Was Stalin Less evil Than Hitler

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Just noticed a thread here on ATS was closed by a moderator with the message we here on ATS do not like Hitler even a little bit or to that effect, but I notice Stalin in general is Ok with many?

Being an anti-facist evil empire type of human being this viewing of this closed thread just made me remember how many anti Nazi movies have been made and how we are all prodded via Hollywood into never forgetting the crimes against humanity that the Nazis commtted under Hitler, but that the more numerous murders the communists comitted under Stalin are somehow forgotten?

In fact if one tallys up all the movies all the radio programs and all the documentaries about the atrocities of Hitler against the atrocities of Stalin, it is indeed revealing, as if the tens of millions that Stalin executed were somehow not as important as the millions that Hitler executed.
I thought all human life was equal?

Stalin and communism were responsible for more civilain deaths than Hitler....fact.

So why the complete lack of tolerance for Nazism and Hitler, but indifference to communism and Stalin?

Something is not right in this regard.

Humans are all equal aren't they?




posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Expired
 


That thread came about because someone else made a thread calling hitler a hero who was fighting for freedom.

It enraged a lot of us here on the board, not to mention an epic waste of time was spent explaining that cold blooded murder does not make you a hero.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Churchil was a very evil man in my opinion.

Ever feel like Winston when he goes into that pub and asks the guy what really happened in the past? ( Winston from 1984 I mean.
That was confusing. )

1984 is a confession.
edit on 5-9-2012 by freemarketsocialist because: (no reason given)


edit- ever read about how evil communism is at school? They made me read Animal Farm.
edit on 5-9-2012 by freemarketsocialist because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Expired
 


In school, I remember learning a lot about Stalin, he wasn't a nice guy!

When I think back, my history teacher painted both Stalin and Hitler in an equally bad light.

But I agree with your point about movies, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Jews run Hollywood, not the Russians



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Does this answer your question?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Considering history scholars reckon that Stalin (Russian for steel) had 20,000,000 people murdered, I think Schicklegruber was a little less evil than Stalin (schicklegruber? his surname before he made himself dictator of Germany)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   
The National Socialists were hardest on Communist prisoners.

An interesting question is 'How many communists did the 'nazi' murder?'



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   
The vast majority of these people only know what they were brainwashed to know. If you point out what the bolshevik pigs did they marginalize it as if the victims of that were somehow less important then victims of nazis.

The very same morons also think communism is really cool only because they never experienced it in real life. There is a lot more to Europe then the western part and a helluva lot more to WWII then nazis and jews. But as long as sheep only want to hear what they were taught, no, CONDITIONED to, it's pointless.

My kin suffered at the hands of the commies, they can tell you more then a few of the atrocities they and countless millions of others went through. For a "certain" reason none of that is in the text books, I wonder why!



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Because of the guilt of the conspirators to the nazi crimes. Nazi money made US businessmen very wealthy.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by harryhaller
Because of the guilt of the conspirators to the nazi crimes. Nazi money made US businessmen very wealthy.


Succintly stated sentences purporting to reveal facts are always interesting to read and ponder, but per chance what evidence do ye have ?
Who are these US businessmen you say made profit by dealings with the Nazis?
Lets deny ignorance.
Or is it just a grab headline based on fiction?



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   
A question that I always ask, and never get a decent answer to.
I wonder if we would get a thread on here saying that "We don't like Stalin here..."

Stalin was absolutely vile.
The Bolsheviks were utterly disgusting.
But never mind that, eh?
edit on 18-9-2012 by CodyOutlaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   
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)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by CodyOutlaw
A question that I always ask, and never get a decent answer to.
edit on 18-9-2012 by CodyOutlaw because: (no reason given)


The answer - albeit not a decent one - is quite simple, really: the moment "uncle Joe" (actual nick, coined by Roosevelt, I believe) became an ally and later one of the winners, he became untouchable.
(Which makes you wonder what exactly was the purpose of the liberation from Hitler. Clearly human rights weren't really the reason - or were the inhabitants of the USSR, and later their satellites, somehow less human and therefore "human rights" didn't really apply to them?)

Same thing with Mao Ze Dong, who, numerically speaking, would have been the undisputed number one murderer (and, through the dehumanisation effect of his policies inflicted on his peoples, still is).
But let's not upset China. It's too big, you see.

By the way, those interested in "evil" (a silly and unhelpful term because it demonises individuals instead of acknowledging that they were who and what they were BECAUSE they were all too human) should look up Lavrentiy Beria.

Compared to Beria, Stalin comes across as a gentle, almost noble and courageous soul.






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



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   

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.


You have a very, very odd concept of peaceful. In order to gain control of Austria, much like they did in Germany, involved annihilating ALL opposition. Odilo Globocnik in order to accomplish that for the Nazi Party, began a campaign of murder in 1933. He organised bands of thugs to break up opposition groups, and any serious contenders were 'disappeared', just as they had been in Germany. So unless peaceful for you means, by any means necessary, I really would suggest that you stop getting yourself spoonfed by You Tube and start actually engaging those brain cells in some genuine enquiry.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vanitas
By the way, those interested in "evil" (a silly and unhelpful term because it demonises individuals instead of acknowledging that they were who and what they were BECAUSE they were all too human) should look up Lavrentiy Beria.

Compared to Beria, Stalin comes across as a gentle, almost noble and courageous soul.




His predecessor Nikolai Yezhov was no slouch either. Appointing Beria as his deputy was not his wisest move in a political climate of kill or be killed.

Little wonder that 'Uncle Joe' spent the remainder of his life barricaded in his bedroom jumping at the sight of his own shadow.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Hitler fought the banks. Stalin was their creation. So they made Hitler the bad boy. Meanwhile Stalin was left alone.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CatAsTrophy
Hitler fought the banks.


Hmmm? And he did that how? By taking their money to fund his election campaign? By allowing them to by-pass anti-trust laws in the US by sitting on the boards of the German based arms of their conglomerates, such as I G Farben, by allowing them to syphon money out of Germany to their overseas shareholders, by allowing them to buy up seized Jewish businesses for pennies????

Hitler was owned and created by the banks, he may have spouted rhetoric during his election campaign in order to win over the masses, but once in power, he soon dropped that nonsense. The Wallenburgs of Sweden and the Schroders were Hitler's most substantial contributors. Montagu Norman of the Bank of England one of his pen-pals. Hitler made those people very, very rich, and few more besides, a wealth that survived the war because it was squirrelled out of Germany via Allen Dulles offices in Berne. And although some of the German bankers, who sat on the boards of US/German corporations were jailed at Nuremberg for their part in waging aggressive war, those sentences were waived just a few years later when John J McCloy the US High commissioner to Germany. The same John J McCloy who served as legal counsellor to I G Farben.

As Rolf Harris might be inclined to say...can ya tell what it is yet?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 

I'm not saying he was not cooperating with them, especially international corporations, as he needed minerals but it's clear there was some falling out at some point. I think Anglosphere felt threatened with German rise to power.

I quote here, but you'll have to google it because I don't remember the source:

When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly broke. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations on the German people, demanding that Germans repay every nation’s costs of the war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in Germany. Private currency speculators caused the German mark to plummet, precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms were lost to speculators and to private banks. Germans lived in hovels. They were starving.

Nothing like this had ever happened before - the total destruction of the national currency, plus the wiping out of people’s savings and businesses. On top of this came a global depression. Germany had no choice but to succumb to debt slavery under international bankers until 1933, when the National Socialists came to power.

At that point the German government thwarted the international banking cartels by issuing its own money. World Jewry responded by declaring a global boycott against Germany. Hitler began a national credit program by devising a plan of public works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. All these were paid for with money that no longer came from the private international bankers.

End quote

Stalin on the other hand was a bolshevik revolutionary and bolsheviks were sponsored from New York.

You will find confirmation of all of this if you look for it.
edit on 19-9-2012 by CatAsTrophy because: grammar



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by CatAsTrophy
I'm not saying he was not cooperating with them, especially international corporations, as he needed minerals but it's clear there was some falling out at some point. I think Anglosphere felt threatened with German rise to power.


Well yes, factions therein anyway, but others, such as Claude Dansey of Section D of SIS were also making a nice profit selling Hitler those much needed minerals, and was equally put out when he gots his wrists slapped for doing so, and that trade went to the US instead. The empirical ambitions of Germany were thwarted in the first war, that was the primary purpose of declaring war against them, but the second world war served the dual purpose of redistributing wealth to Anglo-American interests and destroying any chance of a single-centralised power in Europe, be it German, or Russian.


Originally posted by CatAsTrophy
At that point the German government thwarted the international banking cartels by issuing its own money. World Jewry responded by declaring a global boycott against Germany. Hitler began a national credit program by devising a plan of public works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. All these were paid for with money that no longer came from the private international bankers.


This is largely incorrect. For starters, the Schroder banking house was the offcial banker of the SS and he very early on had usurped any influence that the party banker Hjalmar Schacht had had, despite the latters hard work at accruing enough gold to launch the new currency. The resources for the redesign of Germany, and the public works that ensued by offering favourable terms to overseas corporations. Oil, from the Texas Oil Company, for example, was obtained in exchange for tankers. Similar deals were cut with ITT, Standard Oil, General Motors, etc. Ford and General Motors both invested in factories in Germany. Goering sent a special envoy to the US who entertained investors at the Waldorf Astoria. So while Hitler was able to, by the instigation of civil building projects, create zero unemployment, he did so because of the influx of US dollars that not only boosted the economy, but more importantly, enabled him to purchase raw materials from countries such as Sweden, who equally, invested heavily in Germany. The Wallenberg banking family of Sweden were in fact, next to the Warburgs and Rockefellers, the major beneficiaries of the second world war and were able to ensure that their investments were syphoned out of Germany prior to the end of the war.


Originally posted by CatAsTrophy
Stalin on the other hand was a bolshevik revolutionary and bolsheviks were sponsored from New York.


Unless you can expand upon your opinion I will have to disagree. At the very least you seem to have a number of events confused. The funding from New York, or rather via the New York banking house of Kuhn and Loeb, had been much earlier, and in support of Alexander Kerensky in the final years of the first war. The British government had channelled vast sums to Kerensky's socialist government because of his promise to stay in the war. Kuhn and Loeb were utilised for this purpose because Sir William Wiseman, the SIS's man in New York, was also a partner in that firm, and also because Jacob Schiff the head of Kuhn and Loeb was eager to prevent a repeat of the Jewish pogroms. Lenin, the Bolshevik, was though aided by Germany, because he promised to take Russia out of the war. Which is why so many attempts were made on Lenin's life by the British, however, they perhaps should have considered that 'better the devil you know', because Stalin, paranoid (and rightfully so) as he was, was totally unreachable by any financial manipulation, and subterfuge and extreme methods of reverse psychology had to be utilised in order to get him to even act in Russia's best interest. He was, the proverbial, loose cannon. And certainly, after the Bolsheviks gained power, Schiff refused to allow any funds to flow into Russia. Like most capitalists, he considered the Bolsheviks to be the greatest threat to his position and saw their destruction as essential. Although Schiff, as a Jew, did not invest in Germany, many others did so because the Nazis were seen as the means by which Bolshevism, and all that it implied, could be crushed.


Originally posted by CatAsTrophy
You will find confirmation of all of this if you look for it.


No doubt via Google, however, any sources that do confirm 'all of this' as you put it, will unlikely hold up to any close scrutiny or verification. I suggest that you try digging a little deeper





new topics
top topics
 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum