stalin obviously, at least hitler looked after his own. stalin was a monster who massacred his own people.
Was Stalin more evil than Hitler?
- Thread starter Jakub324
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And you are wrong.baboon 101 said:
In europe, for quite a fuckin' while (like 7 centuries) jews were a threat.
That's why they were not allowed to do honest work.
That's why they became bankers, debtors or other unhonorable professions.
That's why they became infamous as parasites, as rats, because they could not earn money for quite a long time, they had to get money from "honorably working" people.
And then, some conspiracy-theoretics came along.
Hitler, like many other europeans, actually thought jews were a threat, it was just a quite traditional way of thinking.
Still, to the present days you read about alarming studies of anti-semitistic thoughts in whole europe (And I bet in the US, too).
Hitler just, well, was the one dickhead that actually "did something".
To topic: Hitler was a bigger jerk, he put more thought into the whole killing-dudes-thing.
A man who executes a prisoner is less evil than a man who orders the deaths of 10000 because he is not trained to think for himself, only to follow the word of his superiors.HerrBobo said:
I believe the people in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have risen up because, unlike people in Russia and Germany, they were not as indoctrinated.
Black and Tans were an extreme solution to an extreme problem. No, it shouldn't have been done, but if it ended the violence (like Churchill must have thought it would), would it have been worth while?
This is the most I've thought in weeks.
I am gona say Stalin...Becouse the body count was higher...And it was his own people...Hitler hated jews....or something...Stalin just wasn't assholy enough...And i can't actually blame WW2 100% on Hitler...Germany wanted revenge after WW1,Hitler was just the one to say-Lets do this!!!.......or something.....
"the most evil was chamberlain, he just let everything happen."
Okay, first of all that is hugely unfair. He tried his damndest to prevent a horrendous war that neither his country nor France were in any state to fight (look at how quickly French defenses collapsed, they still hadn't recovered from WW1). Also, he bought Britain some much needed time to arm and prepare for war. And I think you can forgive a man for thinking that the guy he's negotiating with is just another world leader and not THE DEVIL INCARNATE. With regards to the question of who was more evil, Hitler or Stalin, I think it boils down to this: Stalin was the more destructive by far in terms of loss of life, but he had a much longer reign to do it. Had Hitler lived as long as Stalin, he would have outmatched his death toll many times over. So I guess what I'm saying is Stalin was more evil, but Hitler had a far greater potential for evil that was never realised. And while I do believe that there is good in any human being, I agree that if "evil" doesn't apply to those two men we may as well retire the word.
Okay, first of all that is hugely unfair. He tried his damndest to prevent a horrendous war that neither his country nor France were in any state to fight (look at how quickly French defenses collapsed, they still hadn't recovered from WW1). Also, he bought Britain some much needed time to arm and prepare for war. And I think you can forgive a man for thinking that the guy he's negotiating with is just another world leader and not THE DEVIL INCARNATE. With regards to the question of who was more evil, Hitler or Stalin, I think it boils down to this: Stalin was the more destructive by far in terms of loss of life, but he had a much longer reign to do it. Had Hitler lived as long as Stalin, he would have outmatched his death toll many times over. So I guess what I'm saying is Stalin was more evil, but Hitler had a far greater potential for evil that was never realised. And while I do believe that there is good in any human being, I agree that if "evil" doesn't apply to those two men we may as well retire the word.
Hitler is the greater evil, even if only because history is written by the victorious.
He was the direct threat to you, who cares about a chunk of nations that fell under soviet rule for the next forty years. Just look at how well they are doing.
Mao's cultural revolution killed more than both previous regimes combined, following the tradition of cruelty in the chinese political history.
The Nukes on Japan were unnecessary, the US had reliable intelligence that the country was unable to continue the war and ready to start the negotiations for surrender. They were dropped for weapons testing and advertisement.
Though the US was, and still is, forced to assist Japan against aggression which helped it to achieve it's current economy.
He was the direct threat to you, who cares about a chunk of nations that fell under soviet rule for the next forty years. Just look at how well they are doing.
Mao's cultural revolution killed more than both previous regimes combined, following the tradition of cruelty in the chinese political history.
The Nukes on Japan were unnecessary, the US had reliable intelligence that the country was unable to continue the war and ready to start the negotiations for surrender. They were dropped for weapons testing and advertisement.
Though the US was, and still is, forced to assist Japan against aggression which helped it to achieve it's current economy.
actually it was truman who ordered the nuclear attack on hiroshima and nagasaki. F.D.R died 12 of april 1945 witch made vice president truman president of the USA. And the one who ordered the live usage of nuclear weapons on Japan.genericusername64 said:
actually it was truman who ordered the nuclear attack on hiroshima and nagasaki. F.D.R died 12 of april 1945 witch made vice president truman president of the USA. And the one who ordered the live usage of nuclear weapons on Japan. and it wasnt millions. the total casualty number varies but its estimated to around 200000 people. witch is still a lot but nothing compared to Stalin or Hitler.genericusername64 said:
Where did I put that graphic...
All of these men are mass murders but if you really want to talk numbers, which most people seem apt to do instead of subjective evil, I think it should really boil down to how long each person was in power and how many deaths that person caused in that time. I don't think total deaths caused should be the main thing we look at because Stalin was in power for 31 years and Hitler was only in power for 11. So I've done some math for you, I've taken the number of deaths caused and divided it by the years they were in power to create a general rate at which they killed people, or a general ranking of danger to humanity:
1. Zedong, in power for 33 years, caused 78 million deaths at a rate of 2.36 million per year.
2. Tojo, in power for 3 years, caused 5 million deaths at a rate of 1.66 million per year.
3. Hitler, in power for 11 years, caused 17 million deaths at a rate of 1.54 million per year.
4. Stalin, in power for 31 years, caused 23 million deaths at a rate of .74 million per year.
In terms of the rate at which these dictators killed people it seems that Stalin was less than half as dangerous as Hitler was.
Mao Zedong was capable of almost superhuman feats of evil, this includes bringing his cabinet of advisers into power and then years later purposely causing a revolution that killed most of them; he is just about as close as anybody has really gotten to being a hardcore supervillian.
If you want to know just how evil this man was I recommend a viewing of "China: The Mao Years" An excellent in-depth documentary with eye witness interviews about the whole of Mao Zedong's rule in China.
You should be able to find it as a playlist here. [http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E0FDB21E1D41392C]
1. Zedong, in power for 33 years, caused 78 million deaths at a rate of 2.36 million per year.
2. Tojo, in power for 3 years, caused 5 million deaths at a rate of 1.66 million per year.
3. Hitler, in power for 11 years, caused 17 million deaths at a rate of 1.54 million per year.
4. Stalin, in power for 31 years, caused 23 million deaths at a rate of .74 million per year.
In terms of the rate at which these dictators killed people it seems that Stalin was less than half as dangerous as Hitler was.
Mao Zedong was capable of almost superhuman feats of evil, this includes bringing his cabinet of advisers into power and then years later purposely causing a revolution that killed most of them; he is just about as close as anybody has really gotten to being a hardcore supervillian.
If you want to know just how evil this man was I recommend a viewing of "China: The Mao Years" An excellent in-depth documentary with eye witness interviews about the whole of Mao Zedong's rule in China.
You should be able to find it as a playlist here. [http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E0FDB21E1D41392C]
And millions more would have died with invasion and the war would have gone on for year's.genericusername64 said:
A warning nuke? Two nukes were dropped on two major cities, the Japanese refused to surrender after the first. Japanese military tactic showed they would not have cared about a warning cause they were bat shit insane. Not to mention, if a warning was dropped they would just pull everything to a bunker some where which would pretty much mean the nuke would have little effect.werty10089 said:
They were both insane narcissists who rose to power by the folishnes and bigotry of others and used that power to kill massive amounts of people.
I don't really see any difference between them, but since world war 2 was kind of almost good thing (on the very long run) I'm going to say Stalin
I don't really see any difference between them, but since world war 2 was kind of almost good thing (on the very long run) I'm going to say Stalin
