Hitler vs Stalin

[Carausius]

A very serious topic indeed. I think jj gave us a good hint: "Stalin killed undiscriminately". Hitler had more specific targets: Jews, commies, freemasons etc. Stalin probably did not wish to start a war; his army was simply not prepared for it. Hitler deliberately prepared a war of aggression.
On the other side, in Hitler's Germany the "ordinary people" (if I dare say) were quite free; in Stalin's Russia, everybody was a potential suspect.
During WWII, we were "Uncle Joe's" allies, and there are even a few Hoolywood movies singing his praise (I think of "Mission to Moscow" for instance). And it's true that, without Russia, victory over Germany would have been very, very difficult.
IMHO, Hitler is still worse than Stalin, which doesn't make him a good man, just a tiny little bit "less worse" than the other, so to speak.

[steve56]

stalin wasnt stalin when he sent that russian bear in.

[Pervert]

It's like arguing who's the best between Fred West and Peter Sutcliffe. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pot, Saddam, Mugabe, Amin, Duvalier. Bokosa and any other evil fucker responsible for millions of deaths----they are the worst of mankind, and proof that all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

As a race, we should be aspiring to be the best we can; instead, we tend to lionise the worst.

[BeestonBoy]

Hmmmm or another way of putting it is,that they were both Nuttier than squirel shit!!

They were both self deluded to the extreme!! This was at least in part to the fact that no one around them dared question any of thier actions for fear of the shadow of suspsion falling on them and getting that knock on the door in the middle of the night.

They both believed that they could make their country stronger by killing millions. Who they chose as the "enemy" has no bearing on their actions what so ever.


Cheers

BB

[jj]

Caractacus wrote:
> As a race, we should be aspiring to be the best we can;
> instead, we tend to lionise the worst.

C4 bore that last bit firmly in mind when they commissioned BB.

[jj]

Carausius wrote:
> Stalin probably did not
> wish to start a war; his army was simply not prepared for it.

Stalin only ever trusted one man: Hitler.
When his generals informed him that 'Barbarossa' had begun Joe was
apparently in a state of total denial and blue funk [this from his personal
valet Poskryobyshev's recollection].
For a moment he even thought that the [in reality, completely petrified]
officers had come to arrest him !
Stalin never trusted anyone again...

[Bigshow]

Hattie Jacques Vs Sid James

Keep it real lads.

[Sam Slater]

At least a leader can look upon their actions in a sterilised way. Hitler never smelt the burning bodies, or watched camp prisoners die of frostbite. He -and Stalin- only saw pieces of paper, and statistics.

I wonder if these evil dictators would have been so enthusiastic if they'd had to do the dirty work themselves (like Saddam did on occasion)?

I think there's definite -purposeful- psychological detachment going on when it comes to genocide. There has to be unless you're just plainly sociopathic - and if you're sociopathic, how can you be truly evil?

Can anyone be truly evil? What is evil? Always hard questions to answer!

[jj]

Sam Slater wrote:

> if you're sociopathic,
> how can you be truly evil?
> Can anyone be truly evil? What is evil? Always hard questions
> to answer!
>

Good point. Of course that doesn't stop us defining their deeds as evil.

[Sam Slater]

True, true.

Anyone can commit an evil act, but to 'be' truly evil is, I feel, impossible.