real issue was that the US were afraid of the Soviets getting to Japan first.

 

[luclin92]

Stalin was worse and the only reason hes not put as evil as Hitler was that he mostly killed his own people and not the the people next door.

 

[Mavinchious Maximus]

Id have to put a list of the largest ass hole on the planet...

1. Mao Zedong- this guy beats Hitler's and Stalin's killcounts combined.
2. Stalin- His ass hole rate is off the charts and he tried to ruin the greatest mustache ever.
3. Hitler- He permanently ruined a mustache style forever.