Who was morally worse?
Some facts for consideration:
Most of Stalin's established victims were not all executed. Some were, certainly, but most died in the Gulags.
But the Gulags were more like concentration camps than death camps. There was only a 3% chance of surviving (deliberate solely because Stalin did not care to feed and clothe them) but if your survived your sentence then survive you did and released you were.
Contrastingly, in Hitler's death camps, it was only a matter of time. If you didn't die on the way there, you died of starvation, famine, overwork until you get sent to the ovens.
Many people died in the USSR in famines, partially Stalin's fault, but some of it was due to Kulaks destroying food rather than handing it over. Stalin, when faced with a food shortage, starved them first: did they deserve it?
Stalin killed 15-30 million people over 26 years (starting from his absolute power after expelling the last old Bolshevik in '27.) Hitler killed 10-12 (Jews as well as political dissidents) million people in 12 years (less if you don't start from his Chancellorship)
Originally posted by VILmausoleumThey were both utter bastards.
Who was morally worse?
Some facts for consideration:
Most of Stalin's established victims were not all executed. Some were, certainly, but most died in the Gulags.
But the Gulags were more like concentration camps than death camps. There was only a 3% chance of surviving (deliberate solely because Stalin did not care to feed and clothe them) but if ...[text shortened]... itical dissidents) million people in 12 years (less if you don't start from his Chancellorship)
Hitler however always called himself a facist. Stalin had the nerve to call himself a communist (while all the communists were either being shot or deported to Siberia).
I'd have to say I dispise Stalin more.
To be perfectly honest though, I wouldn't invite either of them to my birthday party.
1 edit
Originally posted by VILmausoleumI disagree with all forms of capitol punishment. The State should never have the authority over life and death.
I've been meaning to ask, shavixmir?
What is your political philsophy? Are you an anarcho-syndicalist, or perhaps more syndical than anarchist?
In addition:Was Stalin right to starve and/or execute kulaks who destroyed their food and caused a famine?
Ofcourse you are welcome Croc.
EDIT:
Capitol punishment? Capital? Hell...whatever.
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmir"The State should never have the authority over life and death."
I disagree with all forms of capitol punishment. The State should never have the authority over life and death.
Ofcourse you are welcome Croc.
EDIT:
Capitol punishment? Capital? Hell...whatever.
...... with the exception of pro-choice doctors. They are not the state !
🙄
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat the .... Ivanhoe, howcome you can't post one single post in a thread without trying to state your usual beliefs about legal acces to abortions ?
"The State should never have the authority over life and death."
...... with the exception of pro-choice doctors. They are not the state !
🙄
Some think that abortions should be legal, others don't. We have at least ten threads dedicated to that subject - half of them started by your self - post there, and keep to the subject in this thread.
2 edits
Originally posted by ScheelScheel: "Ivanhoe, howcome you can't post one single post in a thread without trying to state your usual beliefs about legal acces to abortions ?"
What the .... Ivanhoe, howcome you can't post one single post in a thread without trying to state your usual beliefs about legal acces to abortions ?
Some think that abortions should be legal, others don't. We have at least ten threads de ...[text shortened]... by your self - post there, and keep to the subject in this thread.
Now, now, now Scheel ..... "... you can't post one single post in a thread without trying to ... " .... please don't exaggerate Scheel. C'mon, take a look at the "Marmite and Peanut butter" thread for instance and there are many many more. You must be reading the wrong threads .....
I will draw the attention to this issue whenever I find it necessary and relevant to do so. For instance if there is a somewhat strained relationship between the different stances a poster is taking as it is in my opinion with dear Shavix's stances .....
As you may have noticed in his previous posts Shavix is very able to defend his case if he so wishes to do so.
Originally posted by VILmausoleumA classic question that have gained renewed interest in the recent years. Offen asked by the political right in order to show that the european (far)left that failed to criticize the sovjet occupation of east europe were realy suporting something as bad as nazism.
Who was morally worse?
Some facts for consideration:
Most of Stalin's established victims were not all executed. Some were, certainly, but most died in the Gulags.
But the Gulags were more like concentration camps than death camps. There was only a 3% chance of surviving (deliberate solely because Stalin did not care to feed and clothe them) but if ...[text shortened]... itical dissidents) million people in 12 years (less if you don't start from his Chancellorship)
I basically think its imposible to theorize about who were worst, Hitler or Stalin, as they both undoubtly have millions of lifes on their conciousness. Their justification for their acts and the political theory that they claimed to follow may differ, but to me it seems that lust for power, a fair amount of paranoia and a total disregard for other people plays a big role in both cases.
Stalin said that one lost life was a tragedy, but millions of lives lost was mere statistics.
I dont like to quote this mad man but I do think it is insanity to try to asses whom of these two dictators were the worst by counting their victims in the millions.
2 edits
The best thing that is to be said about these two gentlemen is that they fought eachother.
There has been such a debate in Germany not so long ago ("What was worse: Hitler's concentration and death camps or Stalins Gulag camps". As I remembereed correctly it was called 'Die Historiker Debatte" or "Streit"] and it seemed to me that it was an attempt to defend the political choice made by many to support the Nazi regime because it was anti-Sowjet.
The discussion was historically seen redundant and politically seen a bit embarrassing I guess.
Originally posted by ivanhoeExaggeration some times help to make the point. I think that both you, I and most other that read the post are able to understand that "can't post one single post" were not literally (you are able, right ??).
Scheel: "Ivanhoe, howcome you can't post one single post in a thread without trying to state your usual beliefs about legal acces to abortions ?"
Now, now, now Scheel ..... "... you can't post one single post in a thread without trying to ... " .... please don't exaggerate Scheel , c'mon.
I will draw the attention to this issue whenever I f ...[text shortened]... in his previous posts Shavix is very able to defend his case if he so wishes to do so.
I still think its irritating that you cant keep to the subject, I will try to explain why later in a thread called "How to conduct discussions in an internet forum". Have patience and we will discuss it there.
Originally posted by Scheel
Exaggeration some times help to make the point. I think that both you, I and most other that read the post are able to understand that "can't post one single post" were not literally (you are able, right ??).
I still think its irritating that you cant keep to the subject, I will try to explain why later in a thread called "How to conduct discussions in an internet forum". Have patience and we will discuss it there.
Maybe it would be a good idea to find the thread I opened called "The Art of Debating" it must be on page 100 or so.
1 edit
Originally posted by VILmausoleumif you don't start form his chancellorship? wasn't his first -erm- "killing" the ngiht of the long knives, which was after hindenbergs death....i think...also-wasn't he president, not chancellor? and interestingly enough, when he was fuhrer, he was both chancellor AND president-all he'd done was become a dictator within the constitution...
Hitler killed 10-12 (Jews as well as political dissidents) million people in 12 years (less if you don't start from his Chancellorship)
and there's a nice book by walter C langer, written in 1943, called "inside the mind of adolf hitler". twas a "secret war report" on him, and although kinda tough reading, tis intresting...
and who;se morally worse? i dunno...i'd go for stalin, meerly because he did it for power-hitler had a reson, rather stupid though it may be, that he beleived in...so he beleived what he was doing was morally right. for the greater good of germany....