We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Hitler vs Stalin
| 313 | 51414 |
(I don't think this topic was made yet).
I made this topic because people in the "Hitler vs Lenin" topic said they would have preferred this (Hitler vs Stalin).
So post what you think... I think Hitler was the better and smarter man.
http://www.noshame.org/scripts/yancey050429.htm
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=77830
- 313 Replies
Technically speaking Stalin ordered the execution and outright caused the deaths of far more people than Hitler, which in itself makes him worse I should think.
We shouldn't put a degree on evil based on the quantity of deaths. Furthermore, Hitler wiped out 6 million in cold blood, and started WWII, which arguably, caused much more damage than Stalin.
We shouldn't put a degree on evil based on the quantity of deaths. Furthermore, Hitler wiped out 6 million in cold blood, and started WWII, which arguably, caused much more damage than Stalin.
While I agree that you can't measure the two based on the number of deaths, history has had a weird way of publicising Hitler's crimes against humanity and the people he murdered in cold blood, whilst leaving Stalin's murderous rampage seems to go unmentioned. Stalin managed to kill almost double that of Hitler, with 12 million deaths being attributed to Hitler, almost 23 million to Stalin.
Stalin and Hitler though are almost insignificant when compared to Mao Ze-Dong who is estimated to have killed between 49 to 78 million people. Nobody knows for absolute certainty because during Ze-Dong's Great Leap Forward, he brutalised an estimated 45 million Chinese peasants in just 4 years alone, beating them to death, starving them to death and the records kept of these atrocities didn't take into account state retributions for petty crimes. Remembering that Ze-Dong was in office for 33 years and he is recorded as once wiping out a village of 13,000 people for disagreeing with him, who knows what the true figure could be.
In the West we concentrate very much on the effect Hitler had on Europe and America, but we tend not to learn too much about Stalin's cold-blooded extermination of anyone he deemed to be a problem or Ze-Dong's relentless drive that led to Chinese peasants being forced to work outside completely naked, despite it being the middle of winter. Those deemed too old or too ill to work were banned from the official state-run canteen and left to starve to death.
In short, I don't think you can argue who caused more damage to their population or others, just as you can't quantify evil based purely on the numbers killed or brutalised.
WWII which is ultimately, Hitler's creation killed off 70 million people. Just saying.
WWII which is ultimately, Hitler's creation killed off 70 million people. Just saying.
Indirectly.
And it could be argued that of the 25 million killed in Russia, more would have died as Stalin wouldn't have had to keep people alive to use as cannon fodder on the frontline.
Hitler is estimated to have killed 12 million directly, but we do focus heavily on him and ignore the butcherings dealt out by Stalin, and certainly the mass murders sanctioned by Ze-Dong.
more would have died as Stalin wouldn't have had to keep people alive to use as cannon fodder on the frontline.
To clarify, more would have died had Hitler not been around. I was typing quickly and forgot that even though I knew what I meant, others wouldn't.
And yet humans STILL overpopulate the Earth. Too bad we can't get rid of more people. Then perhaps we wouldn't be wiping out countless other species with our expansion of settled areas.
We don't actually overpopulate if you mean we're short on resources.
We don't actually overpopulate if you mean we're short on resources.
Not having enough resources to properly sustain a population IS "overpopulation", and unless the more developed nations suddenly reduce their usage of critical resources and divert the excess to third-world nations ASAP then yep, we're screwed.
Oh, and let's not forget the massive overuse of land we arrogant monkeys seem to feel is our right. Not only are we driving indigenous species to extinction, but by expanding our settled areas we are reducing the amount of land available for food production and speeding us toward critical levels of overpopulation.
It's always interesting to me that so many people look at numbers of deaths and feel as if something horrible has happened. Certainly the circumstances around these events could be considered tragic, however consider what may have taken place had these purges not occurred.
Russia was at state in which an overwhelming percentage of the population was living under conditions of near starvation and there wasn't enough wood or coal for them to all keep warm. Had the population not been thinned as it was it is likely that starvation, exposure, and disease would have killed nearly as many, if not more.
Germany was in similar conditions due to strict rationing in order to keep their massive military properly supplied. Citizens in many of the poorer areas were reduced to eating the leather from their shoes, rats, and other extreme food sources. How would those 6 million Jews have fared on their own in these conditions?
Just remember that simply because something seems tragic doesn't mean that it isn't necessary, or even beneficial, in some cases.
We produce enough to feed everyone.
A death is a death, and it still is horrible, even though if those deaths did not occur, we would be suffering now. In Russia's case, the peasants were forced to give up the grain they produced to feed the urban folk, and hence they died, instead of the city people. It was just a swap.
And in Germany's case, pre-WWII, Hitler managed to deliver millions of jobs and feed millions of people compared to the Weimar Republic. Things were beginning to get better until the war arrived.
Not having enough resources to properly sustain a population IS "overpopulation", and unless the more developed nations suddenly reduce their usage of critical resources and divert the excess to third-world nations ASAP then yep, we're screwed.
We need that to happen, but as it is, we have enough resources to go around at this point in time.
Oh, and let's not forget the massive overuse of land we arrogant monkeys seem to feel is our right.
And why can't we do that in the natural world? Of course we should increase our protection of other species, but species have always been going extinct, survival of the fittest.
We need that to happen, but as it is, we have enough resources to go around at this point in time.
Certainly. At least for now. However let's consider the logistics of getting those resources where they need to be.
And why can't we do that in the natural world? Of course we should increase our protection of other species, but species have always been going extinct, survival of the fittest.
Because humans don't have any natural checks against their proliferation. This results in dangerous population growth and damages the ecosystem. While it IS survival of the fittest, we may not be the fittest if we are destroying everything we need to survive. Sure, we could occupy the entire surface of the Earth, and some day we may. But then where do the rest of the flora and fauna reside? And if they are gone how will we sustain ourselves? Cannibalism? Artificial nutrition?
Because humans don't have any natural checks against their proliferation.
Isn't it strange that overpopulation is caused by the proliferation of people in the poorer countries yet the majority of resources isn't used by them? It's not just the richer countries who cause the problems.
Oh, and artificial nutrition is an expanding field, making food directly out of chemicals and such.
Isn't it strange that overpopulation is caused by the proliferation of people in the poorer countries
Not at all. Poor people can't afford education (especially sexual education), contraceptives, medicine, or anything else which we take for granted. This is precisely why we see the number of offspring a couple has tends to decrease proportionate to their education levels and income. Basically more educated and well-off couples realize the costs of reproduction and can take measures to not bear more children than they can reasonably support.
Isn't it strange that overpopulation is caused by the proliferation of people in the poorer countries.
overpopulation is caused by beter health care. where they choped of some1's leg while awake. because it is broken in many places. and then the guy bleeds to death in the middle ages. to fixing your leg whitout scars and a recovery of just 4 months whit days knowlets.
untill 17-1800 there was very little known about actual medcine.
+ the work people did back then was harder then what we are used to today. theirs bodys broke sooner then ours.
all this was keeping the population @ around 1 - 2 billion for atleast a few 1000 year.
then we got beter at health care and the population rises whit 5 billion in about 200-250 year.
i know of world wars becouse i am from Poland but Stalin??
i have no clue
You must be logged in to post a reply!