Hitler vs. Stalin ;was Stalin as bad as Hitler?

Question

as time moves on,and more and more information is reveavled we seem to be elevating Stalin into the Hitler range;is this justified?is he worse?
he did kill more and affect people longer

why don't we "Hate " Stalin more than we do?I've read testamonials on the two engineered faminies he ordered,unbeliveable;parents ATE their childern!!!!!

mike k; what about the" army purges" almost entire officer corp killed,most for no reason,a lot were hero's,they went along and did their job,didn't help them.

Answer 1

Ole Man,
this is a good question. I agree with the sub-question statement that "...we seem to be elevating Stalin into the Hitler range..." Is it justified? Is he worse?

With all of the information now coming out (as you know there is also safety in the distance of time since the death of Stalin and collapse of the USSR) we learn more and more of the horrific lengths Stalin went to in order to maintain his control as Supreme Leader of the USSR. I can only speak for myself when I state that it is really a coin toss in "Stalin (being) as bad as Hitler". On the one hand you have the Stalin "purge" of the 1930's at or about the same time of Hitler's beginning rage toward racial purity within Germany.

Maybe another consideration of discussion should include whether the war on the Eastern Front had "fed" Stalin's madness and ability to maintain power within the USSR. If WW II had not occurred what then would have occurred to the power of Stalin within the borders of the former Soviet Union? The fact that it took the combined efforts of the Allies (on two fronts) to bring down the Third Reich speaks volumes to the power of Nazi Germany. What the Russians did in Prussia following the collapse of the Nazi regime is in my sole view as terrible, horrific, catastrophic, and unwarranted as what the Nazi's did to the millions of Jews, Gypsies, mentally incapcitated, and others between 1933 - 1945.

Placing "Stalin into the Hitler range" is justified in my view and in many ways Stalin was "worse". The Countries that beat the Germans in WW II had as much an obligation to feed, clothe, and protect (yes) innocent civilians following the conclusion of the War as they also had an obligation to mankind to bring to justice (Nuremburg) those criminals who perpetrated crimes against humanity. We made a decent attempt during Nuremburg for the "criminal" aspect of the Third Reich; however, the protection of civilians, the old, women, children, etc., was severely lacking. The Russians were by far the most likely to provide the least amount of basic human services than the other three (America, British, and French) to these same civilians. Germans, Jews, and Poles were killed for their wrist watches and bicycles by members of Stalin's Army.

To me at this point - it is still a "coin toss" on who was worse; however, my view has been swaying to Stalin. In no way do I want that to become interpreted as though Hitler was "OK" - he was NOT. They both represent reasons why I for one hope that there is a "Hell" in existence.

Neutrally yours,
Gerry

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

There's two basic reasons why Stalin is not as hated as Hitler. First he was leader of one of the Allied powers, so the west viewed him as one of the good guys at the time. The second reason is a bit trickier. As much as Stalin was a monster, he did what he did for a purpose. That purpose was to keep himself in power through a combination of terror and simply eliminating any possible threat. Hitler's "Final Solution" and other such programs were simply to kill people for the sake of making them dead. Sure both were nasty people with very little if any morals. But at least with Stalin the killing was a tool instead of a goal. It's not much comfort to his victims, but I think it is part of the reason he is not as reviled as his German counterpart.

Answer 4

In my opinion all brutal dictators earn the justified honour of ending up in the same market segment, whatever politics they profess. Hitler and Pinochet on the one side, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Ceaucescu, on the other. Their sheer brutality and bloodthirsty reaction to the “opposition”, at a certain stage “crosses the line” into infamy. Whatever strategic justification is brought up by their followers and Mao is still considered a “holy cow” in Todays’ “illuminated” China, they squandered human life in a barbarous way. Stalin, in particular killed more Communists than opponents, Stalin and Mao starved entire generations because of their screwy “economical leap forward”; PolPot massacred one entire half of his population on a question of principle.
Dictators are bad. Bad dictators are worse.
In Military terms:
Hitler’s amateur antics on the Eastern Front cost him the War. Had he not squandered resources on his “idiotic, barbaric brain child” – the destruction of World Judaism”, had he not employed his Sondereinheiten in occupied territories, where thousands of locals greeted the “Front Line liberators”; had he treated the Eastern people as equals and granted a full autonomy to the ethnic minorities; had he not emasculated the German Officer Corps, he would have won hands down. But then he would not have been a Nazi; he would not have been Hitler.
Stalin’s numerous purges nearly completed the destruction of the Red Army without a shot being fired. His sacrifice of millions of troops was criminal. His belief in the “fair play” of his ally Hitler (too many forget the Hitler/Stalin pact to cut up Poland and bring back the Baltic states to the Commie fold) and discounting of the spy Sorge’s warnings was, to say the least “naive”. His merits ? He gave the Russian people that “steely backbone”, a mixture of fear and faith, that enabled them to resist, “learn the Blitzkrieg” from the Wehrmacht, fight back and through sheer sacrifice and a generous US War Aid, finally conquer the enemy.
My verdict: on ethical and moral terms both Stalin and Hitler are in the same black league.
In Military terms Stalin wins out; he learnt from his mistakes and ultimately, at the cost of the barbaric subjugation of the entire Eastern part of Europe for 50 years (1939-1989), gave the decisive contribution to free Western Europe from the Nazi peril and allowed the Jewish survivors the chance to create their own homeland.

Answer 5

If you can make any kind of distiction between the two, it may be that Stalin was more "hands on". Hitler delegated others to come up with the details for murder while Stalin was a little more creative and didn't need any other sickos to come up with the gory details of who, what, and where. Both were poor excuses for a human.

Answer 6

"worse" is subjective. He was certainly as brutal- if not more so. Hitler did have some limits that he wouldn't breach- Stalin had none. In fact Hitler didn't butcher his countrymen to the extent that Stalin did either.

Why doesn't Stalin get the vilification that Hitler did? Because history is written by the winner.

Call them "brothers in evil"

Answer 7

Stalin definitely rates right up there with Hitler. His "megalomania" killed many of his own people and for no good reason other than speaking against him. Just as Hitler did. He wiped out whole villages of his people just because they belonged to an ethnic group that largely resented "collectivism". Who was worse?
I was not there...I honestly could not say for sure. At least the Germans kept very good records of whom they slaughtered. The Russians did not. Who is to say how many died at their hands?

Answer 8

I don't think Stalin is as bad as Hitler. Stalin is WORSE than Hitler. Stalin killed his own Russian people BUT Hitler only killed Jewish people which is not of his own race/religion. The reason Stalin killed more people is because Stalin ruled Russia in a much longer period of time than Hitler did in Germany.

Answer 9

If you will notice in history, that so many or most persons who gained power and killed millions were christian or had been at one time in the their life. This applies to both Hitler and Stalin. Hitler attended a catholic school as a young boy and Stalin actually studied to become a priests. Stalin killed more of his own people that Hitler killed in the wars.

Answer 10

Hard to say who was worse or more brutal.

But while most people who are answering attribute only about 7,000,000 deaths to Hitler (those killed in concentration camps) what about the many millions who died across Europe as the result of the general war started by Hitler. An estimated 20+ Million Russians died during WWII alone.

And while we are talking about murderous dictators during 20th century, what about Mao Zedong? He was responsible for 10's of millions of Chinese deaths as the result of his "great leap forward" and the "cultural revolution".