Wouldn't it be a kind of relativisation of the guilt of the others of them? Wouldn't it hurt the victims of the others? But, on the other hand, we should have a right for a historical discussion, for independent evaluations and analysis of the reasons of such terrible tragedies...
2006-09-02 10:52:37 · 14 answers · asked by audriusmakauskas 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
I consider them all pretty evil. Consider this, Stalin's mass killings were mostly before WW II (100,000 a year), and mostly from his purges and 'collectivization in early 30's with the latest estimate of around 20-30 million dead. His genocide wasn't a full time occupation to his death, unlike Hitler, but that's where the comparison stops. When comparing the three, they were all evil, all put people in concentration camps, all committed genocide, all 3 were dictators, all were...well you get the picture. The one factor Hitler had over the other two tho, Hitler was insane. Stalin was just angry and distrustful and Mao was just distrustful.
Other things to consider,Stalin killed more people, Hitler started WW II, Hitler killed the Jews and some people in his nation, but he started the war that resulted in many troops dying on both sides. Hitler may be considered the greater of both evils; tho Stalin killed more people it is said, Hitler's action ensured that those loses were as high as possible.
2006-09-03 11:09:28 · answer #1 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
These three men were monsters. They killed and tormented innocent people with their racist, fascist beliefs. I mean, there are still men out there in power, in some African countries as well as North Korea's Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro from Cuba that still destroys the human race with their power and control. Why do you think so many people from those countries flee? If they are not trying to come to America, they are trying to go to some European countries like England, France, et al. We can't say one was worse then the other because they are all EQUALLY bad and evil and demonic. They are just in different countries. That is all. So, no matter if you are talking about Hitler back in the 30's to Fidel as of today, they are both EQUALLY evil!
2006-09-02 11:08:14 · answer #2 · answered by uchaboo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They were all terrible and evil. Compare them? How? On the basis of how many they killed? If they could have, they would have killed millions more, each one of them.
What purpose would comparing them serve?
And that really has no relevance to "independent evaluations and analysis of the reasons of such terrible tragedies..."
which is a different matter altogether.
2006-09-02 10:59:16 · answer #3 · answered by johnslat 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
difficult to define what evil is precisely. I recommend easily, how do you degree a guy or of his murders, what distinction might it make had he killed a million million or 20 million human beings, is evil calculated via statistics? homicide and racism has existed for 1000's of years and it nonetheless is going directly to this very day. Hitler hasn't finished something new mankind hasn't finished. Evil lives on using fact by way of homicide and bigotry we keep it alive and have been all only the two as evil as hitler grew to become into if we do those issues. there's no evaluate retaining who's maximum evil guy or woman, whats the factor? justifying his movements would not breed information and if so is reason mandatory? what distinction might it make. He did what he did, and what he did grew to become into terrible, bieng in a position to pass by way of considered one of those element grew to become into what made him evil only like every physique else who's killed or injury others.
2016-10-01 05:37:34 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course we have a right to compare them..But since we dont know EVERYTHING about their regime and they way it functioned and some of the horrors of them all, we cannot declare one worse..Its just not possible. There are many many horrible things that each did, and some good that each did..All we can do is make our own opinion about each but be try not to hate them just becuase one is more publicized (hitler).
2006-09-02 11:00:22 · answer #5 · answered by pentalityism 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm no history buff, but Mao and Stalin are underepresented because they killed thousands of their own people, but Hitler is demonized the most b/c he slaughtered another race other than his own. Who am I kidding? They're all three terrible people.
2006-09-02 11:05:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
All three were willing to (and did) kill millions of their own citizens to reach their political goals.
All three invaded and annexed other nations (only Tibet remains conquered, I believe).
Only one started a war he could not win.
Was it Stalin who said, "Kill one man and you are a murderer, kill a million and you are a statesman."
There is no way in realistic debate to elevate any of the three to a "not as bad" level. How can we say Hitler only murdered six million of his people and Stalin murdered 25 million so Stalin is four times as bad? Ridiculous.
2006-09-02 14:25:38 · answer #7 · answered by Will B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure you can compare them. I think Maos the best, he didnt have evil plans, he just wasnt a good leader. Hitlers the worst because his objective was to kill off the Jews.
2006-09-02 10:58:31 · answer #8 · answered by Mutant Llama Land 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
On just death toll numbers it would go Mao, Stalin, then Hitler.
2006-09-05 18:24:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sorry.. but Yahoo Answers is limited to an answer that doesn't exceed 25,000 words and takes less than a 200 page book to answer.
Guess you will have to do your own homework assignment.
2006-09-02 10:58:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋