Are us newer generation folk going to end up desecrating history?!
Some certainly will. If the internet didn't exist, about 99% of recorded history would be forgotten quickly (within a generation or two), or incorrectly retold.
Oh, without the internet, history has always been retold incorrectly. That's why we need historians to discern based on various accounts, rather than let, say Bede tell us everything about the Saxon period.
Both were corrupt, used a newer generation to support him, had a smooth talking propaganda system, and killed people who opposed him.
In the economic sense, I would vote for Hitler, he helped the economy. Also, I heard that Hitler was the son of an abusive WWI general, so I would say he is more educated (he was an art school reject, though). While Stalin ruined the economy, and he was less educated.
In the death count, Stalin killed more of his own men :P
In the economic sense, I would vote for Hitler, he helped the economy. Also, I heard that Hitler was the son of an abusive WWI general, so I would say he is more educated (he was an art school reject, though).
Hitler was the son of a customs officer. Hitler kept his world view very stunted and narrow, but Stalin was hugely well read.
And Hitler only boosted the economy by militarizing it, making cheap labour based jobs that went to construction what Stalin did eventually was to turn a devastated post WWI Russia into a major industrial power.
Are you kidding me? Both were terrible monsters, and saying that Hitler was nice, even relative to Stalin is a little insensitive.
That is probably the most outrageous statement I have ever heard. Compared to each other, both are horrible monstrosities! Stalin murdered his own men, and Hitler went on a rampage across Europe committing genocidal acts against Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and pretty much everyone who didn't look "right."
Neither was nice, but at least Hitler cared for his own people, except for Jews. Stalin was too paranoid and turned on his own followers frequently.
Well he cared for his people provided they shared his beliefs. During World War II, the only reason Hitler was able to penetrate as far into Russia as he did was because Stalin in his paranoia had decimated the officer corp of the Red Army.
Both were monsters, Stalin just didn't allow the free experimentation on people that Hitler did, then again we know almost nothing of the purges so that might not be true.
Erm no Emperor. Unless you're telling me Germna Jews, German homosexuals and German communes who were all shot or rounded up aren't Germans. Hitler didn't exactly care for his people if they didn't fit into his own world view.
I don't argue that Hitler didn't have charisma, I argued that he didn't need it. Anyone with a decent speaking voice, providing they had the right speeches, could have whipped up the frenzy with the German people at the time. All Hitler did was take advantage of the economic situation and the gullibility of foreign leaders such as Chamberlain.
Hitler was a nice guy compared to Stalin
You're joking right? They were both equally capable of butchering their own people to reach their egotistical goals, both capable of mass murder and both ruled with fear once they had a grip of power.
The main thing that separated Hitler and Stalin was that Hitler picked specific targets among his own population, whereas Stalin didn't care what political beliefs people had or religions for that matter, he would kill for the sake of making a point. Millions upon millions died in forced labour camps and starvation under Stalin, and it is often forgotten that a week before Germany invaded Poland, Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler in exchange for half of Poland being under Russian control.
As I said in a previous post, they were both monsters so it is impossible to choose which is worse (or visa versa). They both murdered millions of people, they both enslaved people but unfortunately only one got what he really deserved at the end of WW2.
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.
That's not exactly true Dewi, charisma was definitely necessary, the aftermath of WWI left German in shambles that much is true, however this was the perfect breeding ground for radicals and Hitler was far from the only one. Communists, Marxists, Fascists, Anarchists, they all appeared, Hitler was the only one who gave the people a group to blame, that required charisma, to inflame people, to convince them that their own neighbors and friends were scum.
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.
