hitler vs. stalin!

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: ZeboAnother thing Stalin was into science.. Hitler was into the occult.

Two words: Wolf Messing.

Hitler was also into paranoia, and that even before drugs.

In any case, Stalin was smarter and more ruthless all around. Hitler had a brief moment of great power, but didn't take good care of himself, nor those around him.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Germans raped women aswell. Any invading nation rapes women and kills men and children. It's a fact. You did it in vietnam, you do it in Iraq.

Rapes of German women were widespread. It is estimiated that well over a hundred thousand German women were raped in Berlin alone by Russian soldiers who acted like animals. They raped countless thousands on the way to Berlin in the German territories. Don't justify it by pointing out situations which aren't even remotely close. We didn't rape any women in Iraq, you liar. Vietnam was different, and there was abuse of the locals there, but it was not widespread.

French? What do they have to do with anything?

The somewhat educated people on this forum may view both Hitler and Stalin in the same light (appropriately), but I was referring to "people" in general, and then clarified this in my last post. The average American. Half the time the average American doesn't even vote. That's the average American. These people are weak minded, with little actual insight into the contemporary history of this world. So they view Hitler in the exact way Allied propoganda would portray him (perhaps rightfully) as the great nemesis of our time. And then Stalin as the just "sort of nemesis" of the Cold War. The average person sees things like this in such simple terms, because they average person is stupid and ignorant (my opinion of course). The average person probably doesn't even realize that Stalin killed more than Hitler.

They have the picture of a cowardly, crude little man shouting like a rat to crowds, and exterminating millions of people on flimsy pretexts. And then they have the picture of the iron fisted ruler, with a face chiseled in stone and warm eyes.

The word you called me. Prude French women.

Any person who has been thru high school or college knows about the horrors of Stalin. There is noone running around claiming to like Stalin, noone. Most people in general are ignorant of history, not just Americans.

Don't forget the Einsatzgruppen. Those were German squads that followed the army in the East, killing Jews, and Slavs. It is estimated they killed 1.5 million before the wars end.

 

[Diasper]

So much historical ignorance in this thread.

It shouldn't be about who was more powerful - completely the wrong question. Strictly, during the WW2 before hostilities started between Russia and Germany, Hitler was more powerful as Germany was more powerful. Reasons for Germanies loss was poor tactics due to megolomaia where rational actions were not pursued (eg Stalingard etc). However, Russia would have crumbled if Germany's attack had not coincided with one of Russia's worst winters on record, Italy had not joined on Germany's side who had proved themselves ineffective in N Africa and Greece and ultimately led to the diversion of German raw resources as well as military resources including resources of intelligence including Rommel. Without the Italians joining on Germanies side it has been argued Hitler would have launched his Russian offensive sooner and thus have conquered Russia by winter. Despite the winter German tanks were within 60 miles of Moscow - Stalin already had plans to evacute Moscow and even make peace with Germany if they took Moscow (if my memory serves me correctly). Regardless, taking Moscow would have effectively ended the war as after that Germany would have quickly taken over all the industrialised areas and oil areas etc etc Germany came very very close and it was only through alliance of Britain, Russia and the US that Germany was brought to her knees. Had Germany been only focused Eastwardly it would be hard to envisage a situation where she didn't win against Russia - heck Britain came so very close to making a truce with Hitler when only Churchill's stubborness stopped the others in his Cabinet.


ANYWAY the real question you're asking is about the nature of their rules. Broadly, it can be said:
Hitler - Brutal and megolomanic but killed according to an ideology not randomly. Inspired loyalty and devotion by his cult of personality and Nazi ideology.
Stalin - Brutal and megolomanic but killed indiscriminately (his own people) out of fear and paranoia and appalling policies. Inspired a quasi-loyalty through fear of being killed and through extensive patronage of the Soviet bureacracy (ie a class with priveleges not wanting to be like the utterly destitute masses)

Hitler was far more popular with his people than Stalin was with Russian's. Hitler's army fought until the very end - would Stalin's army have fought to the very end? Probably not.

Anyway, in short - this is seems a somewhat naive and pointless question.

 

[Diasper]

In people's minds Hitler is a far worse monster - when in fact having studied the history Stalin should be argued the worse just because his killing did not have reason - millions killed on nothing other than suspicion. Often neighbours might report eachother just because of rivavlry etc and the family who was reported would be never seen again either being killed or sent to the extensive gulag prison system where they inevitably died.


Both monsters. Both killed millions. But the nature behind the killing was different - Nazi Germany was systematic and ideological - Stalin was largely paranoia with some attachment of ideology and appalling misguided policies.

Also why do people get so blinded by the Hitler Right, Stalin Left arguement? In the nature of their governments and their rule both were authoritarian and dictatorial (Right?) while only their economic policies differed somewhat. Still Hitler's economic policy meant a great deal of state involved. This is an irk of mine that people are so blinded by labels.

 

[Zebo]

I gotta different question.

Would you have prefered Hitler won instead of Stalin?


Russia the greatest evil on earth who killed and raped at least 40 million. The Red Army that pillaged, raped, and murdered its way westward across Europe for 60 yrs. The Red commies is the whole reason we lost 50,000 men in veitnam and 35,000 in korea. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, and Castro murdered their tens of millions and we lost 500,000 in WW2 so they could do that??? WTF???


Back then lots of people thought we were fighting on the wrong side. Henry Ford for one. How do we feel about that now?

 

[Strk]

In people's minds Hitler is a far worse monster - when in fact having studied the history Stalin should be argued the worse just because his killing did not have reason - millions killed on nothing other than suspicion. Often neighbours might report eachother just because of rivavlry etc and the family who was reported would be never seen again either being killed or sent to the extensive gulag prison system where they inevitably died.

It is because of the mechanization and rate. And while the rate has been surpassed, the mechanization has never been remotely close for a second time. You also have the issues of one fighting on the side of the allies, which kind of also distorts some people's opinions.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: raildogg
Whatever. What you said was a total mockery of the tens of millions killed.

By the way, you chose to call me a name that got its "negativeness" from the French. Good going.

Let me quote you exactly:

"Uh, Stalin was alot cooler. I mean, people think of Hitler as a sort of "disgusting" evil, whereas people tend to think of Stalin as a sort of... "cool" evil. Like the badass villain in the movie that everybody likes. Reminds me of "Natural Born Killers", actually."

So instead of calling each other childish names, lets disect your post. Also maybe you could've done a better job at telling us you don't condone Stalin's activities. By judging from that post, one would get the idea that Stalin was sort of a grumpy grandpa who wasn't that evil at all.

So Hitler was a disgusting evil tyrant, and Stalin was a lot cooler. How else am I to comprehend your statements?

And who likes Stalin?

Oh thats right, the blood thirsty communists.

Badass villains in the movies dont give orders of rapes of hundreds of thousands of women, whether directly or indirectly, they aren't responsible for deaths of 30+ million people, they don't automatically kill thousands of political opponents overnight without any hesitation.

We must separate the man from the fiction.

Well, stalin was actually the first man to have women in arms. And when the germans captured his son, he refused to pay ransoms. So he got waxed by the germans.

But stalin was a bit "off". So to speak. I greatly admire both hitler and stalin i have to admit. They stood by their principles. I just don't think hitler was insane, the same way Stalin was insane. He just lost control, and his mind wouldn't leave that hill he was on, so he overestimated his troops. He had a plan.
Stalin however just didn't care.He was just powerhungry, and very cynical. And add the fact that he most likely killed Lenin.

I find them both interesting, i always like insane people.

The Germans didn't wax his son they put him in a concentration camp and he was latered freed by Russian forces. Oh and Stalin sentenced his own son to the gulag once he was captured by the Germans. Stalin like Hitler expected everyone to fight to the death including women and childern and his own seed. Anyone who showed just a hint of "defeatism" was either shot on the spot or sent to the gulag and yes this included women, elderly and childern. In fact there is a famous order which Stalin made during the Battle of Stalingrad Horder which is called order 227 which forbade the giving of any more ground to the advancing German forces no matter the reason. In fact many Russian jews who were later freed from concentration camps were latered put on trial for treason because they surrendered to the Germans and considered enemies of the state despite of what they went through.

On a side note Stalin and the Russian army were responsible for ethnic cleansing of millions people in the area of the Black Sea because either they worked with the Germans because they hated communism and Stalin or because he just did not trust or like non-ethnic Russians/Eastern Europeans. Even those of non-Russian decent who were serving in the Russian army were "purged" and sent to the gulag or shot because of Stalin's reprisal. The sad fact is many people joined the German Army because living under communism with Stalin's iron grip on life in the so called "workers paradise" was far worse then dealing with and working for the Germans. These people usually ended up being the deadliest fighters in the German army because as the war drew to a end they could never go back home and thus fought to the death. I won't even go over the raping of millions of German women and some non-German women during the Russians march toward Berlin.

 

[Diasper]

Originally posted by: Strk

In people's minds Hitler is a far worse monster - when in fact having studied the history Stalin should be argued the worse just because his killing did not have reason - millions killed on nothing other than suspicion. Often neighbours might report eachother just because of rivavlry etc and the family who was reported would be never seen again either being killed or sent to the extensive gulag prison system where they inevitably died.

It is because of the mechanization and rate. And while the rate has been surpassed, the mechanization has never been remotely close for a second time. You also have the issues of one fighting on the side of the allies, which kind of also distorts some people's opinions.

Also is the fact of the Cold War and its secrecy meant, the Soviet Union was a closed country and little was heard about his atrocities. Moreover, because it was largely against his own people, many were happy to turn a blind eye whereas Germany invading another country and cleansing its population was big news.

Just goes to show media and information is everything.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Germans raped women aswell. Any invading nation rapes women and kills men and children. It's a fact. You did it in vietnam, you do it in Iraq.

We didn't rape any women in Iraq, you liar. Vietnam was different, and there was abuse of the locals there, but it was not widespread.

I would love to agree with you... but the raping of Iraqi women by Us soldiers has been already extensively covered by the media, albeit not enough.

http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: NJDevil
Don't forget the Einsatzgruppen. Those were German squads that followed the army in the East, killing Jews, and Slavs. It is estimated they killed 1.5 million before the wars end.

That is true. Himmler was a witness to and directed many mass murders. The mouthpiece of the Nazis, Goebbels was a Comical Ali of World War 2. But he was much more effective and people took him seriously. The Germans were lied to and they thought that the Germans were winning the war in 1943 through 1945 when they were clearly losing and on the defensive. It was the Russians who were on the offensive this time and pushing the Germans eastward. Remember that the Siberian division of the Soviet Red Army played a key part in the defense of Moscow and Stalingrad. They were fresh soldiers with high moral. Gobbels and the Nazis were lying and saying the Germans have almost defeated the Russians and were moving to capture even more of their cities.

Russians should have been tried for and hanged after World War 2 just like we tried Germans. We punished the Germans for their atrocities against the Jews and others while the Russian communists committed even worse atrocities against their minorities and civilians. Why is one genocide worse than another genocide? Do you realize that the Russians sent millions of prisoners, such as German prisoners and political prisoners on death marches to Siberia? Most of those men and women died. The Russian thug soldiers captured the babies from German women and sent those women on death marches to Siberia after raping them. Many German women were killed after being raped. What is the difference between these two?

The difference is that the Germans lost and the Russians won. We perceived the Russians to be on our side and the world didn't press any charges against the Russian soldiers who acted like barbarians on a mass scale. In fact the world granted Russia a free hand in Eastern Europe in helping us defeat Hitler. So we chose the lesser of two evils ... or did we?

If you look at it more closely, the Russians were much more evil and carried much more more abuses than the Germans. Stalin, his thug generals and soldiers and his entire staff should have been tried for war crimes and should have been hung. We were too short sighted back then and it haunted us for the next 50 years.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: raildogg

Germans raped women aswell. Any invading nation rapes women and kills men and children. It's a fact. You did it in vietnam, you do it in Iraq.

We didn't rape any women in Iraq, you liar. Vietnam was different, and there was abuse of the locals there, but it was not widespread.

I would love to agree with you... but the raping of Iraqi women by Us soldiers has been already extensively covered by the media, albeit not enough.

http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm

Again, totally missed the point and jumped to throw any thing that might make my point less significant instead of addressing it. I was talking mass scale crimes against humanity, mass scale rapes and mass scale genocide.

American soldiers have not raped anyone in Iraq on a mass scale. You are talking about a couple of dozen soldiers at most. Not millions, or even thousands. All armies to some extent do go overboard, but the level has never even been anywhere close to that of the barbaric Russian soldiers during World War 2. I doubt we iwll ever a army ever act that way again. Generally, the American soldiers have behaved the best out of all the world's nations. Millions of German soldiers tried to surrender to the Americans instead of the Russian thugs so they could get a better treatment and be spared their lives. Many German civilians and soldiers were on a march toward the Western front to escape the oncoming Russian soldiers and to surrender to the Americans and British. The German soldiers had heard stories of how well the Americans treat prisoners, and they were right. The German soldiers were treated extremely well by both the Americans and the British.

By the way, are those photos even credible? I've seen instances where they have been proven a hoax. In any case, they are disgusting.

Rape or sexual abuse of any kind is the worst kind of crime you can commit against any human. It might even be worse than murder.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: raildogg

Germans raped women aswell. Any invading nation rapes women and kills men and children. It's a fact. You did it in vietnam, you do it in Iraq.

We didn't rape any women in Iraq, you liar. Vietnam was different, and there was abuse of the locals there, but it was not widespread.

I would love to agree with you... but the raping of Iraqi women by Us soldiers has been already extensively covered by the media, albeit not enough.

http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm

Again, totally missed the point and jumped to throw any thing that might make my point less significant instead of addressing it. I was talking mass scale crimes against humanity, mass scale rapes and mass scale genocide.

America soldiers have not raped anyone in Iraq on a mass scale. You are talking about a couple of dozen soldiers at most. Not millions, or even thousands. All armies to some extent do go overboard, but the level has never even been anywhere close to that of the barbaric Russian soldiers during World War 2. I doubt we will ever see another army act that way.

I hear you. I never thought the Us army is raping *millions* of women in Iraq. I was just replying to your phrase: "We didn't rape any women in Iraq, you liar". The exact dimension of this terrible story will probably never been known. But to me it should just be used to never forget that wars are not nice, never. Probably we will never see again the brutal things that happened during WWII, but my guess is that this is probably more because of the icreased media coverage of what happens on the front. Yet, without an internal pictures leak nobody, including me and you, would be thinking that things like those that happened in Abu Ghraib were happening.

To return to the subject... I think that 60 years after the war is increasingly hard to understand what happened exactly. But many historians agree that the personalization of the german and russian people with Hitler and Stalin is one of the biggest mistakes ever made. Many germans and russians young guy were forced into the military to fight in their dictators' personal war and had no personal simpathy for their political causes.While, for example, most SS were zelant nazists and made unspeakable deeds, most young german soldiers who fought on the italian front or in the bulge battle were just praying for a fast end of the war. Usually in movies and fiction books we have the germans act like they were a lot of little-hitlers, but this was hardly the case.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Tango
I hear you. I never thought the Us army is raping *millions* of women in Iraq. I was just replying to your phrase: "We didn't rape any women in Iraq, you liar". The exact dimension of this terrible story will probably never been known. But to me it should just be used to never forget that wars are not nice, never. Probably we will never see again the brutal things that happened during WWII, but my guess is that this is probably more because of the icreased media coverage of what happens on the front. Yet, without an internal pictures leak nobody, including me and you, would be thinking that things like those that happened in Abu Ghraib were happening.

To return to the subject... I think that 60 years after the war is increasingly hard to understand what happened exactly. But many historians agree that the personalization of the german and russian people with Hitler and Stalin is one of the biggest mistakes ever made. Many germans and russians young guy were forced into the military to fight in their dictators' personal war and had no personal simpathy for their political causes.While, for example, most SS were zelant nazists and made unspeakable deeds, most young german soldiers who fought on the italian front or in the bulge battle were just praying for a fast end of the war. Usually in movies and fiction books we have the germans act like they were a lot of little-hitlers, but this was hardly the case.

I understand where you're coming from (or at least trying to). I know you never said or hinted at US army raping millions of women in Iraq. My point is simply that a few dozen soldiers, at most, participated in the gruesome acts. But instead of punishing the supervisors and military commanders, we are punishing the soldiers. I guess they are the pawns in this. If you are going to punish anyone for the Abu Ghraib abuses, punish Bush and Rumsfeld. They were the men who had direct responsibility for what happened and we should hold them accountable. If you're going to punish a soldier, punish the men who ordered and condoned his actions. Yep, war is awful, all the time. No war is good. However, I am totally for the war on terrorism. There is difference here, and I hope you realize this.

The thing about Germany and its crimes is that the American media knew of the things that were happening there. They knew about kristalnacht, they knew about the Jewish deportations, they knew about the lack of rights of Jews and the rapidly increasing anti-Semite feelings, they knew about the German aggression and its military buildup. Our politicians certainly knew it, yet did nothing. Maybe they let Pearl Harbor happen on purpose so we could defeat Hitler by entering the war. Noone can ever prove the definate story on Pearl Harbor, its all guesses and opinions. There were much fewer media outlets and much fewer foreign correspondents in Russia at that time, so that helped the Communist cause.

Most Germans and Russians were not interested in politics and day to day activities of their country's policies. They could care less or were too busy making a living. Yes, many Germans and Russians were forced into combat. But there were many volunteers as well. There was extreme nationlism on both sides. One side wanted to defend the Fatherland from the enemy or actually was figthing for the Fatherland, the other was trying to defend the Motherland from the aggressors. The Hitler Youth actually started fighting in combat very early on in the war. Particularly, manning the flak guns, etc. The SS divisions later on had many Youths in them. The SS early was was superior to the rest of the German armed forces and it did fight to the last man in many cases. They were truly great soldiers, yet also very brutal. The German army wanted to figth alongside the SS because they knew that a lot of pressure would be lifted from them as the SS are such superior soldiers with such determination and a will to fight till the end.

Yes, not all German civilians liked Hitler. But there was a sort of a system set up that if you suspected your neighbor or anybody as being a traitor to the Fatherland, or being anti-Hitler in any way, you were severely beaten or even killed. Many people gave the Sieg Heil even if they didn't really believe in it, they just wanted to avoid being perceived as collaborationists.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Tango
I hear you. I never thought the Us army is raping *millions* of women in Iraq. I was just replying to your phrase: "We didn't rape any women in Iraq, you liar". The exact dimension of this terrible story will probably never been known. But to me it should just be used to never forget that wars are not nice, never. Probably we will never see again the brutal things that happened during WWII, but my guess is that this is probably more because of the icreased media coverage of what happens on the front. Yet, without an internal pictures leak nobody, including me and you, would be thinking that things like those that happened in Abu Ghraib were happening.

To return to the subject... I think that 60 years after the war is increasingly hard to understand what happened exactly. But many historians agree that the personalization of the german and russian people with Hitler and Stalin is one of the biggest mistakes ever made. Many germans and russians young guy were forced into the military to fight in their dictators' personal war and had no personal simpathy for their political causes.While, for example, most SS were zelant nazists and made unspeakable deeds, most young german soldiers who fought on the italian front or in the bulge battle were just praying for a fast end of the war. Usually in movies and fiction books we have the germans act like they were a lot of little-hitlers, but this was hardly the case.

I understand where you're coming from (or at least trying to). I know you never said or hinted at US army raping millions of women in Iraq. My point is simply that a few dozen soldiers, at most, participated in the gruesome acts. But instead of punishing the supervisors and military commanders, we are punishing the soldiers. I guess they are the pawns in this. If you are going to punish anyone for the Abu Ghraib abuses, punish Bush and Rumsfeld. They were the men who had direct responsibility for what happened and we should hold them accountable. If you're going to punish a soldier, punish the men who ordered and condoned his actions. Yep, war is awful, all the time. No war is good. However, I am totally for the war on terrorism. There is difference here, and I hope you realize this.

The thing about Germany and its crimes is that the American media knew of the things that were happening there. They knew about kristalnacht, they knew about the Jewish deportations, they knew about the lack of rights of Jews and the rapidly increasing anti-Semite feelings, they knew about the German aggression and its military buildup. Our politicians certainly knew it, yet did nothing. Maybe they let Pearl Harbor happen on purpose so we could defeat Hitler by entering the war. Noone can ever prove the definate story on Pearl Harbor, its all guesses and opinions. There were much fewer media outlets and much fewer foreign correspondents in Russia at that time, so that helped the Communist cause.

Most Germans and Russians were not interested in politics and day to day activities of their country's policies. They could care less or were too busy making a living. Yes, many Germans and Russians were forced into combat. But there were many volunteers as well. There was extreme nationlism on both sides. One side wanted to defend the Fatherland from the enemy or actually was figthing for the Fatherland, the other was trying to defend the Motherland from the aggressors. The Hitler Youth actually started fighting in combat very early on in the war. Particularly, manning the flak guns, etc. The SS divisions later on had many Youths in them. The SS early was was superior to the rest of the German armed forces and it did fight to the last man in many cases. They were truly great soldiers, yet also very brutal. The German army wanted to figth alongside the SS because they knew that a lot of pressure would be lifted from them as the SS are such superior soldiers with such determination and a will to fight till the end.

Yes, not all German civilians liked Hitler. But there was a sort of a system set up that if you suspected your neighbor or anybody as being a traitor to the Fatherland, or being anti-Hitler in any way, you were severely beaten or even killed. Many people gave the Sieg Heil even if they didn't really believe in it, they just wanted to avoid being perceived as collaborationists.

Yes, I too agree that there should be a strong effort against international terrorism, but I do not see how a military occupation of Iraq is part of this. Actually in the long run could even work against us. About the Abu Ghraib thing, my personal opinion is that the Us government has chosen the wrong path. Basically they are just trying to avoid as much as they can media resonance about what happened. Unfortunately the US cannot control arab media outlets, and I can tell that this scandal will remain well present in the minds of many moderate arabs every time they consider the western countries behaviour in the gulf zone.

I don't blame the US for not entering the WWII sooner. crazy things were happening in Europe, and it could have been hard for a US president to enter such a mess without a major problem with the american public opinion. Of course pearl Harbor forced the US into the war. Hitler would have lost the war in europe even without a direct Us intervent, but the UK and the US didn't want Soviet union to take all the merit. Basically well before the end of the war the american and british governments were beginning to envision the cold war scenario that was to come, and realized that soviet union would have used the victory over nazism for its propaganda after the war. Had the soviets entered Berlin alone and got control over the entire germany the history could have been a lot different.

Of course there were a lot of Hitler fanatics in germany, and many of them entered the army as SS. But expecially towards the end of the war an increasingly number of people were forced into the army. Also to many of them it was simple patriottism. Basically they thought they were defending Germany, not Hitler. Germand were terrific soldiers, that's for sure. Now that those events are distant in time one can praise the courage of those men without risking to sound like an apology of the regime. Moreover, some of the better generals of the reich were behind the Hitler elimination attempt.

 

[Moonbeam]

Both were profoundly weak because neither understood he sought power in a desparate attempt to compensate for inner fear.

 

[Malfeas]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: raildogg

Germans raped women aswell. Any invading nation rapes women and kills men and children. It's a fact. You did it in vietnam, you do it in Iraq.

We didn't rape any women in Iraq, you liar. Vietnam was different, and there was abuse of the locals there, but it was not widespread.

I would love to agree with you... but the raping of Iraqi women by Us soldiers has been already extensively covered by the media, albeit not enough.

http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm

Ummm, what a joke. Those men in those pictures "raping" that woman are not wearing US military fatigues, there is no visual evidence to show that they are US troops. Or that the woman shown is Iraqi . How do you know those are US troops? How do you know that is not a Rape Fantasy porno? Did you read the rest of the website? The author clearly make numerous unfounded and unprovable accusations about the US military. I am not saying that no soldier has committed a rape, but this looney anti-us wackjob author is a friggin joke. When you present some REAL and verifiable evidence, maybe someone would listen to you.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: raildogg
Right wingers are associated with Hitler while the loony leftists are associated with Stalin. It appears there are many sympathizers of Stalin and communism in general on this forum. What a shame. I will also say that there are neo-Nazi sympathizers among us as well. Pick your own evil.
.

Really?

The Communist manifesto calls for no private business ownership. Who do you think started the SBA so the poor and middle folk could get into biz?

The Communist manifesto calls for the abolition of land ownership. Who do you think started FHA and VA for more people could get houses?

Communists have a centrally planned "command economies" are a central feature of Communist governments. When has democrats ever advocated anything of the sort?

Communist governments all have a "gulag" like police state. Who do you think funds groups like ACLU to protect Americans individual rights and Freedom of information?

So where are your facts to support this idea that "loony leftists" are Communist sympathizers? Seriously?

You're not going to answer me raildog? Common I want some facts to support your claim.

Hell I could make a better claim than you are doing that conservatives are closer to communists than liberals!!! After all who loves police state and militaristic police forces? Never saw a prison or "gulag" they did'nt like? What personality gravitates twards that?

 

[raildogg]

Oh sure, Zebo.

I got too caught and was defending Germany and his right to have Eastern Prussia back.

Anyways, you are actually referring to Marx and Engels?

Please don't even try to get the idea I was associating the loony leftists with democrats. The Federal Housing Administration was a good idea, although it is coming under attack. I am fiscally liberal by the way, as are most of my other positions. I was not totally for the tax cut. I want criminal prosecution of Ken Lay, a man responsible for pain and suffering for thousands of people.

If you think the right wingers are automatically Republicans or the leftists are automatically Democrat, then you better rethink your positions. By the way, lefists do not necessarily mean liberal. I am a liberal but not a loony leftist. I should also add that I'm a liberal with a pro-America slant.

Yes, there are actually liberals out there who do love the United States of America.

You just gave me some talking points which favor the Democratic party. In no way have I mentioned the Democratic party. I would rather vote for a Democrat than a Republican any day of the week.

Also, please do not imply that conservatives or even right wingers want a police state. That is totally incorrect. They want less government interference, at least most of the sane ones. Police state? Was America ever a police state? Yeah, maybe during FDR or Lincoln, both who are arguably the best presidents this country has ever had. FDR was a right winger? Lincoln? Lincoln was viewed as a progressive in his time and day. During times of extreme uncertainty and danger, extreme measures must sometimes be taken. The internment of Japanese prisoners by FDR during World War 2, or during the Civil War, when Lincoln refused the order of the Supreme Court and suspended hebeaus corpus.

One thing I might add however, having senators such as Chris Dodd certainly does not help the Democrat party in any way. This man is totally out of his mind. He is a Castro lover if there ever was one. I think its totally disgusting.

 

[Zebo]

That's cool. just wanted calification

Speaking of Chris Dodd, guess who pushed/sponsored the bills to loosen the accounting standards that made Ken Lays possible, that's right!!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ch...ay+accounting+rules&btnG=Google+Search

 

[CMC79]

The question at hand is almost impossible to tell...but a few observations:

On who was more powerful within their respective states: Stalin, no question. Hitler's management style was exceedingly hands-off. He never gave clear mandates or defined specific individuals' roles within the government, usually with an intent to cause them to fight each other rather than oppose him. Thus, in day to day handling of the Nazi state, Hitler often had little direct involvement, and many of the finer points of governing (esp. economic policy) he had scant interest in. You can see the effect of his rule in the state of the German economy. Briefly, Albert Speer, an architect, was put in charge of the German economy in 1943 (though he didn't have total authority over it--some still belonged to Goering) and despite intense Allied bombing, German economic output actually rose in 1943. The German economy had essentially been thriving in spite of Hitler, not because of him. Further, Hitler's interpretation of the role of the state can be argued to not have been totalitarian at all; rather, it was to serve the will of the German Volk. See the work of John Lukaks.

Stalin, on the other hand, maintained tremendous control over all aspects of the state. Rather than playing off his enemies through a f-ed up mangement style, Stalin simply eliminated them. Witness the brutal but brilliant handling of Zinoviev and Bukharin in late 20's over the ending of the NEP and the start of the Five Year Plans. Stalin's state also had total control over the economy, while despite whatever pretensions of state planning and cooperation existed, the Germans never even came close to possessing (not that they even considered it desirable).

On who is "worse": Difficult to ascertain, but Stalin would be the more murderous of the two in my opinion. If you look at what was planned in the aftermath of WWII, the purges were going to return, especially against "cosmopolitan elements" (Soviet code for Jews). For the best take on the awfulness of Hitler, Ron Rosenbaum's Understanding Hitler is probably the best overview.

On the use of rape on the Eastern front: Omar Bartov's classic Hitler's Army is a must. It details the politicization of the Wehrmacht and shows that they, not just the SS, were guilty of terrible atrocities due to racial indoctrination, and that the brutal Soviet reprisals as the tide turned were due in large part to self-fulfilling prophecy: the Germans were told that the Russians were brutal sub-humans, and thus they should show them no mercy. When the Russians fought back in the face of such treatment, they took on the very characteristics that the Germans had been told to expect.

 

[raildogg]

"On the Energy and Commerce Committee now investigating Enron, Chairman Billy Tauzin received $57,000 from Arthur Andersen. Democrats got money, too. Presidential Candidate Gore, a little over $13,000 from Enron. Senators Chris Dodd and Charles Schumer each took tens of thousands from Andersen."

This is a quote from the Googled links you provided.

He is still a Castro lover and I cannot stand the man. The Democrats need fewer people like him and more people like Harold Ford out of Tennessee, a great Southern democrat.

 

[Zebo]

Please he's a money lover like they all are, sell thier mother out for enough money. He's no more commie lovin than republicans that pushed for China's MFN. It's all about the benjamins. Just look around whos paying him to push opening trade. One day you'll wake up and relise the whole government is working for the top .01%

 

[tommywishbone]

Refering to the initial question, "who was more powerful?" Rumor has it, that Herr Hitler was able to bench press 175 lbs. for 3 reps, while Commrade Stalin was good for 200 lbs for 3 reps. However, Joe outweighted Adolph by almost 25 lbs, so on a "pound for pound" basis, Hitler was more powerful. Of course, every knows that Hitler was on steriods, so some may wish to disqualifiy him from the contest, therefore making my answer, of course, moot.

 

[RobCur]

Who is more kind? Robcur or Hitler? :roll:

 

[Deptacon]

Stalin, easy better leader, stronger leader, more powerful, Hitler just used propoganda, Stalin had real power