It seems like a lot of people don't know how horrible Stalin was. He killed just as much of his own people, if not more, than Hitler did. He says: “A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.” How terrible is that........
In my opinion, Hitler is worst but they were equally malevolent. What do you think of Stalin??
2006-11-19 10:00:36 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
i think "who cares" is right. because the russians were on the allied side by the end, stalin will never be as vilified as hitler, at least in the united states. also, i think it does have to do with ideology. stalin's were political murders and purges, but hitler's were part of an ethnic genocide, which is somehow more horrific. to kill someone for what they believe or their active opposition to your regime is a terrifying tactic, but to kill someone just for who they are is viewed as worse. the first is evidence of the most dangerous political system, but the latter of an unlivable world. my great grandparents were killed by the nazis and my grandfather was kidnapped and imprisoned for three years by the soviets because he sold a roll of fabric he didnt know he'd bought from someone who had stolen it. thanks, politics.
2006-11-19 18:54:49 · answer #1 · answered by fancypants 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hitler is definitely more infamous and more well known as a tyrant. However, Stalin was very terrible as well. The reason Stalin is less so than Hitler is because racism has been a big issue, and Hitler was more racist and more openly racist (ex. the Holocaust) than Stalin. Stalin didn't display extreme racism like Hitler.
Also, those who knew about Stalin's terrible reign were silenced, while the whole world found out about Hitler.
However, Stalin was worse in terms of deaths, look at this site:
The biggest problem is a quote that goes something like, "The loser will never be asked if the victor said the truth"
Without doubt I believe that Hitler was one of the most evil people in the history of the world, but Hitler lost WWII, and he will never be asked whether the accounts are true or over exaggerated. Yet Stalin was part of the war on the winning side, but no one questioned or will question how truly malignantly he treated his subjects.
2006-11-19 18:06:26 · answer #2 · answered by HMhm 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Stalin had the comfort of committing most of his atrocities within the confines of his own country, not on the world stage as was the case of Hitler. Hitler and the Nazi machine documented everything they did. They recorded on movie tape, wrote it down, copied it, left a trail all across Europe and with in the Third Reich itself for historians and the victorious allies to read. Stalin on the other hand, had no free press. Foreign press were kept far from the truth. Anything leaked out was dismissed as propaganda against the Soviet Union. Stalin had the protection of Mother Russia to hide his crimes. He had the time and luxury of life to build his own myth. Hitler and many others had no such time. Stalin was ruthless, evil toward all, even his own family, and at the same time was regarded as a saint among his own people because he had the time to make them believe his own myth. He gave a portion of his population a sense of security. False it may have been, it was security and a bit of prosperity many had not experienced under the rule of the Tsars. One day Stalin and Mao will join Hitler as grand tyrants, but that day is still a generation or more away.
2006-11-20 00:29:20 · answer #3 · answered by Paul L 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Stalin definitely was responsible for the murder of more people - as many as 60 million. As they were predominantly his own people - either being originally Russian or overcome by conquest, less attention is paid. It also has been a closed society, and in many ways remains one. It's difficult to count bodies. He probably killed more in one Gulag than Hitler did in the entire War - but we will never know.
How can you rate a mass murderer?
Hitler's focus on the Jews of Europe makes his victims a more (or easier) identifiable class.
Both were Psychopaths and Sociopaths and the worst sort of EVIL - I like your use of the word 'malevolent.' It sure fits.
2006-11-19 18:30:20 · answer #4 · answered by 34th B.G. - USAAF 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Stalin was as roofless as Hitler. He was repsponsible for the deaths of over 20 million of his own people. He killed far more people then Hitler did. I do agree he's as infamous as Adolph Hitler. Anyone with that kind of power to kill that many people should be seen as malevolent and unjust.
2006-11-19 18:05:51 · answer #5 · answered by Martincic 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Just as bad as Hitler. Hitler just beat Uncle Joe to the punch... the reason Hitler started WWII was to whack Russia, and he had to get France sidelined before he could do that. That Britain fought so tenaciously was a surprise to Hitler. He figured that they'd sit the war out.
2006-11-19 19:18:52 · answer #6 · answered by Dr_Adam_Bricker 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Though they were both despicable people, Stalin killed far more than Hitler with estimates as high as 60 million.
2006-11-19 18:06:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Stalin was equally as evil as Hitler but being that he was on our side in WWII, no matter what he did he will never be viewed as evil as Hitler.
2006-11-19 18:06:07 · answer #8 · answered by Who cares 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
A piece of work Joseph was. Not nearly as infamous as he deserves to be. A role model for Saddam Hussein I understand.
2006-11-19 18:02:48 · answer #9 · answered by Rockvillerich 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The difference is the motive, but they were both cold blooded killers. Would you believe that Mao Tse Tung was responsible for more deaths than both of them together!
2006-11-19 20:42:40 · answer #10 · answered by john b 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋