Was Stalin Less evil Than Hitler

reply to post by Biliverdin

You don't deny that bolsheviks were West-funded. But you claim that Stalin - who started off as a bolshevik rose within their ranks to become a leader. INDEPENDENTLY? I don't care what sources you find I don't believe anyone rises in an organization just on merit. This would be perfect but we live in an imperfect world, especially Russians. I don't believe he got to the top merely because he was the most ruthless. Money is always the most important thing. Stalin was pretty stupid, definitely not a business type. The ones who controlled means of productions - these were the masters. Just like Obama is nobody today. The masters are Soroses, Rockefellers and such.

There's no denying Russia was controlled by West-funded bolsheviks. There's no denying Germany fought with the West. There's no denying West is a slave plantation of the bankers. So yes I still believe Hitler fought the banks. And I still believe that's why he's to this day "the bad guy", while Stalin is left alone. Was it Roosevelt who called Stalin "Uncle Joe". How cute. Russia was never really a threat to the real world hegemony. Germany was. I'm neither Russian, German or Anglo-Saxon and even if I was I wouldn't care. But I care about the truth.

And the truth is Germany is vilified. Germany was evil because it wanted to rule the world? Anglo-Saxons were already doing it, so Germans were competition. Nothing else. No doubt if they had won everyone today would know how evil Stalin, Churchil and Roosevelt were.

I can't prove Germany issued debt-free currency. I read it somewhere. You can't prove it didn't. How do we know anything about the past? I found so MANY lies, which are to this day repeated as self-evident.

You mock google as a source. I only said you google it to find THE source. Also you don't provide any source yourself. So you're no better. Besides what source can really be trusted? I know many cases of proven forgeries of historic documents. You cannot trust anyone really. I only trust logic.

Originally posted by filosophia
Hitler was a hero who united the German people in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland. Over 90% of Austria peacefully voted to become part of the national Socialists. Hitler was such a powerful leader it took the Soviets, England, Canada, and the US all to defeat him, a landmass hundreds of times larger than Hitler's empire, and it STILL took the world four years to defeat Hitler! Haha.

Stalin on the other hand owes his power to bloody bolsheviks who murdered the entire Tsar family, including the woman and children. The US permanently has a scar on their reputation for siding with bloody communists just to defeat a man who only wanted a fair representation for his German race.

Watch "The Greatest Story Never Told, Adolf Hitler" on youtube (i would link it but on a mobile).

edit on 18-9-2012 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

" A HERO...HAHA”

I have quoted you just so people finally realize what you really are.

reply to post by gravitational


From a polish immigrant - the Nazi's were bad, but the Russians were barbaric.

You can add to the list Mao Tse Tong, Pol Pot, and Che Geuvera (even though all the teenagers think he's a "hero") to the list.

Didn't Obama have a Mao Xmas ornanment on his tree? Maybe he's the next to add to the list of communist killers.

reply to post by Happy1


Nowhere did I defend Stalin. I'm quite aware of his deeds.
Read Filosophia's post again.

reply to post by gravitational


Sorry, I wasn't arguing with you, I was agreeing with you.

reply to post by Happy1


No problem mate.
A misunderstanding on my part.

A quote from 'uncle Joe' "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is just a number" shows his mindset.
From what I have gleaned from 40 odd years of reading history, Genghis Khan murdered fifty million people on his rampage westwards, beat that!

reply to post by CatAsTrophy


I didn't ask you for sources, I asked you to develop your argument, which thereby would have demonstrated if it held any logic, if you are unable to do that, fair enough.

I said nothing about the Bolsheviks being Western funded, Lenin, the Bolshevik, was given safe passage across Germany by General Ludendorff, not money. And Kerensky was leader of the socialist government that was in opposition to the Bolsheviks, he was funded by the West but he was not a Bolshevik. I hope that clarifies your confusion on the matter.

If you are able to develop your argument, I am eager to discuss the matter further, but it is pointless as long as you simply make assumptions without any grounding in study of the subject, while history may be distorted by agendas, it is possible, if one engages the topic from all angles, to gain some degree of objectivity.

If you want sources, I am more than happy to provide them

Stalin had to pay America back for America's help in WWII. Stalin sent a ship full of Gold and Silver to America as payment.

America said the ship never made it...and Stalin had to hammer down on his people for years to get the silver and gold to pay America again. Resulted in millions in Russia...dying.


That ship was recently found in the bottom of the Atlantic. What would Russia do if they found the ship was empty?.....and America did indeed offload the ship but sank it with a torpedo after she left port so they could get paid again......

Crazy conspiracy right?......What if it turns out to be true? Would that rewrite the History books on Stalin and WHY things happened the way they did?

reply to post by Pervius


That is very interesting...

The Sub Sea Research, a company based in the northeastern US state of Maine, found the British ship SS Port Nicholson on the ocean floor around 30 miles off Provincetown, Massachusetts, the Boston Globe reported.

Greg Brooks of Sub Sea Research claims a US Treasury Department ledger shows platinum bars were on board, as part of a payment from the Soviet Union to the US for war supplies.

He also says he has video footage showing the platinum bars, although none of the bounty has been raised to the surface yet.

"I'm going to get it, one way or another, even if I have to lift the ship out of the water," he said.

"There's a good possibility there are about 10 tons of gold down there, too, and maybe some industrial diamonds," he added.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

reply to post by Dr Expired


I don't understand this thread, Killing is evil.
there is no score card that determines how evil one is.

They were both monsters!

Originally posted by rigel4
They were both monsters!

Or they were both regular guys corrupted by a power, that was enforced by droves of willing executioners.

The big three, Hitler, Stalin and Mao all helped hasten the deaths of millions. They are equally as bad as each other. Nasty people. Strange thing is, the Chinese have been indoctrinated to think Mao was a nice guy and even the Russians hold that genocidal creep Stalin in high regard.

In terms of lives snubbed out, it would be Mao, Stalin and then Hitler. I think after the first (say) 100,000 killed the evilness just merges into itself. For example, Mao killed more people because he had a big population – a bigger canvass to ply his insane trade.

Following on from the big three we have people like Pol Pot (Cambodia), Kim Jong ll (North Korea), Idi Amin (Uganda), Gadaffi (Libya); Heusein (Iraq) etc...

Regards

Originally posted by spleenika
I have not met either of those gentleman so I can not make a properly informed opinion.

But I am probably going to hell, so I will let you know if I see them there.

While your there could you say hi to Donald Rumsfeld Dick Cheney and Ronald McDonald for me???


Too answer the topic's question once you get in the cold blooded murder of each Hitler/Stalin committing/having a hand in over 100 people's deaths it becomes even there.

reply to post by Vanitas


Ahhh yes ... but karma caught up with him as soon as Stalin's cold dead body was placed in State.

reply to post by Vanitas


Ahhh yes ... but karma caught up with him as soon as Stalin's cold dead body was placed in State.

reply to post by paraphi


And the victer's, or biggest killers, get to write history.

And indoctrinate the losers.

From the victim´s point they are equally bad. But in the West, we tend to have darlings. Like when Soviet Union collapsed, the evil became benign, right?
The window when historical crimes could be investigated is closing while Putin exercises old-style NKVD-KGB-FSB -practices.
It is like having Gestapo descendants in action today, no questions asked.

Another one of these threads? All semantics aside, lets agree that they were both power hungry mass murdering cretins. Millions upon millions killed, and two countries thrust into paralysis on the very whim of two men. I mean really, was Stalin less evil than Hitler? Evil is evil! I was not aware that there was varying degrees of evil?

Since Stalin seems to be the focal point of discussion. I have heard esitimates of the casualty count after Stalins's purges, collectivization campaigns, rapid industrialization, reigns of terror, and murders during the war years reaching 30 million. Although, there is no consensus on the exact amount. Here is what one historian, Robert Conquest, and from his book the "The Great Terror," has to say about composing an official tally.

The Great Terror

In the preface to the 40th anniversary edition of The Great Terror, Conquest states:

"Exact numbers may never be known with complete certainty, but the total of deaths caused by the whole range of Soviet regime's terrors can hardly be lower than some thirteen to fifteen million."

Just from my own research on the subject, Stalin was just as evil as Adolph Hitler. Unfortunately, as is said from time to time, "The victors get to write history." Therefore, he was never questioned or even tried for his crimes against humanity. In fact, this barbaric madman from Georgia got to die in his own bed at the age of 74. Is that not an insult to injury? To cut a long story short, the guy was bad news!

Originally posted by Jakes51
Therefore, he was never questioned or even tried for his crimes against humanity.

This just about sums it up perfectly. He was never answerable for his crimes, nor were those that carried them out. The moral to the story being, that you can do just about anything to the people under your rule, just so long as you don't engage in acts of aggression against other nations, that result in your losing a war. Just look at the monstrous way in which the North Koreans treat their own people, there are adults there who were born and have lived their entire lives in gulags. But the international community doesn't care one iota, because they are North Koreans doing unto other North Koreans.