Originally posted by genius"wasn't his first -erm- "killing" the ngiht of the long knives,"
if 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...
and there ...[text shortened]... ved in...so he beleived what he was doing was morally right. for the greater good of germany....
Indeed he started killing in eliminating the opposition within his own German National Socialist Party. Röhm & Friends.
Originally posted by VILmausoleumstalin was bad beyaond all usual meaning of the word, he didn't seem to care too much about a few "statistics'
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 had limited power, whilst stalin's power became ridiculous; yet hitler murdered many more people.
hitler was in a totally different class: he seemed to want to kill where peace existed, and to kill on a very big scale.
imagine hitler controlling an army as powerful as the soviet army of 1945 ......
5 edits
Originally posted by geniusHitler became Chancellor in January 1933 and the Night of the Long Knives, the wiping out of the SA's leadership, occured in June 1934.
yeah-the night of the long knives-but wasn't that when he was fuhrer?...
President Hindenburg died on August 2nd 1934
Hitler abolished the title of President after Hindenburg died and fused it with the title of Chancellor. After that he was to be known as Führer (=Leader).
I object somewhat to the idea that Stalin's amoral concern for power was less justifiable than a sincere belief. Stalin did not consideer his career choices and pick 'communist dictator' for the parking priveleges. He was a amoral man, but he did believe in his political system, he just did it in a atheist way.
Which is better? To believe and to be factually wrong or to consider and be morally wrong? Another important question.
Originally posted by VILmausoleumOne could argue that if you believe you are right, but are actually wrong then you are misguided. If you know you are wrong but continue anyway then you are amoral.
I object somewhat to the idea that Stalin's amoral concern for power was less justifiable than a sincere belief. Stalin did not consideer his career choices and pick 'communist dictator' for the parking priveleges. He was a amoral man, but he did believe in his political system, he just did it in a atheist way.
Which is better? To believe and to be factually wrong or to consider and be morally wrong? Another important question.
Originally posted by Varg
One could argue that if you believe you are right, but are actually wrong then you are misguided. If you know you are wrong but continue anyway then you are amoral.
How do you find out whether you are misguided in the field of moral issues? Does it suffice for your set of beliefs to be consistent and well reasoned ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI suppose if you discover that you are wrong and that you have been misguided, then you alter your actions i.e. stop doing the wrong acts then you cease to be misguided.
How do you find out whether you are misguided in the field of moral issues? Does it suffice for your set of beliefs to be consistent and well reasoned ?
If your (wrong) beliefs are logical, well reasoned and consistent then it is possible to be misguided. If they are illogical then that might indicate some kind of mental illness or reasoning disability. On the other hand, the wrong opinion could be based on false information. In this case, if you received correct information, a misguided person would adjust their actions accordingly.