2007-06-28 23:24:11 · 9 answers · asked by MSz. SLiM 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Stalin caused the deaths of more people but he was in power for longer (1926-53) Hitler's aims were more evil than Stalin's though - the creation of an empire ruled by a master race is more evil than the aim of creating a socialist state where all people are in theory equal.
2007-06-29 00:04:32 · answer #1 · answered by greebo 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Even though I agree with starstdnt's answer in perspective, there's whats right for, and what morally correct for. I think leaders are supposed to lead by example, showing the true goodness for others to emulate.
As far as who was move evil, it depends on your interpretation of evil. Both had their cons before the power was given to do what they did.
Hitler:
Was voted into his power 7 years before the war. Started influencing the youth as young as 3 years old before the war even started. Wrote "Mein Kampf" in prison and tried to find a solution to the "Jewish Problem" before the war, before his ascension?
Stalin:
Was also voted into power. Took advantage of an easily corruptible form of government. While taking advantage, ensured his ascension into domination of his people. Had an agenda and followed it to his grave.
Both of these leaders were geniuses of their time. Consider this, if these men weren't voted into the powers they were given, would they have been such a destructive force? I don't think so, I think had whoever Hitler ran against had used Hitler's shortcomings a little better, Hitler could have been labelled an eccentric. Same with Stalin, he took his power but any other russian in his place could have done the same.
So evil is what evil is given in this case. They both were voted in, years before the trajedies they inflicted. So, I don't think it was just them that were evil.
If I had to pick one though, it would be Hitler, only on the sole reason that he didn't just sway people to think the way he did, he bullied and programed people that way with Gestapo and Hitler Youth.
2007-06-29 07:44:28 · answer #2 · answered by thamm1979 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hitler and Stalin were only "voted" into power through intimidation and corrupt polling. At one point in time, Hitler was getting 98% or so of the German vote. Sure, why not, if voting Social Democrat got you maimed or killed?
Both were evil...not much more to say than that.
2007-06-29 08:45:26 · answer #3 · answered by Lauren M 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hitlers ideology was to export it and subjugate the world. Stalin never got it out of his own country. Hilter wowed his people over to it Stalin beat them into it. Hitlers ability to get it out has a more evil ring to it.
2007-06-29 07:19:44 · answer #4 · answered by ThorGirl 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well, it's like comparing criminal A with criminal B. I suppose that the Western world has been more directly affected by Hitler and are more familiar with his crimes. There are more movies, documentaries, etc. on Hitler than on Stalin.
Which does not make him any better than his Austrian counterpart.
2007-06-29 07:41:17 · answer #5 · answered by Letizia 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think Hitler was straight plain evil stalin was ruthless.
2007-06-29 06:32:17 · answer #6 · answered by Timothy S 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hitler any day of the week
2007-06-29 15:35:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Each thought they were doing what was right to accomplish for their people. Perhaps "evil" is held in the eye of the beholder?
2007-06-29 06:31:14 · answer #8 · answered by punk bitch piece of shit 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
they are opposite sides of the same evil coin. both are evil because they caused the deaths of millions of people
2007-06-29 06:35:45 · answer #9 · answered by oldguy 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋