Stalin and Hitler

Post Reply New Topic

Mind you, I probably should not make mention of either the Communists or the Nazis, in mixed company, especially taking into consideration all the hatred surrounding both. Still, I am very intrigued. Joseph Stalin may, indeed, have had an advantage over that other dictator, Adolf Hitler, in that the former was more introverted and quiet than the latter. Mind you, Stalin was in all likelihood more intelligent than Hitler too. Though Hitler, himself, was a bit above average in IQ. He could not have achieved as much as he did, otherwise.

Still, Stalin's introversion, his quietness, and his higher IQ may explain (1.), why he, rather than Hitler, won the war, (2.), the strange fact that although Stalin did exterminate twice as many, he is not half as condemned and vilified. This just occurred to me, the other day. What do the rest of you think of my new hypothesis? I would really much like to know. Of course, Hitler, it would seem, made too many speeches. Seemed like the extroverted type, who, would shoot is mouth off, not only about Jewish people, but all sorts of other things. Might, indeed, have cost him the War. Thank you for reading my comment.

geography/weather, lend lease and sheer numbers is what let russia beat germany in WWII, not stalin's IQ or whatever.

most people that i've come across will condemn stalin just as quickly as hitler. also, if his speeches has any effect on the german war effort, they were positive. you cannot have too high morale. say what you want another him but he was a good orator.

Thank you, the weather could also be a factor as well. For years and years, I wondered what the precise difference between Communism and Nazism actually was, and why no matter how many the former exterminated, the former seem never quite as condemned and vilified for it. The fact that Stalin was an Ally of the US at the time-- or at any rate-- was also fighting Hitler, may indeed have something to do with that.

Mind you, I have developed an interest in the Introvert/Extrovert controversy, ever since I learnt about the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. I thought it could work well to solve certain mysteries concerning the conflict between those two tyrants. Of course, Hitler attacked Stalin first! Still, there are those who say that had Hitler not attacked Stalin first, Stalin would have attacked Hitler first. Academic really, since Imperial Japan, in truth, started the war in 1936, at the Marco Polo Bridge, in China.

How many of these "why do they keep bashing poor innocent little Hitler?" threads have you already started here on WP?

We will all chip in and gift you with a T shirt emblazoned with the slogan "My hero, Hitler, was only as bad as Stalin" if that makes you feel better.

While we are at it we can also send you a T with the slogan "I, TwinRuler, am only as bad as Jack the Ripper" since that would be the same kind of "damning with faint praise"( to put it mildly).

... are dead, and therefor no longer relevant.

There are those who say that both Stalin and Hitler were British agents. But seriously, I suspect that Lyndon Larouche may, indeed, be a British agent. He probably says the truth about the British, but he mixes it up with things about Jewish people and mythical Venetian Oligarchs, in order to actually discredit most of what he says. You see, he exists to make anti-British sentiment seem stupid. And, since most associate anti-Jewish sentiment with Hitler, and his Nazis, he is doing a very good job of that.

Are you...feeling alright right now?

I think anything said about these two that misses their historical context has almost no point.

Hitler's success was a combination of national penalty from the Treaty of Versailles, previous major blunders like Weimar's hyperinflation, in part also the Great Depression making its dent in the German economy under the Treaty of Versailles, and encroaching communism that was seen as a revolutionary threat and had its clear appeal to people struggling in that setting.

Russia seems like it caught a cultural firestorm of sorts, new ideas flooded in too fast, the tsar was a bit less liked than his father (largely in revenge for his father's death), and I believe at one point the Bolsheviks were hired by the tsar as a defense force against some earlier attempt at revolution which gave them an in-road to credibility and growth.

Both were terrible utopian experiments. Also important to remember that if we're looking at kill count - Mao schooled both of them combined. The only thing that surprises me more than Mao not getting mentioned as much is King Leopold II of Belgium not getting mentioned at all in most places when he was a strong fourth place contender (sadly I think it gets overlooked because his ten to twenty million killed were in the Belgian Congo).

The real lesson seems to be that a populace desperate enough to take almost anything over what they have is really, really bad. A culture also needs good mechanisms in place for handling environmental and sociological upheaval like a robust public sphere. Revolution can happen when a generation or two have no hope and things aren't likely to get better until they're old men and women. Similarly one of the worst ideas in history, ie. communism, really hadn't been tried yet and it took until the mid 20th century for the evidence to be in abundant supply on just how bad it would turn out in nearly any situation. Fascism seems less like something new and closer to something like a fallback on monarchism or something of the like when times are bad or when problems seem unsolvable by competing interests. When looking at fascism-proper though I do think Italy is probably the more accurate thing to study than Nazi Germany because its more apt to show how such a thing can arise without unrealistically draconian punishment of a public or a mythic mad man with a cohort of strange racial pseudo-occultists taking the helm. The former model will likely show up many times again, the later was bizarre enough to likely never see an exact repeat - you may have a Pinochet type come along to rule a country, you may have ethnic or religious genocide happening somewhere else in the world, but the two will probably won't meet again for a long time under such an eccentric system of belief as they did with the Nazis and Thule.

One German refugee from Nazism called Stalin: "Hitler plus Asia."
Or in other words, both were unmitigated monsters who murdered millions. Stalin just got away with it because he was on the winning side. Who knows, if Hitler had held off from attacking Stalin and honored the Nazi-Soviet Pact, Stalin and his henchmen might have been put on trial alongside the Nazis. That is if we were able to stand against the totalitarian twins of terror. Then again, such a monstrous combination very possibly could have won, sending the world into a darkness previously unknown.

Also, Hitler was Roman Catholic. This is interesting, for a number of reasons. After all, it is probably one of the reasons Hitler is more hated than Stalin. And what is Roman Catholicism? Roman Catholicism is idolatry! The veneration of the Virgin Mary, disguised Goddess Worship. Still, from there came the entire idea that men exist to protect women, or at any rate some men exist to protect some women: the idea most often associated with The Code of Chivalry of the Medieval Knights of Europe. So, it was not all bad.

Besides, the very history of Western Civilization is written from the point of view, for the most part, of three peoples: namely, the Greeks, the Romans, and of course the Jews. One has to wonder why!

I can't say that I see the connection between hatred for Hitler and the Catholicism he was raised with. For most people today, that's irrelevant.

Kind of like what the US has been doing since the end of WWII?

Just when has the US been murdering millions of people in death camps? Seriously, you've got a hatred for America and Israel that's so great that it's sending you off the deep end!

Heard of Vietnam? Heard of Eisenhower's camp's? Heard of Laos? Heard of Cambodia? Heard of Korea? Heard of Nicaragua? Heard of Iraq? Heard of Afghanistan? Heard of Cuba? Heard of Lebanon? Heard of Palestine? Heard of Iran? Heard of Haiti? Heard of Colombia? Heard of Egypt? Heard of Syria? Heard of Libya? Heard of Somalia?

I mean shall I carry on? How dare I criticise a country that has destroyed all of these other countries since WWII. The US killed millions in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. 1.5 million in Korea. A million in Iraq. It all adds up. Sick that you support it.

Eisenhower's POW camps were indefensible. That said, all those other examples you pulled up were wars where there were unintentional casualties. But there was zero plans to exterminate whole populations of people. And no, I do not support everyone of those conflicts, with the exception of Korea, as it was Kim's grandpa who had started that conflict, whereas we came in to stop him.

You never tire of spouting nonsense, do you?

Stalin was of Eastern Orthodox background(his mamma almost persuaded him to go into the priesthood). Neither dictator regularly attended services at the Church of England. Neither were of any Protestant background. Hitler didn't do anything that he is famous/infamous for in the name of Roman Catholicism, but in the name of his secular political ideology.

Both dictators murdered a lot of people, but on top of murdering a lot of people Hitler also started a global war by military aggression. Which Stalin did not do. So that doubles Hitler's rap sheet.

That's basically the answer as to why one is slightly more hated than the other. Though both are hated.

About your other question: don't know where get "Jews", but up to about AD 800 European history pretty much was indeed "written from the POV of the Greeks and the Romans". That's for the simple reason that the only peoples in Europe in Classical times who HAD any kind of writing system were the Greeks and the Romans. The rest of Europe were all a bunch of Barbarians. It wasn't until Charlemagne that northwestern Europe began to recover from the fall of Rome and began to emerge out of the dark ages and into the Medeaval Civilization, and began to write its own history.