Was Stalin more evil than Hitler?

[xsoenx]

I have to say Hitlers. Stalin was a pretty bad guy, however he had a greater reasoning behind it than Hitler did. Also he had a much better tashe.

Hitler did this because the German Economy was totally ruined after WW1. Yes he killed many Jews, but he help their economy and made the volkswagen a cheap car that almost anybody could afford so help alot actually (Im not in anyway a nazi, i just think that some times you forget some of the good stuff people did)

 

[shadow_Fox81]

i don't think evil is denoted through motive evil is a lack of motive and so i think Vlad tepislav the impaler wins my most evil historical figure.

if you can scare the Holy roman empire and the Ottamons away through fear thats evil. Unpredictable vehement maliscious and without direction.

other dictators and historical villians seem to have motive or misguided moralities (perverse or otherwise) but vlad was just intent on revelling in slaughter, look up what impaling meant to him.


(also to apease moustache enthusiasts Vlads easily beats Hitlers and Stalins)

 

[Mr.PlanetEater]

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

But if we did invade then realistically Japan would have waited until the last man was standing to even consider surrendering. Seriously look it up; they were training everyone to fight off the Americans even school children. Nearly everyone in Japan was ready to fight and die for Japan should America invade. As much as I loathe the idea of the Atomic Bomb it really was the lesser evil of the two probabilities. :/

 

[HerrBobo]

Snip

snip

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.
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.

Well that was the point.

I don't have the right answers, but then are the right questions being asked?