Who was worse, Stalin or Hitler ?

PatsytheNazi

When I was on holiday in the Czech Republic a few years ago, I had a good chat over a few Budweisers in Prague ( in a pub near the Charles bridge called the James Joyce !!!! ) with a Czech guy who grew up pre 1989. One of the interesting aspects he told me regarding WW2 and the aftermath was that he reckoned that Stalin was worse than Hitler. So what's your opinions folks, Stalin or Hitler and why ?

dpe

If its purely a numbers game; Stalin. Still a lot of old Russians who think he was the mutt's nuts though.

Wouldn't really fancy a pint with either of them.

PatsytheNazi

dpe wrote: »

If its purely a numbers game; Stalin. Still a lot of old Russians who think he was the mutt's nuts though.

Wouldn't really fancy a pint with either of them.

A bit like some people in Britain admiring Thatcher . Seen a documentary with Ross Kemp in Russia. He reported on skinhead gangs with a bizzare ideology (if that's what you could call it) of admiring Hitler and Stalin

Fratton Fred

dpe wrote: »

If its purely a numbers game; Stalin. Still a lot of old Russians who think he was the mutt's nuts though.

Wouldn't really fancy a pint with either of them.

Stalin had longer in power and a convenient smoke screen provided by Hitler. If its done on numbers then a calculation of number of deaths per day might be in order.

It is also worth noting the Stalin didn't industrialise the extermination of people either.

It is a difficult one to call, but I would opt for Hitler.

dpe

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Stalin had longer in power and a convenient smoke screen provided by Hitler. If its done on numbers then a calculation of number of deaths per day might be in order.

It is also worth noting the Stalin didn't industrialise the extermination of people either.

It is a difficult one to call, but I would opt for Hitler.

I thought about the fact that Stalin had longer in power, but the counter to that is all his concentrated nastiness was over maybe ten years from the late twenties to the late thirties, then the war got in the way and he didn't do as much bloodletting in his last seven years afer the war. And while he didn't go in for industrialised murder in the same way as the Nazis, I'm kind of "so what?" about that; it says more about our idiosyncratic attitude towards state sponsored killing than anything else. One thing is for sure, Stalin was a much worse boss to work for.

ValJester

It's a bit Sophie's Choice to be honest as to which of the two was the lesser of two evils.

Zebra3

dpe wrote: »

Wouldn't really fancy a pint with either of them.

You wouldn't have had one with Adolf anyway...

the_bigman

I think Hitler was much worse.

Given the fact he had specific targets for extermination (be it race or sexuality etc), he was the more pathological of the two.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Its hard to say who was worse, really. Possibly Stalin because he was motivated by nothing other than self-advancement and love of power, whereas Hitler appears to have genuinely believed what he was doing was right, terrible as his actions may have been.

dpe

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Its hard to say who was worse, really. Possibly Stalin because he was motivated by nothing other than self-advancement and love of power, whereas Hitler appears to have genuinely believed what he was doing was right, terrible as his actions may have been.

Not sure about that. Stalin was a true-believer in Marxism-Leninism and justified most things he did in those terms - he was doing what had to be done to further the revolution; although at the same time he showed clear psycopathic tendancies in his dealings with those closest to him (including his family). Its not really clear how much the cult of personality around Stalin was driven by the man himself and how much by those around him. He was also fiercely patriotic; despite being Georgian he was a strong Russian nationalist.

I think Stalin certainly had a more cynical streak than Hitler, but that may just be because history reports him that way; cynicism is part of the Russian sense of humour.

Superbus

I think I'd rather have lived under Hitler, but only if I could have my current social standing/religion. Obviously to be a target of Hitler's ire would be worse than a faceless worker in Stalinist Russia, but I suppose AH was the less exterminatory (?) of the two with regards to the population at large, and the standard of living was higher in Germany in the '30s than in Russia at the same time.

If it's a case of the more purely evil, then it's too complicated and blurry for me. The view of Stalin is slightly tainted by his position against the Nazis, who are deservedly put on a pedestal of evilness. But his actions ensured decades of torment for Russian and Eastern European people. So that's a definite tick in the 'negative' column for JS. The actions of Hitler are I suppose more in the public consciousness, and were more specific and hate-filled, in which case AH may be the more evil, as Stalin's executions always seemed to me to be almost aimless, stemming from paranoia and being power-crazed than a directed hatred.

Reekwind

dpe wrote: »

If its purely a numbers game; Stalin

Well not really. If we're looking purely at numbers then Stalin's tally breaks down roughly as follows:

1+ million state executions
2-3 million deaths of prisoners in custody or during deportation
7-8 million deaths due to disastrous economic mismanagement (ie, famine)

This is over a quarter of a century. In contrast Hitler, in the space of a decade, can be accredited with:

6 million Jews
3+ million Soviet POWs
2 million Roma
2 million Poles
1+ million miscellaneous (communists, socialists, disabled persons, homosexuals, etc)
12+ million Soviet civilians
Plus tens of millions others through a war of aggression

There's also a qualitative difference between the two. If the Stalinist regime is guilty of the deaths of 10-12 million people (and there is a discussion as to whether deaths due to famine should be laid at the government's door; compare with the Great Famine here) then only a fraction of these can be said to be purposeful. That is, Stalinist Russia killed millions through criminal negligence or gross incompetence but actually set out to kill a 'mere' million or so citizens. In comparison, the vast majority of the Nazis' victims were targeted because of their ethnic or political convictions. Unlike the GULAG, people sent to Nazi concentration camps were not intended to come out alive

I know that this is splitting hairs and that both were obviously brutal dictatorships. It is however important from a historical point of view not to simply conflate the two or to pretend that they were as bad as each other. There were differences in both the numbers and the motives

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote:

whereas Hitler appears to have genuinely believed what he was doing was right, terrible as his actions may have been.

I'll take the cynical opportunist over the crazed ideologue who genuinely believed in wiping out an entire people. Conviction can be overrated

Zebra3

Reekwind wrote: »

This is over a quarter of a century. In contrast Hitler, in the space of a decade, can be accredited with:

6 million Jews
3+ million Soviet POWs
2 million Roma
2 million Poles
1+ million miscellaneous (communists, socialists, disabled persons, homosexuals, etc)
12+ million Soviet civilians
Plus tens of millions others through a war of aggression

Which category do Polish jews go into?

rokossovsky

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Stalin had longer in power and a convenient smoke screen provided by Hitler. If its done on numbers then a calculation of number of deaths per day might be in order.

It is also worth noting the Stalin didn't industrialise the extermination of people either.

It is a difficult one to call, but I would opt for Hitler.

You hit the nail on the head here. Vasily Grossman among others have postulated that both Stalinism and Hitlerism were mirror images of each other. Stalin may not have industrialised murder but the Gulag was certainly on an industrial scale. Hundreds of thousands of innocent 'class enemies' were initially transported to Siberia and literally left to fend for themselves in the forests and swamps until they established camps where hunger and disease (and summary executions) were left to take their toll. The Ukrainian Famine was also well planned and thoroughly executed by CP apparatchniks and resulted in 3 million deaths alone. I'd recommend 'Life and Fate' , Grossmans masterpiece.

rokossovsky

dpe wrote: »

I thought about the fact that Stalin had longer in power, but the counter to that is all his concentrated nastiness was over maybe ten years from the late twenties to the late thirties, then the war got in the way and he didn't do as much bloodletting in his last seven years afer the war. And while he didn't go in for industrialised murder in the same way as the Nazis, I'm kind of "so what?" about that; it says more about our idiosyncratic attitude towards state sponsored killing than anything else. One thing is for sure, Stalin was a much worse boss to work for.

Stalin conducted a major pogrom against the Jews immediatly after the war that extended up to his death in 1953. There were also hundred of thousands of Soviet ex POWs killed in the gulag after the war - judged contaminated by the fact that they were captured by the Germans and spent time in forced labour in Germany

Reekwind

Zebra3 wrote: »

Which category do Polish jews go into?

Jews. 'Poles' here refers to ethnic Poles. I know that this is a fairly questionable categorisation but the very act of neatly separating people - which is the product of both employing records kept by those doing the killing and a purely statistical examination of the death toll - does not lend itself to such nuances. Actual people tend to get lost in the numbers

rokossovsky wrote:

Stalin conducted a major pogrom against the Jews immediatly after the war that extended up to his death in 1953

Be careful here. Stalin's latter years were certainly tinged by anti-Semitism but nothing that approached the genocidal campaigns of the Nazis or even the Tsarist-era pogroms

The Ukrainian Famine was also well planned and thoroughly executed by CP apparatchniks and resulted in 3 million deaths alone

Now this is just not true. There is absolutely no evidence that the Ukrainian famine (which is inaccurate: it was not confined to the Ukraine) was deliberately engineered by Moscow. Blame can certainly be laid at Stalin's door for an ill conceived and disastrously executed agricultural programme, plus the sheer callousness of the response to the crisis, but this is very different from suggesting that it was a purposeful genocidal campaign

CoolGirl101

Stalin.

Yet ironically, it is not seen as bad to support Stalin today, as bad as it is to support Hitler.

IE communists are accepted these days, when in reality, both are of equal 'badness'

Delancey

Both vile but I would give Stalin the edge.

Russia has a long history of ' strong men ' leaders and many Russians still admire that quality - despite Vladimir Putins unorthodox views on press freedom and democracy he still seems to be very popular , personally I view him as the ' Prince of Darkness '

rokossovsky

Of course the famine wasnt confined to the Ukraine, collectivisation resulted in famine across the SU in 1930-1933 it just was worse in the Ukraine because of Stalins vindictiveness against land owning peasantry of whom there was a greater proportion living in Ukraine. In the Ukraine resistance to collectivisation was especially strong as the peasants here were better off than your average Soviet peasant. Ukraine was a bread basket back then too. The peasants with small holdings (kulaks) resisted collectivisation and were deemed by Stalin as enemies of the people as a result. Additionally, the terror/famine in the countryside served the ideological goals of the CP in agriculture in both cowing the remaining populace and eliminating their political enemies.
Centrally planned agricultural quotas demanded from Moscow equates to planning. The figures of grain production versus confiscations were available to CP planners to Stalin himself and to his enforcing henchmen Mezhinsky, Molotov, Yagoda etc. In 1930 Stalin and his gang knew that their policies would result in mass starvation. Their own census figures from 1939 gave them final proof. Stalin toured the lower Volga region in '33 to see for himself the results.

Zebra3

CoolGirl101 wrote: »

Stalin.

Yet ironically, it is not seen as bad to support Stalin today, as bad as it is to support Hitler.

IE communists are accepted these days, when in reality, both are of equal 'badness'

People have no problem backing the so-called democracies who have carried out genocide.

jonniebgood1

CoolGirl101 wrote: »

Stalin.

Yet ironically, it is not seen as bad to support Stalin today, as bad as it is to support Hitler.

IE communists are accepted these days, when in reality, both are of equal 'badness'

It is very important to make the distiction between supporters of communism and supporters of Stalin and his methods. Communism is a system rather than a person and to link 'communists' to the crimes of Stalin is incorrect.

PatsytheNazi

Delancey wrote: »

Both vile but I would give Stalin the edge.

Russia has a long history of ' strong men ' leaders and many Russians still admire that quality - despite Vladimir Putins unorthodox views on press freedom and democracy he still seems to be very popular , personally I view him as the ' Prince of Darkness '

That's true about the Russian political culture of admiring the 'strong leader' ( a reason given for the rise in Stalinist/fascist movements of today ?). But the thing about Stalin was that he was a Georgian not a Russian. His real name was Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili and correct me if I'm wrong, but took the pen name of Stalin in a communist newspaper as it means Steel in Russian ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Joseph_Stalin

Reekwind

rokossovsky wrote: »

Of course the famine wasnt confined to the Ukraine, collectivisation resulted in famine across the SU in 1930-1933 it just was worse in the Ukraine because of Stalins vindictiveness against land owning peasantry of whom there was a greater proportion living in Ukraine

Hmmm? The Ukraine contained some major industrial centres - such as the Donbass, Kiev and Kharkov - and I've not seen any figures to suggest that it was more rural than, say, the Central Black Earth Region. Perhaps you can provide some?

Additionally, the terror/famine in the countryside served the ideological goals of the CP in agriculture in both cowing the remaining populace and eliminating their political enemies.

Again you are conflating terror and famine. This is simply inaccurate. We all know that the purpose of collectivisation was to break up the obshchina (which was actually less established in the Ukraine than Russia) and we all know that the Stalinist state used political terror to quell dissent. What is entirely unproven - and in decades of research no one has produced anything resembling a 'smoking gun' on this issue - is that Stalin planned and used the famine as a means of either eliminating or cowing the Ukrainian peasantry. He certainly didn't care much that millions were dying but this was at no point part of any grand Soviet design

Centrally planned agricultural quotas demanded from Moscow equates to planning

Planned agriculture is not the same as planned famine. Everyone can agree that the disastrous collectivisation drive played a major role in the famine. What is extremely contentious, and what there is no proof of whatsoever, is the assertion that famine was a desirable outcome out this programme. That is, that Stalin 'planned' the deaths of millions through policies that he knew "would result in mass starvation"

Frankly, given the threat that the famine posed to the industrialisation drive and the mass unrest that hunger unleashed elsewhere in the USSR, it seems absurd to suggest that Stalin deliberately set out to bring the economy to its knees. All to spite the Ukrainians

Delancey wrote:

Russia has a long history of ' strong men ' leaders and many Russians still admire that quality

I'm not a fan of writing off an entire culture or nation as prone to dictatorship. As if a yearning for the whip was somehow ingrained in the Russian psyche

rokossovsky

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is very important to make the distiction between supporters of communism and supporters of Stalin and his methods. Communism is a system rather than a person and to link 'communists' to the crimes of Stalin is incorrect.

Besides splitting hairs whats your point? Every Stalinist I have known described themselves as a communist? Would Lenin have been any different? Would Goebbels as Furher been any different to his rascist boss. My point is not a rant against the Soviets, on the contrary I believe we owe a huge debt to the Soviet people and to their armed forces during the war. Whats your beef?
The OP was to choose between Stalin or Hitler. In my opinion it makes a difference which one you choose in historical sense but each possessed qualities of the monster. Be it dressed up in Nazism or Stalinism costumery it amounted to equal misery all over Europe. Stalin having the edge on numbers and years. Hitler had his strengths in a crystal clear rascist ideology that captivated Germany at a low ebb. The world is well rid of both.

jonniebgood1

rokossovsky wrote: »

Besides splitting hairs whats your point? Every Stalinist I have known described themselves as a communist? Would Lenin have been any different? Would Goebbels as Furher been any different to his rascist boss. My point is not a rant against the Soviets, on the contrary I believe we owe a huge debt to the Soviet people and to their armed forces during the war. Whats your beef?

This is an important distinction rather than splitting hairs IMO. As you say "Every Stalinist I have known described themselves as a communist". However every communist would certainly not describe themselves as a Stalinist, in fact I would think what he did to his own working people would be abominable to most of the founders of the modern communist movement. I have no graw for communism as its proven not to work but my point is that Stalinism and communism are 2 different things.

The OP was to choose between Stalin or Hitler. In my opinion it makes a difference which one you choose in historical sense but each possessed qualities of the monster. Be it dressed up in Nazism or Stalinism costumery it amounted to equal misery all over Europe. Stalin having the edge on numbers and years. Hitler had his strengths in a crystal clear rascist ideology that captivated Germany at a low ebb. The world is well rid of both.

I think we would all agree that the world is better off without them. Could you expand on how you feel "it makes a difference which one you choose in historical sense"?

Mance Rayder

Stalin had a brain disorder which confounded his paranoia and insanity, hitler was calculated and cold. Stalin at least wanted to bring the world together in his own twisted way, regardless of race. For example, oriental people were as welcome as Slavic people in the soviet union.

Hitler wanted a ruling Master race of Germanic peoples and to enslave the 'Lower races'

Hitler was worse.

When Stalins soviet troops arrived in Ukraine and defeated the Nazi occupiers they were seen as heros.
Ukraine flourished under soviet rule in comparison to what it is now.

People forget that nobody fought the Nazis like the soviets did, the sacrifice of 22 million people to defeat Fascism should not be overlooked.

During WW2 the soviets (the soviet union was not limited to Russia folks, so to call them 'the Russians' is incorrect) were the greatest ally of the free world. There is a strong possibility that if the Nazis managed to take the USSR then there would of been no stopping them. Britian would of certainly fell along with Ireland. USA would of had a very difficult time trying to stop a Nazi run Europe and Eurasia.

Dudess

I think they were as bad as each other, just in different ways. Never in my life heard of anyone, other than nut-jobs, admiring Stalin btw. And communists aren't necessarily fans of him.

Mance Rayder

Dudess wrote: »

I think they were as bad as each other, just in different ways. Never in my life heard of anyone, other than nut-jobs, admiring Stalin btw. And communists aren't necessarily fans of him.

Its true there were many years of communism after Stalin which are still admired in many CIS countrys by people who in USSR had money, jobs and security, now they live in poverty.

Reekwind

CiscoStudent wrote: »

...people who in USSR had money, jobs and security, now they live in poverty.

Yes, poverty much like under Stalin. Contrary to the opinions of some of his apologists, Stalin's industrialisation programme brought mass hardship to the Soviet people. Workloads increased, shortages multiplied, real wages collapsed and shortages multiplied. It wasn't until the Khrushchev era that the USSR of nostalgia came into being

Mance Rayder

Reekwind wrote: »

Yes, poverty much like under Stalin. Contrary to the opinions of some of his apologists, Stalin's industrialisation programme brought mass hardship to the Soviet people. Workloads increased, shortages multiplied, real wages collapsed and shortages multiplied. It wasn't until the Khrushchev era that the USSR of nostalgia came into being

Thats what I meant, the post Stalin soviet union is well remembered by many ex soviet citizens, I have family who were born and raised in soviet Ukraine.
The Soviet union broke the backbone of the Nazi's and took eastern Europe and Eurasia from illiterate serfdom to space exploration within 3 generations, while managing to dominate the olympics and ensure 0% unemployment and 100% housing needs met in the largest nation the world has ever known.


Compare that to the state of modern day Ukraine and the other non eu CIS countrys and you will see that it wasnt all bad unless of course you swallow all that anti communist US propaganda they've been pumping out for almost a century. why are Russians always the bad guys in US movies and video games? They were allies in WW2 and without them we would all be speaking German and 'sieg heil'ing

Also in the Hitler / Stalin comparison.

Hitler operated a slash and burn policy and sanctioned horrific experiments on soviet pows.
http://www.russian-victories.ru/burning_people_alive2.jpg
http://www.russian-victories.ru/burning_people_alive.jpg
USSR disnt have a patch on this evil.

Soviet POWS(WARNING!!GRAPHIC!) in Nazi concentration camp.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZQAaVehZF5Q/TbyVrdo8xCI/AAAAAAAAApQ/rw5QHgBsDAk/s1600/soviets.jpg

Nazi POW in Soviet camp - note the Soviets are saluting the German as a mark of respect.

http://www.russian-victories.ru/german_ace_downed_and_captured.jpg

Nazi experiments included using slavic peoples body parts and bones to fashion horrific furniture suitable for sadistic SS officers.
Look it up its true.

Nazis were demonic in their mass executions.
http://www.russian-victories.ru/public_executions_in_each_town.jpg

In the city my wife is from 20'000 people were marched to the centre of the town and gunned down by the Nazis , NONE of them were soldiers all of them were innocent people. the Soviets rescued this town so forgive them if they appreciated Stalin a little more then you can.

More innocent Slavs were executed then jews, millions more, but you wont hear this side of the story so often. a form of crucifixion was popular for them, they were lucky if they got gassed compared to starving to death nailed to a plank in a field.

Latchy

Stalin tended to see people in term of the masses,not individuals and people with feelings but cannon fodder and thought nothing of executing millions of russians ,slavs ,poles, latvians and anybody who gave the slightest hint of a threat to his power ,not to mention the millions he shipped off to the Gulags for same reasons or ona whim

He pulled the eyes over both Churchill and Roosevelt with his false promise of reform in the occupied countrys after the war but did the exact opposite

The Gerams were cruel ,no doubting that but the mass rape during the fall of Berlin of aprox 20 million German women ( and many russian female prisoners along the way to ) by the russian army was sanctioned by Stalin as '' prize of war /revenge '' .Stalins quote '' the death of one man is sad ,the deaths of millions is just a statistic '' is a man who's playing god

Mance Rayder

Latchy wrote: »

The Gerams were cruel ,no doubting that but the mass rape during the fall of Berlin of aprox 20 million German women

Unfortunatly when Germany pushed the Slavs to the brink of extinction and they somehow managed to fight back and take the German capital city and free the surviving slavic slaves they were a little pee'd off. what did the Germans expect? a handshake?

They tried to EXTERMINATE the slavs.

I'm Just SHOCKED by the fact that Stalin is seen as worse then Hitler in this Thread .

NOBODY was worse then Hitler. Stalin was a necessary Evil at the time.

Jesus people its Hitler and the Nazis for god sake.

Seems to be some pro German sentiment and anti slavic sentiment on this thread.

Wouldnt be suprised if some of you subscribed to holocaust denial.

Latchy

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Unfortunatly when you push a nation to the brink of extinction and they somehow manage to fight back and then take your capitol city and free the surviving slavic slaves they were a little pee'd off. what did the Germans expect? a handshake?

They tried to EXTERMINATE the slavs.

No doubting that at all and the russians proved themselfs on the battlefield time and again .I always thought that Hitler and the Nazis trying to fight on so many fronts ,Europe ,The East , Africa ,Greece ,Italy was like a boxer in a ring with 5 other boxers coming at him , it's only going to end his defeat .

The question could be if given the choice , who would you want to have take over the world and be ruled by ,The Nazis or the Reds ? Even with the benefit of history and hindsight ,it's not the easiest of questions to answer .

Mance Rayder

Latchy wrote: »

No doubting that at all and the russians proved themselfs on the battlefield time and again .I always thought that Hitler and the Nazis trying to fight on so many fronts ,Europe ,The East , Africa ,Greece ,Italy was like a boxer in a ring with 5 other boxers coming at him , it's only going to end his defeat .

The question could be if given the choice , who would you want to have take over the world and be ruled by ,The Nazis or the Reds ? Even with the benefit of history and hindsight ,it's not the easiest of questions to answer .

Its VERY easy to answer.

Firstly the "reds" were not trying to take over the world they were defending themselves from a Nazi invasion.

THe Nazis planned on enslaving the lesser races, Celts are one of those lesser "slave" races. That means Irish would be slaves.

The FIRST country to stand up and recognise Irelands independance was the USSR.

My wife, and her family are from Soviet union. My Mother in Law had a very happy childhood in USSR.

So it is very easy.

What would you prefer? To serve as a slave to the Master race? or to live as a citizen in a socialist society?

By the way Italy was fighting alongside the Nazis as an ally.

Latchy

.

I'm Just SHOCKED by the fact that Stalin is seen as worse then Hitler in this Thread

NOBODY was worse then Hitler. Stalin was a necessary Evil at the time.

Jesus people its Hitler and the Nazis for god sake.

Seems to be some pro German sentiment and anti slavic sentiment on this thread.

Wouldnt be suprised if some of you subscribed to holocaust denial.

He was the nesessary evil at the time yes but we are talking about Stalin the man ,not Stalin the guy who froze when it came to making key decisions but who like Hitler had the last word on any military actions ( and shot any general or anybody who dared question his judgment ) Where Hitlers concentration camps worse then staling Gulages ? Some reading up on them show the russians were just as as cruel although addmittedly they didn't burn 6 million jews in the gas chamber ( it's a bit insulting for you ,30 odd post on boards to suggest people are pro German - anti Slavic and in denial about the holocust . )

Mance Rayder

Latchy wrote: »

.



He was the nesessary evil at the time yes but we are talking about Stalin the man ,not Stalin the guy who froze when it came to making key decisions but who like Hitler had the last word on any military actions ( and shot any general or anybody who dared question his judgment ) Where Hitlers concentration camps worse then staling Gulages ? Some reading up on them show the russians were just as as cruel although addmittedly they didn't burn 6 million jews in the gas chamber ( it's a bit insulting for you ,30 odd post on boards to suggest people are pro German - anti Slavic and in denial about the holocust . )

Actually I have 1000's of posts on boards.ie over the years but I forgot my old password and my old email addy was deleted so I lost my old username.

I will not engage in this debate any more with you as you really dont have a clue. first you thought Germany was at war with Italy in WW2 and now your confusing the Russians with the Soviet Union of which Russia was one of 15 countrys known as republics. So your reading up on google now and debating from what your reading? you dont know anything yourself?

End of debate for me. No hard feelings. I cant argue with an uneducated googler. Go back to your fantasy of WW2 where Russia tried to take over the world and Italy and Germany were at war./
goodnight

Latchy

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Its VERY easy to answer.

Firstly the "reds" were not trying to take over the world they were defending themselves from a Nazi invasion.

THe Nazis planned on enslaving the lesser races, Celts are one of those lesser "slave" races. That means Irish would be slaves.

The FIRST country to stand up and recognise Irelands independance was the USSR.

My wife, and her family are from Soviet union. My Mother in Law had a very happy childhood in USSR.

Am sure the Russian people are as nice and as horrible as any race can be but I've never had any desire to vist Russia and dont ever intend to but I like Germany .

So it is very easy.

Nothings ever easy

What would you prefer? To serve as a slave to the Master race? or to live as a citizen in a socialist society?

Neither but I think the average German like the Russian peasent thought and believed that what was happenning in the beginning was for the better

By the way Italy was fighting alongside the Nazis as an ally.

There was a hell of a big American and British contingent making life hard for them to .

Latchy

CiscoStudent wrote: »

I will not engage in this debate any more with you as you really dont have a clue. first you thought Germany was at war with Italy in WW2 and now your confusing the Russians with the Soviet Union of which Russia was one of 15 countrys known as republics. So your reading up on google now and debating from what your reading? you dont know anything yourself?

End of debate for me. No hard feelings. I cant argue with an uneducated googler. Go back to your fantasy of WW2 where Russia tried to take over the world and Italy and Germany were at war./
goodnight

There should be a rule about letting children debate in an adult forum although I must say ,I have met many talented and intelligent children in my life .Sadly you are not one of them

Your remark about me thinking Germany was at war with Italy is not even worth of a reply .

Actually I have 1000's of posts on boards.ie over the years but I forgot my old password and my old email addy was deleted so I lost my old username.

Weren't we lucky .You've insulted everybody else in the thread as it is .

CoolGirl101

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is very important to make the distiction between supporters of communism and supporters of Stalin and his methods. Communism is a system rather than a person and to link 'communists' to the crimes of Stalin is incorrect.

Same could be said for the other side, but it is never seen that way...EVER.

I don't see how it is ok to go around wearing Che Guevara on your t-shirt, yet anything to do with Nationalism/National Socialism or even ANYTHING along those lines, is just horrible and vile.

Why is it one rule for one 'monster', and another rule for another?

CoolGirl101

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Unfortunatly when Germany pushed the Slavs to the brink of extinction and they somehow managed to fight back and take the German capital city and free the surviving slavic slaves they were a little pee'd off. what did the Germans expect? a handshake?

They tried to EXTERMINATE the slavs.
.

Wow. So did Stalin........He killed as many of his own people as Hitler killed.
What is worse?

They were at war with Russia, they're hardly going to NOT kill people..
They only 'exterminated' Russian Communists, not Russians in general.


Why any of them would even be in Germany is beyond me, talk about bringing trouble upon yourself.. :rolleyes:

CoolGirl101

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Stalin had a brain disorder which confounded his paranoia and insanity, hitler was calculated and cold. Stalin at least wanted to bring the world together in his own twisted way, regardless of race. For example, oriental people were as welcome as Slavic people in the soviet union.

Hitler wanted a ruling Master race of Germanic peoples and to enslave the 'Lower races'

Hitler was worse.

When Stalins soviet troops arrived in Ukraine and defeated the Nazi occupiers they were seen as heros.
Ukraine flourished under soviet rule in comparison to what it is now.

People forget that nobody fought the Nazis like the soviets did, the sacrifice of 22 million people to defeat Fascism should not be overlooked.

During WW2 the soviets (the soviet union was not limited to Russia folks, so to call them 'the Russians' is incorrect) were the greatest ally of the free world. There is a strong possibility that if the Nazis managed to take the USSR then there would of been no stopping them. Britian would of certainly fell along with Ireland. USA would of had a very difficult time trying to stop a Nazi run Europe and Eurasia.

So you're saying, people can kill however many they want.....As long as you agree with the reason. :rolleyes:

Latchy

For the record ,my education on WW1/WW2 goes back long before Google was born and most likely Ciscokid to .

CoolGirl101 wrote: »

talk about bringing trouble upon yourself.. :rolleyes:

Indeed ,who when I said Germany was fighting on several fronts including the Italian campaign ( against the allies ) said I had them ( Germans ) fighting the Italians .:rolleyes:

jonniebgood1

CiscoStudent wrote: »

I'm Just SHOCKED by the fact that Stalin is seen as worse then Hitler in this Thread .
NOBODY was worse then Hitler. Stalin was a necessary Evil at the time.
Jesus people its Hitler and the Nazis for god sake.
Seems to be some pro German sentiment and anti slavic sentiment on this thread.
Wouldnt be suprised if some of you subscribed to holocaust denial.

If you feel there is a problem with any post in the thread it should be reported where it will be dealt with if necessary. This thread has many different views expressed, mostly backed up by fact, and all of them valid whether you agree with them or not. If you disagree with specific points then debate those specific points with those who post them rather than generalising on the 'sentiment' in the overall thread.

jemser

Stalin

jonniebgood1

CoolGirl101 wrote: »

I don't see how it is ok to go around wearing Che Guevara on your t-shirt, yet anything to do with Nationalism/National Socialism or even ANYTHING along those lines, is just horrible and vile.

Again you are mixing together Stalinism and Communism. Wearing the iconic image of Guevara is surely seen as a sign of rebellion and revolution (Ultimately freedom) rather than a sign of support for Stalinism?

CoolGirl101 wrote: »

They were at war with Russia, they're hardly going to NOT kill people..
They only 'exterminated' Russian Communists, not Russians in general.

What???
You need to back that up with some evidence. The estimates of USSR civilian (not military) losses in WWII are anything from 7,000,000 to 13,000,000 and above. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm

Are you saying that these were all committed communists? Even if they were all committed communists I fail to see your point?

Ellian

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Its VERY easy to answer.

Firstly the "reds" were not trying to take over the world they were defending themselves from a Nazi invasion.

But they were not above taking advantage. When the Warsaw Uprising started, the Russians were pretty much on the eastern side of the Vistula River. Instead they held back. I'm pretty sure that this was just to let the German's wipe out the same people who would have given Stalin trouble when he was in power and then mop up the Germans when the time was right. Those who say this was purely a military tactic and not a political one, argue that they turned south to focus on the Magnuszew bridgehead, but looking at the amount of impact they had in that area at the same time as the uprising, frankly I am skeptcial. OP, as per your original post I was having a similar drink with Poles and the majority of their ire was directed at Russia (although you could probably argue that this was because of the amount of time that Poland was under Stalin rather than Hitler). One friend of mine said that there was old Polish riddle that "if the Germans and Russians invaded at the same time, who would you shoot first?" and the answer was invariably "The Germans - business before pleasure..."

Ellian

CoolGirl101 wrote: »

They were at war with Russia, they're hardly going to NOT kill people..
They only 'exterminated' Russian Communists, not Russians in general.

If you genuinely believe that, I would suggest you read I Am From The Burning Village which is eye witness accounts of the small number of people who managed to survive the Nazi genocide in Belorussia. Although fair warning - it makes for unrelentingly grim reading.

Mance Rayder

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If you feel there is a problem with any post in the thread it should be reported where it will be dealt with if necessary. This thread has many different views expressed, mostly backed up by fact, and all of them valid whether you agree with them or not. If you disagree with specific points then debate those specific points with those who post them rather than generalising on the 'sentiment' in the overall thread.

Duly Noted

Mance Rayder

CoolGirl101 wrote: »

So you're saying, people can kill however many they want.....As long as you agree with the reason. :rolleyes:

I didnt say that, Please point out where you felt I said that?

Mance Rayder

Ellian wrote: »

But they were not above taking advantage. When the Warsaw Uprising started, the Russians were pretty much on the eastern side of the Vistula River. Instead they held back. I'm pretty sure that this was just to let the German's wipe out the same people who would have given Stalin trouble when he was in power and then mop up the Germans when the time was right. Those who say this was purely a military tactic and not a political one, argue that they turned south to focus on the Magnuszew bridgehead, but looking at the amount of impact they had in that area at the same time as the uprising, frankly I am skeptcial. OP, as per your original post I was having a similar drink with Poles and the majority of their ire was directed at Russia (although you could probably argue that this was because of the amount of time that Poland was under Stalin rather than Hitler). One friend of mine said that there was old Polish riddle that "if the Germans and Russians invaded at the same time, who would you shoot first?" and the answer was invariably "The Germans - business before pleasure..."

Its true that the Polish were mistreated and abused by Bolsheviks , the Communist movement saw the Polish feudal society as an enemy just as they saw their own 'White Russians' or Tsarists as their enemy. The tsarist Russians etc were imprisoned alongside the Polish.
They didnt fair much better during soviet occupation.

Im not saying that there was no monstrosity commited by Soviets. i am saying that the Soviet system pale in comparison to the Nazi's plans on enslaving and exterminated all non "Aryans" - A delusional concept of Hitlers by the way as there is no "Aryan" race, unless you count the Aryans of India whom are definitly Not blonde with blue eyes and definatly not Germanic.

I am saying that we have alot to thank the Soviets for wheter you like them or not. Without their defeat of Nazi Germany we would be slaves.

All Totalitarian doctrines are wrong, however, to Compare Stalin and Hitler is to compare the Communist And Nazi Agenda's.
There is no comparison between the two. One is utopian idealism open to all humans which didnt work in practice as well as it sounded on paper mainly due to the fact that the kind of power a person can have at the head of the only legal government party totally corrupted its leaders. All power corrupts etc.

Now, Nazi'sm on the other hand, did not want a Utopia open to all . No Hitlers world would be open to a select few. A master race, an imaginary race from a fantasy. An Occult and fanciful ideal that somehow there was a superman gene present in all true Aryans, and that selective breeding could bring this back to its historical Purity, as it was in the ancient Aryan continent of Atlantis (Yes Atlantis!). You see how absurd this is? I could go on its just the tip of the Nazi Iceberg.

They actually believed that all non Aryans where impure, and needed to be exterminated and enslaved. Pure and undiluted Racial hatred that was brought to bear on the Jewish, the Slavs, The Gypsies and any other race that wasnt 'pure'. Hitler had plans for the Celts too, yes we had some Nordic blood but we were mongrels, half bloods and we would be enslaved had they had their way. The Soviet Union however DID have its way, and it never laid a finger on Ireland or the UK etc as it had no interest in domination of the world.

Yes Stalin was mad and yes he did kill many of his own people, as hitler did. However, Hitlers plans were alot more dire had he been succesful and his crimes alot more sadistic then Stalins. Stalin had people killed yes, people he saw as a threat to the communist party, and people he didnt think were worth providing for, who simply starved to death in isolated regions, he also sentenced, in some war manouvers , his own soldiers to death, Yes it is evil and yes it is wrong.

However Hitler went that extra mile, he had people killed and their bodys crafted into furniture as I pointed out before, its one of many many atrocities. Hitler and his Nazis went that extra sadistic mile that the Stalinists didnt.

Therefore Hitler was worse.

Ellian

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Its true that the Polish were mistreated and abused by Bolsheviks , the Communist movement saw the Polish feudal society as an enemy just as they saw their own 'White Russians' or Tsarists as thier enemy. The tsarist Russians etc were imprisoned alongside the Polish.
They didnt fair much better during soviet occupation.

Im not saying that there was no monstrosity commited by Soviets. i am saying that the Soviet system pale in comparison to the Nazi's plans on enslaving and exterminated all non "Aryans" - A delusional concept of Hitlers by the way as there is no "Aryan" race, unless you count the Aryans of India whom are definitly Not blonde with blue eyes and definatly not Germanic.

I am saying that we have alot to thank the Soviets for wheter yo like them or not. Without their defeat of Nazi Germany we would be slaves, The Nazi's invaded the Soviets merely retaliated.

I don't disagree with you on any particular point, other than that Stalin was quick to avail himself of a land grab when one presented itself. I have a huge amount of respect for what the Russian people did during the war.