Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stalin by far and not only because of the death and misery he created during his lifetime but also the death and misery after he died.
Everyone already referenced the purges, executions, starvation of people, etc...
But I didn't see anyone mention how Stalin propped up the regimes of China and North Korea. Those regime stood only because of Stalin backing and I lay the millions of those deaths on Stalin as well. If he hadn't propped up Mao after WWII, I do not think China would've turned out the way they did with Mao in charge of the country.
I think there would be Korea now if it weren't for the efforts of the Stalin and Mao (whom Stalin made, IMO). Both Stalin and Mao knew there was no way Kim Il Sung could've won without their help. It's because of Stalin and Mao that there are 2 Korea's today, that so many families are still separated and that millions have been executed, starved to death or sent to hard labor.
I hope Stalin is rotting in hell not just for what he did but also for the domino effects of his actions.
Army_Guy brings up a point that I ( and probably most other posters) hadn't considered.
Yes, the reign of Hitler( North Korea ) is still felt today and still in the headlines.
The only thing worse then these pointless debates popping up over and over as to which of two of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century was more brutal; is the people who choose to engage in the debate with either an obvious agenda and/or not a single clue what they are talking about.
This is the latest thread that I participated in on this particular discussion. My first post is #88 which covers a wide variety of topics that had been getting debated in that thread including what is the actual information behind the numbers that people are quoting with the deaths.
Since the number of deaths appears to be one of the more controversial topics in this thread then I will summarize that part again.
Hitler is blamed for approximately 11 million deaths during the Holocaust. This includes approximately 6 million Jews from various nations and an additional 5 million which included everyone from the disabled to homosexuals to Roma to political prisoners to victims of ethnic cleansing like Poles and Russians. This is the most quoted and currently considered the most accurate number used. Precise numbers are impossible to determine, but "11 million" is the median number accpeted by historians.
Now, Stalin has some wildly large numbers associated with him, but people quoting them in this thread have no idea what the source, breakdown or reasoning of those numbers is. Several sources, including books such as Bloodlands, point to a number of around 20 million. This is how they reach that number based on four policies/actions of Stalin:
a. Holodmor: 2.4 - 7.5 million people.
b. Gulags: 1.75 - 2.75 million people.
c. Purges: 700k directly, but many of the gulag deaths were the end result of purges as well.
That gives us anywhere from around 5 - 11 million deaths for those three categories, obviously wide ranging. The remainder of the deaths are from the final topic, collectivization. No one really knows how many people died as a result of the collectivization policies of Stalin. The estimate is that around 10 million died during the process of collectivization. This is based primarily on census data that shows that there were 21 million less people living on farms post-collectivization, but that the urban population had only increased by around 12 million. The missing people are considered "deaths". This is the central part of Boris Borisov's critique of people quoting these numbers and is valid (details on what the critique is at the other thread I linked). The census numbers show that there may be a "missing 10 million", but that does not mean that 10 million actually died or that if they did that the deaths were caused by Stalin and/or his policies. Overall, most modern research based on Soviet archives settles on a number of around 6-8 million civilians killed by Stalin in the pre-war years.
So, there you have it, the academic numbers and reasoning behind them. Now none of that gets into WW2 of course and one could make a strong case of placing all of that death and destruction, at least in Europe, on the shoulders of Hitler. However, blame cannot be Hitler's alone and all nations had a hand in allowing things to develop as they did. Hitler should have been pimp slapped the moment he sent troops into the Rhineland and he should have never been appeased at Munich. So, let's just consider WW2 in Europe a general failure of western civilization and spread the blame around.
Blaming Stalin for Mao, Korea, etc. is also a fools errand. Why don't we blame Lenin for Stalin or Marx and Engels for their philosophy or Wilhelm II for shipping Lenin back to Russia? Lot's of blame to go around. The simple reality is that China had long been engaged in a Civil War and it was probably the Japanese that did more to prop up the communist cause then any other by invading China. China would have attempted to exert influence over Korea regardless and even a non-communist Russia would have been a geo-political rival to the US post-WW2.
In the other thread I felt compelled to give an answer to whom was worse and this is my logic on picking Hitler. The Nazi intent was to eliminate people based on racial ideology. The Soviet intent was that these people were "casualties" in the race for modernization and achieving communism and/or protecting Stalin's hold on power. A Jew could have been an ardent Nazi and still be killed for being a Jew. People who were ardent Stalinists, feared nothing. I understand, that is splitting hairs and both were brutal, but there is a difference there in terms of intent. So, based on that intent I would say Hitler as his victims were killed simply for who they were, not what they did. Again though, this is all splitting hairs.
*******
@Cerebrator...
You've posted a lot of dribble and I don't want to take the time to go back through everything you posted and deconstruct your arguments in detail since it is patently obvious that everyone knows your just spouting off. These types of theories based on fantasy and selective facts may be "fan favorites" on Stormfront, but they will not get you far on this forum. You have made one gross colossal blunder that destroys any credibility you may have had and that was mentioning the supposed "Bromberg Massacre" and then going on to quote a number of "58,000" deaths. Yac already asked you to provide a source, which I know you cannot do, because even Stormfront and it's sham IIHR academic front don't come anywhere close to the numbers you claim. Most of these sites now claim around 1,000-5,500 deaths and even that is a gross exaggeration.
The event spun as the "Blomberg Massacre" by the Nazi's and now repeated by modern neo-Nazi's and Hitler apologists attempting to justify the invasion of Poland is tied to an event called "Bloody Sunday". The FIRST thing that should be mentioned about this event and has not been pointed out by anyone is that it occurred on September 3rd, 1939...two days AFTER the German invasion of Poland. The actual chain of events is unclear, but most estimates of death end up in the 100-500 range. One story is that retreating Polish army units came under fire from "German partisans" in the town and they then returned fire to clear the town. This eventually culminated in some lynchings and shootings. This version also includes the claim that at least some of the deaths are attributable to the Luftwaffe who bombed the town while the Polish army was there. The other claim is that while retreating the Polish army simply took out its anger on the local German population. Either way, the total death estimates don't reach more than 500 people.
The event was immediately siezed upon by Hitler who had long been using ethnic German strife in Poland as a propaganda tool. The bodies were laid out and journalists trotted by. It was used as a "why we fight" propaganda piece for the Nazi's replete with "terrifying tales" of survivors. Amazing that nearly 75 year old Nazi propaganda can still dupe some people.
Of course, Stalin.
Stalin killed his own people, Hitler other nationalities (and Jews).
Stalin killed more as well. He caused the World's biggest population expulsion in modern history: 12 millions of Germans have been expelled, many of whom were killed on their way, Poles too. Almost half of Germany's territory was given away to Poland (Eastern Prussia and Koenigsberg have been German for more than 800 years, Schlesien and Oppole as well as eastern Brandenburg were detached from Germany and annexed to Poland).
Stalin did not only kill people but also killed the culture and centuries of historical heritage (all sights, palaces and castles in Prussia and territories that were German at that time have been demolished, this is horror for me). Its just too sad that the map of Europe was redrawn the way Stalin wanted and that Germany lost all those territories. I know many Germans whom grandparents have been raised in those lost territories. For me, even if one hast lost the war, the punishment shouldn't be on territories that belong to that country for centuries.
If Hitler wouldn't have killed the Jews, I do not think he would have been considered that horrible dictator, in first place.
If so, what will then differ him from Napoleon, for instance? I do not consider the wars that Hitler did as a dictatorship, rather only himself being racist.
During the 19th century, weapons were not modern, technology was modest, radios and medias were not available, that is why what Napoleon and many European rulers did at that time was still acceptable compared to Hitler (of course if all this would have been available during the times of Napoleon, he would have done way worse than what he actually did). Plus, since Medias were not present, his atrocities have not been shared with the public as during the times of Hitler. Medias matter! If they did not exist during Hitler times, lets say, he wouldn't have been described that horrible by the people. Remember Titus, the roman emperor, who killed and expelled all the Jews from Palestine! What makes him different from Hitler, in this scenario?
What here do you have a problem with? What did I say wrong? Why not argue straight up with me rather than ad hominem attacks? So far all people have used are ad hominem attacks.
Re-read the saying I quoted and you will understand why am not engaging you in further discussion.
Re-read the saying I quoted and you will understand why am not engaging you in further discussion.
It's because you can't with actual debate. Instead you respond with a saying.
As for the other person NJ regarding the inaccuracy of 58,000 Germans dying in the Bromberg Massacre, perhaps I have the number wrong. It is the number I have read the most and I am not a historian, so I might stand corrected, just like the number 6,000,000 is used the most in estimating the number of Jews who died under National Socialist rule, even though the estimate listed at Auschwitz for those who perished there has been reduced from 4 million to 1 million, which if that is true, should have the total estimate of dead Jews to 3 million. But whatever the difference, Jews, many of whom were innocent, died and YES, were MISTREATED.
However, I do believe that it occurred BEFORE WWII and it is true that Germans were experiencing persecution in Poland and were forced into refugee camps. But it is a massacre that DID happen. You know, similar to the massacres of Jews, some innocent and some others evil Bolsheviks, that happened in Latvia, Ukraine, and Lithuania. Innocent people of ANY race dying is a tragedy!
So you attribute ALL of my writing here to be dribble because I have ONE statistic, a NUMBER, wrong? Because of a number, all the other stuff I speak of is dribble: Hitler's pleas for peace, the Katyn massacre, the Holodomor, etc?
Not only did he start WWII and unleash the horrors of not only the holocaust but invading armies all across Europe, Hitler practiced a deliberate racial cleansing policy. Stalin, for all his horrors and flaws, did not. The brutality of the Red Army as it chased the retreating Nazis was directly in reaction to the terrors the Nazis had unleashed on the Russians when they first invaded the Soviet Union.
Because Stalin and Hitler didn't co-occupy Poland for 18 months together or anything like that. And Stalin never invaded Latvia, lituania, Estonia, Poland, Ukraine, amongst others.
see, all we've ever been taught is the Nazi invation of Poland, the date, the year 1939, then the low countries like Belgium, Holland, etc. Stalin was doing the very same thing at the same time in Eastern Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aliss2
It's going to depend on who you ask I guess.
My family were non-Jewish Hungarians so it was a no-brainer for them, Stalin was hated and they didn't MIND Hitler (something a lot of elderly Hungarians don't seem to be embarrassed of), since they believe he would have brought prosperity to the region and they didn't care much for Jews/communism.
Hitler certainly didn't invent Anti-Semitism. In Romania over a period of 2 days 30,000 Jews were killed, and not by the Nazis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobseeker2013
Hitler was worse. Hitler's plans for Poland, Ukraine and other Slavic countries was total EXTERMINATION with a few uneducated left to do some grunt work for the master race 10-15 years after occupation . We all know about what he did to the Jews. Stalin never had such plans. Hitler is in a class by himself. Sad and disgusting to say, but with Stalin you at least had a chance to live. I have many Polish friends who say Stalin was worse. I always think to myself if Hitler won, they would be dead or not even born. So it's really a choice of living in a brutal communist dictatorship or death.
see" Stalin 1930's, his own people starved to death by the millions for racial and ethnic reasons. You see, it was simply and literally cheaper to starve someone to death than spend money on a bullet.
actually, many people did survive the concentrations camps. they were working camps. Work and mostly you could survive. I hate to break it to everyone but Auschwitz is in no way the be all , end all, of concentration camps. the fact that we have Auschwitz survivors proves this. THousands survived. Dachau was opened 1933, used for fear and intimidation but people were there initially for years without dying in gas chambers.
there were 3 camps in the east, Treblinka, Sorbisor (sp?) etc, they were true death facilties. The only way you survived it was if you were there on the very day the Russians liberated it. The worst camps were in the east which American troops didn't liberate. The Russians liberated the worst camps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keim
Hitler and the Nazi's killed millions of people due to their race, nationality, sexual orientation and a desire for leibenstraum. They weren't at war with the country. They killed them simply because they existed.
I really don't care about what started their rampage.
leibenstraum means nothing in german, your handle (Keim) however, ironically means "germ" in German.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chessgeek
This is the first time I ever heard that about Churchill. As far as Hitler or Stalin, I would probably pick Hitler with the tiebreaker being all the other countries he invaded. He also made speeches about taking over the world for the Aryans. I don't recall Stalin invading other countries or talk about world domination.
see above
Quote:
Originally Posted by aliss2
Stalin "invading" Hungary and other eastern countries was a necessity in terms of fighting the Germans, I wouldn't so much term it as an invasion rather than an opportunistic manner to conquer those who generally cooperated with the German regime ("cooperation" is a loose term as well, my grandfather, 15 at the time, explained to me that you either took up the rifle for the Germans or you were shot, end of).
The Germans were not liked, but the Russians were hated more, it really was a matter of picking your poison. When Stalin made it to Berlin, it was an opportunity seized and more of a conquering rather than invasion.
Americans call the Second World War “The Good War.” But before it even began, America’s wartime ally Josef Stalin had killed millions of his own citizens—and kept killing them during and after the war. Before Hitler was finally defeated, he had murdered six million Jews and nearly as many other Europeans. At war’s end, both the German and the Soviet killing sites fell behind the iron curtain, leaving the history of mass killing in darkness. Bloodlands is a new kind of European history, presenting the mass murders committed by the Nazi and Stalinist regimes as two aspects of a single history, in the time and place where they occurred: between Germany and Russia, when Hitler and Stalin both held power
If there is an explanation for the political killing perpetrated in eastern Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, historian Snyder roots it in agriculture. Stalin wanted to collectivize farmers; Hitler wanted to eliminate them so Germans could colonize the land. The dictators wielded frightening power to advance such fantasies toward reality, and the despots toted up about 14 million corpses between them, so stupefying a figure that Snyder sets himself three goals here: to break down the number into the various actions of murder that comprise it, from liquidation of the kulaks to the final solution; to restore humanity to the victims via surviving testimony to their fates; and to deny Hitler and Stalin any historical justification for their policies, which at the time had legions of supporters and have some even today
"Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin" by Timothy Snyder, is a book about the intentional mass murder of over 14 million people between 1930 and 1947 in a general area that encompasses what is now Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, and western Russia. And by murder, I mean that. As part of that 14 million number, Mr. Snyder counts only those that were outright killed, intentionally starved, or otherwise were put to death outside of military actions or by being worked to death. If you were to include the deaths that could have been predictably forseen as a result of certain actions taken, that number jumps to between 17 and 21 million people who were killed.
The author breaks the killing periods into 5 general subsets ... Stalin starving the Ukrainian kulaks in 1932-1933, Stalin's Great Terror of 1937-1938, Hitler and Stalin murdering and otherwise removing Polish, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Estonian intelligentsias from 1939-1941, Hitler's murdering the Jewish population and "undesirables" of many countries, intentionally starving Russian POWs and Soviet civilians, and executing civilians as part of partisan reprisals in 1941 - 1945, and people who died as a result of forced resettlements in 1945-1947.
While I've read extensively about World War II, I learned a great deal from this book. As one example, there were no purely death camps in Germany proper, the Germans built those in occupied Poland. While there were concentrations camps in Germany and many of these camps contained extermination chambers, their primary function was as forced-labor camps. Personnel assigned to the labor camps had a slim chance of surviving. There were 6 death, or extermination, camps set up in Poland ... Auschwitz, Chelmno, Belzed, Majdanek, Soribor, and Treblinka. Only Auschwitz and Majdanek had labor camps attached to them, the other 4 existed purely to murder people. Of the people who arrived at the death camps other than Auschwitz (and for a time, Jewish prisoners at Majdanek), they were all usually killed within hours of arrival, and of those sent there, only about 100 people saw the inside of the camp and lived to tell of it. At Auschwitz, new arrivals were separated into those who would be killed immediately, and those who would work in the labor camp until they weakened and then they were killed. The survivor's tales from Auschwitz come from those assigned to the labor camps.
This book attempts, with great success, to show the vast scope of death in the bloodlands, and how Hitler's and Stalin's extermination policies were alike and how they differed. He also shows how the Wehrmacht was much more complicit in atrocities than the German soldiers of the time would have liked you to believe, and how international and allied policies overlooked much of the killing for a variety of reasons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
