We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Hitler vs Stalin
| 313 | 51419 |
(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
death camps are actually an economic burden unlike
Actually there is no proof of this. Stalin, leading a superpower, had some level of international reputation he had to save. All jails, death camps, etc, in the Soviet Union, Germany, or even the US were economic burdens.
I'm sure that nazi camps were probably harsher, though.
3-front war
Well, Italy did a bunch of the Africa fighting -- and nobody really cared about it. The only real front that mattered was Russia's. When he lost that, the other two fronts opened. Otherwise, the world would have been in it for a long war if successful German troops came back from the East and marched all over the West.
for all of his 'genius' he attacked in the
He was conserving resources for the German winter up ahead. He assumed that the poorly trained/equipped Soviet army would fall before winter. [Which, in the last few years, had equaled germanys industrial capacity, but I guess he didn't know about that]
It was ego, not lack of genius. It's just that after he failed he kept trying to stop the Russians, who had added another 5 Million to their squad and by then it was all over.
It's tough.
Hitler had the systematic killings, but was a great tactician with blitzkrieg. Until he invaded the Soviet Union. But thats another story.
Stalin had a huge empire, but killed 20 million people...over twice as many as Hitler.
Lenin gets my vote.
Lenin gets my vote.
Why? I like Lenin! You didn't even give any ideas as to why you think he's worse.
I mean, he was a revolutionary, his groups name was cool (Bolshevik), he's the man that put Communism to practice. [Not saying he was a Saint but still...compared to the other two]
but was a great tactician with blitzkrieg
It wasn't him, it was generals he had like Rommel.
Himself he did huge military mistakes like the "not 1 step back" strategies that were a disaster. The worst mistake he did I think was his obsession with Stalingrad just because of its name. When he invaded USSR, in the middle of an advance he changed his movements from having targets like Oil fields to this city and never gave it up. Later he was so stuck and obsessed with it that he didn't pay attention to the rest of the front and the Russians advanced from other directions, outflanking Stalingrad and everyone there completely.
he had to save. All jails, death camps, etc, in the Soviet Union, Germany, or even the US were economic burdens.
I'm sure that nazi camps were probably harsher, though.
Proof? And last I checked the US has never had death camps, we couldn't stand on our moral high horse if we did.
All jails, death camps, etc, in the Soviet Union, Germany, or even the US were economic burdens.
Not true, Gollags actually produced stuff.
Proof? And last I checked the US has never had death camps, we couldn't stand on our moral high horse if we did.
Sorry, I meant to type 'or even the jails in the US'. Don't know what happened.
Not true, Gollags actually produced stuff.
Never enough to outweigh the costs of running them.
Also, sabotage was quite common in Gulags. Fires were commonplace in a Gulag located in a forest.
Also, even though I know it is in your best interest to make the holocaust look as bad as it ever could. Nazi camps were not just sitting death sectors. Hitler wasn't an idiot to just throw money away in efforts to kill people slowly. Here's one of many examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelbau-Dora#Dora_conditions
This Nazi camp made Rockets. [and had a bunch of people die in it, but it still made rockets]
Even extermination camps, such as Belzec, still produced defensive brick lines and anti-tank ditch. [Which is where you get your assumption that all the prisoners did there was carry dirt around from place to place]
Well those don't produce any tangible asset for the country. Granted it is for defense purposed however it is pointless labor. What point is an anti-tank ditch in a concentration camp.
Even extermination camps, such as Belzec, still produced defensive brick lines and anti-tank ditch.
I don't know what wiki has to say about this but i visited a work camp in western europe and yea, the only thing other then carrying rocks that went on there was a torture room and a firing line for execution.
Death camps had gas chambers and furnaces, its only in some work camps that weapons or other things were built. The strong people were sent to those places and the weak people to the rest of the places.
Gollags were far more productive, even if it still cost to maintain (not sure about that but ok) it still produced something.
I'll stop posting here anyway
Stalin killed far more of his own soldiers and people, as outlined by the Emperor in his post above, but I believe Hitler was more cunning. He managed to stealthily gain control of an entire nation whereas Stalin needed the building ideas of previous leaders and ultimately brute force to gain control.
Something interesting: Hitler purposely had a facade laid during the 1936 Olympics in Germany. By that time, Nazi tyranny had been fully underway. However, Hitler had the Nazis lay off for a while and make everything seem normal and peaceful to convince other nations that nothing was askew in Germany. During the 1936 Olympics, the U.S. also missed an important chance to boycott, which would have possibly caused Hitler to pause in his takeover.
Interesting, the WW2 time period is.
Hitler wasn't exactly covert about his rise to power, in fact his demands for pieces of Czechoslovakia and the subsequent appeasement was international news.
The strong people were sent to those places and the weak people to the rest of the places.
Gollags were far more productive, even if it still cost to maintain (not sure about that but ok) it still produced something.
I never said the Gulags were less productive/harsh. I was only correcting the fact that you said Nazi camps were just these pointless buildings made to kill people. I mean, if I was a heartless genocide machine, I wouldn't build a camp for the guy I was about to kill for no reason.
During the 1936 Olympics, the U.S. also missed an important chance to boycott, which would have possibly caused Hitler to pause in his takeover.
That might have been bad. It could have slowed Russia's industrialization process and the buildup of arms for the USA as investments slowed down.
Besides, Jessie Owens probably made Hitler cry and shoot a bunch of German athletes that day. So it was worth it
appeasement
Yeah, everyone just sat on the appeasement boat,[Like the Munich accords] not wanting to actually accuse Germany of anything since the Depression happened and the Germans are, and have always been pretty much, a scary bunch when it comes to war. Its good though that France and Britain ended appeasement when they finally set their no-crossing line at Poland
You must be logged in to post a reply!