Was Stalin Less evil Than Hitler

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.

Yes, these weird appointments - because there were more than one (Stalin's own being one of them) - are a fascinating topic to speculate on in themselves.

Maybe he fooled him, like he initially fooled Lenin.
Or maybe - this is a terrible thought - there simply were no better choices around him.
Or it was - probably - something else entirely that requires the mindset of those people to fathom it.

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

Indeed.
Many people still don't know that the "Stalin" the public saw was mostly an actor.
(He wrote an interesting autobiography.)

I know you know this, but others may not: he is said to have been hysterically afraid of Hitler - and not for military reasons... Analyse that.

As for his human essence, such as it was, his daughter's description of his final days, on his death bed, is most revealing. (It was to her.)
He couldn't move, he couldn't speak, perhaps he couldn't even think straight, yet his eyes were "burning with hatred".

reply to post by Biliverdin

So you do deny that bolsheviks were Western funded?

In other words a guy travels from New York, spends time among other places in Switzerland and then goes to Russia. And all that is a spontaneous effort of a Russian patriot to help working classes? Who paid for these travels? Was he alone? What was his real ethnicity and ethnicity of upwards 90% of bolsheviks - a MASSIVE piece of the puzzle! Most of them had changed their names to Russian-sounding ones. Interesting, no?

Yes I can give sources of some very interesting information about the "revolution". But I won't because any true source can be opposed with a false source. Your lengthy stories about that guy making this money and such are irrelevant to me. Of course like in any war there were those who made money. The real killing was International Bankers taking control of an enormous territory of Russia and its massive wealth of natural resources. All these arms dealers got peanuts compared to that.

If Hitler was controlled by International Bankers why the hell did he attack a country controlled by them?

reply to post by Jakes51

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?

His death was by no means a happy - or even a tranquil - one.
Being himself turned out to be the worst prison there ever was - and he got to experience it, full force.
(See the last part of my previous post.)

Originally posted by Vanitas
reply to post by Jakes51

 

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?

His death was by no means a happy - or even a tranquil - one.
Being himself turned out to be the worst prison there ever was - and he got to experience it, full force.
(See the last part of my previous post.)

edit on 21-9-2012 by Vanitas because: (no reason given)

Dying in one's bed at an elder age is far better than what he put his people through. Freezing or being worked to death in one of his Siberian Gulags. Being marched into a windowless room along with family members to be summarily executed. To be starved death because vital crops were seized by government agents for collectivization. Or how about having the unfortunate occurance of being added to one of his death lists for an alleged slight like talking out of turn, or looking at him the wrong way. You make it out that his life was a prison? Maybe if the man had a conscience, the murders and destruction by his hand and minions would have made his life a prison? That man could do whatever he wanted, and he did. Forgive me, but I fail to grasp your logic.

reply to post by Jakes51


Did I at any point say he was worse off than his all too many victims?
No.

But there is more to life than physical circumstances or the discomfort (to put it mildly) that they may cause.
It is possible - on a very real and objective level - to be free even in the worst of circumstances.
(Judging by the many memoirs and other documents by and about them, many of his victims proved this point.)

Now consider the life and mind of someone who has the mindset necessary to perpetrate the crimes that he did, in the first place; who is paranoically afraid of his own shadow, as another poster said (quite correctly), to the point where he no longer ventured outside his quarters; and who ends his life bursting with hatred.

Not only it was a prison; I'd say it was a very harsh and unenviable one.
And there was no escape from it.

Hitler and Stalin were both evil men, but I think a lot of people think Stalin was okay because he was a left-winger.

You know? It's like if you wear a Nazi shirt: you're evil, racist, insensitive bigot (and you probably are if you wear Nazi stuff), but if you wear a hammer & sickle shirt: you care about the poor, womens rights, and the LGBT community.

Originally posted by Vanitas
reply to post by Jakes51

 

Did I at any point say he was worse off than his all too many victims?
No.

But there is more to life than physical circumstances or the discomfort (to put it mildly) that they may cause.
It is possible - on a very real and objective level - to be free even in the worst of circumstances.
(Judging by the many memoirs and other documents by and about them, many of his victims proved this point.)

Now consider the life and mind of someone who has the mindset necessary to perpetrate the crimes that he did, in the first place; who is paranoically afraid of his own shadow, as another poster said (quite correctly), to the point where he no longer ventured outside his quarters; and who ends his life bursting with hatred.

Not only it was a prison; I'd say it was a very harsh and unenviable one.
And there was no escape from it.

edit on 21-9-2012 by Vanitas because: (no reason given)

I am sorry, but maybe your words where taken out of context? I just thought you were making a correllatiuon to Joseph Stalin's perceived suffering on his deathbed as a form of appeasement to the millions he brutalily oppressed and snuffed-out?

Paronia and a lack of confidence in one's self can be a prison. That I agree with. I don't know so much about the man being afraid of his shadow? However, I am fairly certain he suffered from some form paranoia issue. He not only killed millions of civilians, but many of his inner circle met the end of a barrel over time as well. The guy was a nut. Thanks for the extended clarification! I kind of got an idea of what you mean.

Originally posted by Happy1
And the victer's, or biggest killers, get to write history.

And indoctrinate the losers.

How droll and predictable. In the last 100 years Mao, Stalin and Hitler, followed by various "lesser" dictators have produced more misery and human suffering than can be imagined in comparison to the "victors". I assume you mean the "victors" being the Western democracies who worked to defeat Nazi Germany and Japanese tyranny and ultimately the Soviet Union. The Western democracies have worked to remove or oppose many of the world's tyrants, although some of the methods have been suspect.

Regards

reply to post by Jakes51


No worries, I understand how it could be interpreted like that.
But no, of course I didn't mean that his being who he was and dying as he did - still every bit the brute that he was - was some sort of "retribution" for what he did.
Let's just say his life wasn't a picnic, either - but of course nobody inflicted that on him.

However, I do think that being him was a terrible thing to be - in a transcendental way, much worse than the fate of his victims.
(But I can also see how someone could not agree with this, so let's leave it at that.)

If you haven't done so yet, do read as many Stalin's biographies as you can
(I couldn't recommend any off the top of my head because most of them I did not read in English, and while I think they probably were translated, I am not sure. And I am too lazy to check. .-))

He WAS a nut. Only, he was much greater a nut that many people think.
And scared sh**less - the prototype of the little man behind the curtain, the Wizard of Oz.
Then again, that is true of many - perhaps most - tyrants.

(Speaking of wizards... Apparently he tried to dabble in the occult arts. And certain people in the know say that was the real reason why he was so scared of Hitler.
I wouldn't know either way, but some of Russia's greatest minds thought this was not as preposterous as it sounds.)

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


This is the problem of history being re-written. I don't know how old you are, but I'm almost 50 years old. The Che Guevera shirts make me want to puke. He was a killer. He killed anyone who he wanted to. He killed anyone that wouldn't carry out his other killings.

How can one human being look at another and kill him, for ideology? Because "he" is "getting in my way"?

reply to post by Dr Expired


Why don't you get yourself educated on the Ukranian Genocide 1932-1933

reply to post by paraphi

Western democracies?

I think you are semantically deceived. The word "democracy" applies where people rule. Show me one Western country where people rule. They get to vote on a pre-selected puppet of the billionaire class. When in office the puppet usually breaks all his promises with impunity. Where's democracy in that? It's oligarchy going to tyranny at times. Millions of people demonstrate and what government does? Nothing. That's your democracy.

Btw, I'm no fan of Mao, Stalin and Hitler, but can you tell us who swiped clean entire continent of "lesser" races, beginning 1492?

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
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.

I can see why they closed the thread...but Hitler never bothered me and still doesnt..im not jewish and couldn not care less about his crimes......In fact I do not even pause for thought when its mentioned. I just dont care enough about jewish people to feel anything for them....and after all it happened some time ago..not my problem

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by Rockdisjoint

 

This is the problem of history being re-written. I don't know how old you are, but I'm almost 50 years old. The Che Guevera shirts make me want to puke. He was a killer. He killed anyone who he wanted to. He killed anyone that wouldn't carry out his other killings.

How can one human being look at another and kill him, for ideology? Because "he" is "getting in my way"?

It makes me want to puke, too.
But not because of the "Che" himself.
He was a ruthless killer - and not a particularly courageous one - with no concept of the sanctity of life.
He was as despicable as his image is adorable (and I mean this in a very literal sense; more on that later).
If you want to honour such a person, fine. Just don't expect others to share your enthusiasm.

But you will often find his image plastered over those populating anti-globalist protests and throwing stones at sundry embassies. People who proclaim they want a better world (much like Guevara did).

I'll give them the benefit of doubt. They don't know who he was.
And so, wearing a Che Guevara shirt not only shows a risible lack of information; it also tells me that that the person's ostensible "humanitarian" ideals are a posture adopted by a feeble and shallow mind who is easily influenced and manipulated.

THAT's what makes me want to puke. The ignorance and hypocrisy of those loud, well-fed sheep who think that adopting a "stance" (because that's all it is) suffices to make a valuable impact on the world.


And why are they wearing it, in the first place? Why his image and not someone else's?
Not only because he is still considered by all too many to have been a wrongly persecuted, inhumanely killed hallowed protector of the poor and the weak, but because his image is iconic, in a very true sense.
But his undoubtedly photogenic image is borrowing its light from another figure: Christ.
Read Susan Sontag's essay on photography where she discusses this.
Guevara's image became iconic because people - mostly subconsciously - recognise him as a Christ-like figure.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
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

Maybe because they were both about the same? Stalin had Gulags, Hitler concentration camps, essentially the same things. Hitler just got more notorious, because albeit he killed less people in his camps, the jews he killed were by percentage a significant percentage of the total jewish population, leading to a situation where most jews lost relatives and friends or personally knew jews whom lost relatives and friends.

Also in the end Stalin became an ally for the duration of the war and in the aftermath there was no access to the Soviet block, so the focus was more on Hitler.

Mm hitler/stalin,stalin/hitler ??

Who was more evil ??

Like somebody already pointed out evil isnt a helpful term,it's emotive,it suggests that it's an exceptional or even outside force that drives these people and not something all men could be capable of.I mean the crimes exceptional but the man behind them rarely is.

As for the worst when you've condemned and murdered millions actual final tallys pale into insignificance - in the which dictator was worse debate,i mean.

Stalin was forgiven much in the eyes of popular history.The enemy of my enemy is my friend,he sat at the conference table with Churchill n FDR,obviously the west however you may argue the point owe a considerable debt to the Soviet Union for the victory over Nazi Germany.

Germany fought itself to a standstill against the USSR.The war on the eastern front literally brought about the destruction of the Nazi war machine and yes lend lease to Russia,bombing campaign,Normandy landings and what followed are equally critical but by 1944 could Russia defeat Hitler militarily alone judgeing by Bagration Offensive launched within a month of D day you'd have to say yes,could we have stormed France n defeated the entire German War Machine alone.not a chance !!!

That plus Hitlers crimes were committed in Western n Central Europe as opposed to out of sight,so to speak like in Russia.

Thats why in popular history uncle joe has fared better but bottom line their two of a kind

Mm hitler/stalin,stalin/hitler ??

Who was more evil ??

Like somebody already pointed out evil isnt a helpful term,it's emotive,it suggests that it's an exceptional or even outside force that drives these people and not something all men could be capable of.I mean the crimes exceptional but the man behind them rarely is.

As for the worst when you've condemned and murdered millions actual final tallys pale into insignificance - in the which dictator was worse debate,i mean.

Stalin was forgiven much in the eyes of popular history.The enemy of my enemy is my friend,he sat at the conference table with Churchill n FDR,obviously the west however you may argue the point owe a considerable debt to the Soviet Union for the victory over Nazi Germany.

Germany fought itself to a standstill against the USSR.The war on the eastern front literally brought about the destruction of the Nazi war machine and yes lend lease to Russia,bombing campaign,Normandy landings and what followed are equally critical but by 1944 could Russia defeat Hitler militarily alone judgeing by Bagration Offensive launched within a month of D day you'd have to say yes,could we have stormed France n defeated the entire German War Machine alone.not a chance !!!

That plus Hitlers crimes were committed in Western n Central Europe as opposed to out of sight,so to speak like in Russia.

Thats why in popular history uncle joe has fared better but bottom line their two of a kind

They where both very Evil.

However if the Germans had won WW2 we would all be here talking about how evil the Allies where.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Dr Expired

 

Why don't you get yourself educated on the Ukranian Genocide 1932-1933

Yes the Ukraine is a largely forgotten episode.
Perhaps you should start a thread on ATS , and educate those including myself who are largely ignorant on the subject.
Perhaps the mass murdering of christian priests could also be spoken of?