English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Why does everybody know about Hitler and associate him with being the worst person in history, but not many people even think about Stalin or Pol Pot, or Idi Amin? Stalin killed many many more people, especially his own people, than Hitler. Is it because Hitler focused on the idea of perfection of whites and tried to annihalate jsut about everyone else and Stalin was more concerned with his paranoid suspicions of the people closest to him and afraid of being overthrown? Personality-wise they do have alot in common, especially mommy issues (paging Dr. Freud...) Just wondering.

2007-02-02 15:31:49 · 23 answers · asked by Azalea 4 in Arts & Humanities History

Don't get me wrong! I am not a supporter of either one, or national socialism or communism, or whatever the parties were considered.

2007-02-02 15:34:34 · update #1

About George W., I read a quote from him that said something like "If this were a dictatorship, it would be alot easier, if I were the dictator." Yea, this administration is crazy.

2007-02-02 16:26:31 · update #2

23 answers

What about Bush? Besides the atrocities in Iraq he gave the go ahead for over 300 executions while Governor of Texas. More than any other Governor in Texas history. How's that for killing your own people?

2007-02-02 15:37:27 · answer #1 · answered by The Pig! 5 · 2 8

Depends what you mean by 'worse.' Stalin killed more people than Hitler but Stalin was in a position of power for longer than Hitler. However I do believe Hitler was more of an overall threat. If Hitler had won the war you would most likely not be hear unless you fit his picture of a perfect human. If Hitler had won that war the world would look very different than it does now.

2016-05-23 22:10:37 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Stalin did almost the same thing Hitler did. But Stalins acts happened after the war. And America was not in the mood to tell the American people we were allied with a mad man. Even before the war Stalin killed 20 million of his own people, mostly through Collectivization. At the time Nazi Germany was a bigger threat than the Russian's. And having the Russian's as allies was a bigger atvantage at the time than waring with them. The Russian's is a big reason the war was won in Europe. Don't let American propaganda make you think it was America who did all the work. The Russian's did way more than any other country did during WW2.

2007-02-03 03:01:59 · answer #3 · answered by My Lord . 2 · 0 0

the debate between the "evilness" of Hitler and stalin does not lie only in pure mathematical casuality numbers.

Between 1924 and 1953, Stalin (and the rest of the USSR executive power) made a series of catastrophic decisions for his population. Starting during the soviet civil war, the collectivisation and farm-taxing caused famines all over western Russia and Ukraine, of which five to six million peple died. Political executions, gulags and the Great purge of 1936-1939 made probably another 4-5 million deaths. Military Stupidity during world war 2 surely cased the stupid death of millions of soldiers. So it is sure that in numbers Stalin was worse than Hitler.

On the other side, Hitler, as one of my predecessor mentionned, started the war itself, a war that made 45 to 60 million deaths (Some historians think that the war was unevitable tho). Also, there is no doubt about the facts of the Holocaust, regardless of what some people say. A total of 6 million jews and 1 other million people of other minorities were exterminated in the concentration and death camps.

What might qualify Hitler as worse than Stalin is the way those killings were made. Hitler (or more Eichmann) industrialised those massacre, something never done by no one else. A whole asset of the german economy was converted to serve the holocaust. Killing operations and machines were refined so they could obtain maximum productivity (see the deep evilness and inhumanity in this)

So well this question cannot be answered in fact. We are trying to quantify evilness wich is something impossible. at that level, both men had lost the moral sense that makes us more than blobs of flesh and bones.

2007-02-02 17:17:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Hitler and Stalin were very much similar, they were even in alliance (poland anyone?) but Stalin helped bring about the defeat of germany so the world turned a blind eye. Similar to how nobody in the U.N cared that Saddam used nerve gas on Iran becasue Iran was so hated in the world.
The George Bush reference is off though, i hate the guy as well but i don't think he's anything like a dictator, he is not above the constitution, so lets show him what the law is all about!

2007-02-10 06:09:56 · answer #5 · answered by Woody 2 · 0 0

On the Bush note, he is just a mislead man who is trying to please everyone and is failing miserably. Leave the guy alone. We only have one more year with him, and then, you'll have a new president to bash and throw about.

On the Hitler note...

In the Bible, God says his people will be persecuted.

He targeted the weak, the minority. He was evil incarnate. As was Stalin. But Genocide hits more to home.

Besides, no-one denies Stalin's evil. But there are a bunch of reformists that say Hitler never did that and that the Holocaust is the biggest hoax in history.

That's rather depressing. Also, there are many racists out there. What Hitler did was comparable to Stalin, but Hitler... he targeted people.

Stalin was paranoid, and probably schizophrenic.

2007-02-02 16:57:22 · answer #6 · answered by Rae 1 · 1 0

Stalin was a Communist Dictator, Hitler was a Nationalist Dictator,yes they both killed for the States good and National Security reasons. It wasn't really good, but look at the numbers, after the purges of Stalin and the Death Camps of Hitlers Regime, there economies flourished.
There was some method to the madness, not that I agree or condone the taking of innocents lives for the greater good of a nation, but that is the way things work. Do not email your Islamic freinds, do not call your Serbian Aunt, do not read that book at the Public Library, it could be burned on the morrow.

2007-02-02 15:48:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Well, Hitler and Stalin have more in common than both being ruthless dictators. They both believed in socialism, the idea that it was the individuals duty to serve the state. Instead of the state's job to protect individual rights.

In fact Stalin went along with Hilter and signed a non-agression pact. Which included dividing up Poland after Germany invaded it. They were birds of a feather. Stalin used the terminology of fascist in a obvious attempt to distinguish the communism of the USSR from the socialism of the National Socialist Party (Nazi's).

2007-02-02 15:40:07 · answer #8 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 1 0

Agreed. Hitler is more generally remembered in part because Stalin(ism) is supposedly no longer a threat. Hitler, as an idea of Fascist Suprematists is still floating around in the minds of people that are easily misled (which is most of us). The question also boils down to, which of these tyrants would you be afraid to live under. Stalin was more "human-like" in his motives while Hitler, with his death camps had a set agenda. Thats a scarry idea.

-----

The truth about Bush won't be known for quite sometime (although he has already bought land in argentina -- where there is no extradition. lol). But 68% of the population no longer trust his sincerity. So his motives for our being there, sacrificing thousands of lives, is scary. Bush might turn out to be a very human person, but he is as responsible for the disinformation out there as anyone.

2007-02-09 06:25:19 · answer #9 · answered by Howard K 2 · 0 0

I consider them both 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 two, both were evil, both put people in concentration camps, both committed genocide, both were dictators, both...well you get the picture. The one factor Hitler had over Stalin tho, Hitler was insane. Stalin was just angry and 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.

It is my conclusion that Hitler may be the 'evil-er" of them all, but comparing the them is ludicrous, now that i think about it, so just forget about it!

2007-02-02 15:56:37 · answer #10 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0 0

Everyone know's about Hitler because he is the poster boy for the jews.

Stalin takes a back-seat because so many jews were invoved in the communist party in Russia.

Hitler viewed communism as the arch enemy of Europe and believed most jews were bolsheviks and enemies of the state, hence the concentration camps. Sort of like what America did to people of Japanese ancestery.

Plus, Hitler lost the war, the victors get to write the history books.

2007-02-02 16:12:05 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers