Who was worse, Stalin or Hitler ?

PatsytheNazi

When I was on holiday in the Czech Republic a few years ago, I had a good chat over a few Budweisers in Prague ( in a pub near the Charles bridge called the James Joyce !!!! ) with a Czech guy who grew up pre 1989. One of the interesting aspects he told me regarding WW2 and the aftermath was that he reckoned that Stalin was worse than Hitler. So what's your opinions folks, Stalin or Hitler and why ?

dpe

If its purely a numbers game; Stalin. Still a lot of old Russians who think he was the mutt's nuts though.

Wouldn't really fancy a pint with either of them.

PatsytheNazi

dpe wrote: »

If its purely a numbers game; Stalin. Still a lot of old Russians who think he was the mutt's nuts though.

Wouldn't really fancy a pint with either of them.

A bit like some people in Britain admiring Thatcher . Seen a documentary with Ross Kemp in Russia. He reported on skinhead gangs with a bizzare ideology (if that's what you could call it) of admiring Hitler and Stalin

Fratton Fred

dpe wrote: »

If its purely a numbers game; Stalin. Still a lot of old Russians who think he was the mutt's nuts though.

Wouldn't really fancy a pint with either of them.

Stalin had longer in power and a convenient smoke screen provided by Hitler. If its done on numbers then a calculation of number of deaths per day might be in order.

It is also worth noting the Stalin didn't industrialise the extermination of people either.

It is a difficult one to call, but I would opt for Hitler.

dpe

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Stalin had longer in power and a convenient smoke screen provided by Hitler. If its done on numbers then a calculation of number of deaths per day might be in order.

It is also worth noting the Stalin didn't industrialise the extermination of people either.

It is a difficult one to call, but I would opt for Hitler.

I thought about the fact that Stalin had longer in power, but the counter to that is all his concentrated nastiness was over maybe ten years from the late twenties to the late thirties, then the war got in the way and he didn't do as much bloodletting in his last seven years afer the war. And while he didn't go in for industrialised murder in the same way as the Nazis, I'm kind of "so what?" about that; it says more about our idiosyncratic attitude towards state sponsored killing than anything else. One thing is for sure, Stalin was a much worse boss to work for.

ValJester

It's a bit Sophie's Choice to be honest as to which of the two was the lesser of two evils.

Zebra3

dpe wrote: »

Wouldn't really fancy a pint with either of them.

You wouldn't have had one with Adolf anyway...

the_bigman

I think Hitler was much worse.

Given the fact he had specific targets for extermination (be it race or sexuality etc), he was the more pathological of the two.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Its hard to say who was worse, really. Possibly Stalin because he was motivated by nothing other than self-advancement and love of power, whereas Hitler appears to have genuinely believed what he was doing was right, terrible as his actions may have been.

dpe

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Its hard to say who was worse, really. Possibly Stalin because he was motivated by nothing other than self-advancement and love of power, whereas Hitler appears to have genuinely believed what he was doing was right, terrible as his actions may have been.

Not sure about that. Stalin was a true-believer in Marxism-Leninism and justified most things he did in those terms - he was doing what had to be done to further the revolution; although at the same time he showed clear psycopathic tendancies in his dealings with those closest to him (including his family). Its not really clear how much the cult of personality around Stalin was driven by the man himself and how much by those around him. He was also fiercely patriotic; despite being Georgian he was a strong Russian nationalist.

I think Stalin certainly had a more cynical streak than Hitler, but that may just be because history reports him that way; cynicism is part of the Russian sense of humour.

Superbus

I think I'd rather have lived under Hitler, but only if I could have my current social standing/religion. Obviously to be a target of Hitler's ire would be worse than a faceless worker in Stalinist Russia, but I suppose AH was the less exterminatory (?) of the two with regards to the population at large, and the standard of living was higher in Germany in the '30s than in Russia at the same time.

If it's a case of the more purely evil, then it's too complicated and blurry for me. The view of Stalin is slightly tainted by his position against the Nazis, who are deservedly put on a pedestal of evilness. But his actions ensured decades of torment for Russian and Eastern European people. So that's a definite tick in the 'negative' column for JS. The actions of Hitler are I suppose more in the public consciousness, and were more specific and hate-filled, in which case AH may be the more evil, as Stalin's executions always seemed to me to be almost aimless, stemming from paranoia and being power-crazed than a directed hatred.

Reekwind

dpe wrote: »

If its purely a numbers game; Stalin

Well not really. If we're looking purely at numbers then Stalin's tally breaks down roughly as follows:

1+ million state executions
2-3 million deaths of prisoners in custody or during deportation
7-8 million deaths due to disastrous economic mismanagement (ie, famine)

This is over a quarter of a century. In contrast Hitler, in the space of a decade, can be accredited with:

6 million Jews
3+ million Soviet POWs
2 million Roma
2 million Poles
1+ million miscellaneous (communists, socialists, disabled persons, homosexuals, etc)
12+ million Soviet civilians
Plus tens of millions others through a war of aggression

There's also a qualitative difference between the two. If the Stalinist regime is guilty of the deaths of 10-12 million people (and there is a discussion as to whether deaths due to famine should be laid at the government's door; compare with the Great Famine here) then only a fraction of these can be said to be purposeful. That is, Stalinist Russia killed millions through criminal negligence or gross incompetence but actually set out to kill a 'mere' million or so citizens. In comparison, the vast majority of the Nazis' victims were targeted because of their ethnic or political convictions. Unlike the GULAG, people sent to Nazi concentration camps were not intended to come out alive

I know that this is splitting hairs and that both were obviously brutal dictatorships. It is however important from a historical point of view not to simply conflate the two or to pretend that they were as bad as each other. There were differences in both the numbers and the motives

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote:

whereas Hitler appears to have genuinely believed what he was doing was right, terrible as his actions may have been.

I'll take the cynical opportunist over the crazed ideologue who genuinely believed in wiping out an entire people. Conviction can be overrated

Zebra3

Reekwind wrote: »

This is over a quarter of a century. In contrast Hitler, in the space of a decade, can be accredited with:

6 million Jews
3+ million Soviet POWs
2 million Roma
2 million Poles
1+ million miscellaneous (communists, socialists, disabled persons, homosexuals, etc)
12+ million Soviet civilians
Plus tens of millions others through a war of aggression

Which category do Polish jews go into?

rokossovsky

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Stalin had longer in power and a convenient smoke screen provided by Hitler. If its done on numbers then a calculation of number of deaths per day might be in order.

It is also worth noting the Stalin didn't industrialise the extermination of people either.

It is a difficult one to call, but I would opt for Hitler.

You hit the nail on the head here. Vasily Grossman among others have postulated that both Stalinism and Hitlerism were mirror images of each other. Stalin may not have industrialised murder but the Gulag was certainly on an industrial scale. Hundreds of thousands of innocent 'class enemies' were initially transported to Siberia and literally left to fend for themselves in the forests and swamps until they established camps where hunger and disease (and summary executions) were left to take their toll. The Ukrainian Famine was also well planned and thoroughly executed by CP apparatchniks and resulted in 3 million deaths alone. I'd recommend 'Life and Fate' , Grossmans masterpiece.

rokossovsky

dpe wrote: »

I thought about the fact that Stalin had longer in power, but the counter to that is all his concentrated nastiness was over maybe ten years from the late twenties to the late thirties, then the war got in the way and he didn't do as much bloodletting in his last seven years afer the war. And while he didn't go in for industrialised murder in the same way as the Nazis, I'm kind of "so what?" about that; it says more about our idiosyncratic attitude towards state sponsored killing than anything else. One thing is for sure, Stalin was a much worse boss to work for.

Stalin conducted a major pogrom against the Jews immediatly after the war that extended up to his death in 1953. There were also hundred of thousands of Soviet ex POWs killed in the gulag after the war - judged contaminated by the fact that they were captured by the Germans and spent time in forced labour in Germany

Reekwind

Zebra3 wrote: »

Which category do Polish jews go into?

Jews. 'Poles' here refers to ethnic Poles. I know that this is a fairly questionable categorisation but the very act of neatly separating people - which is the product of both employing records kept by those doing the killing and a purely statistical examination of the death toll - does not lend itself to such nuances. Actual people tend to get lost in the numbers

rokossovsky wrote:

Stalin conducted a major pogrom against the Jews immediatly after the war that extended up to his death in 1953

Be careful here. Stalin's latter years were certainly tinged by anti-Semitism but nothing that approached the genocidal campaigns of the Nazis or even the Tsarist-era pogroms

The Ukrainian Famine was also well planned and thoroughly executed by CP apparatchniks and resulted in 3 million deaths alone

Now this is just not true. There is absolutely no evidence that the Ukrainian famine (which is inaccurate: it was not confined to the Ukraine) was deliberately engineered by Moscow. Blame can certainly be laid at Stalin's door for an ill conceived and disastrously executed agricultural programme, plus the sheer callousness of the response to the crisis, but this is very different from suggesting that it was a purposeful genocidal campaign

CoolGirl101

Stalin.

Yet ironically, it is not seen as bad to support Stalin today, as bad as it is to support Hitler.

IE communists are accepted these days, when in reality, both are of equal 'badness'

Delancey

Both vile but I would give Stalin the edge.

Russia has a long history of ' strong men ' leaders and many Russians still admire that quality - despite Vladimir Putins unorthodox views on press freedom and democracy he still seems to be very popular , personally I view him as the ' Prince of Darkness '

rokossovsky

Of course the famine wasnt confined to the Ukraine, collectivisation resulted in famine across the SU in 1930-1933 it just was worse in the Ukraine because of Stalins vindictiveness against land owning peasantry of whom there was a greater proportion living in Ukraine. In the Ukraine resistance to collectivisation was especially strong as the peasants here were better off than your average Soviet peasant. Ukraine was a bread basket back then too. The peasants with small holdings (kulaks) resisted collectivisation and were deemed by Stalin as enemies of the people as a result. Additionally, the terror/famine in the countryside served the ideological goals of the CP in agriculture in both cowing the remaining populace and eliminating their political enemies.
Centrally planned agricultural quotas demanded from Moscow equates to planning. The figures of grain production versus confiscations were available to CP planners to Stalin himself and to his enforcing henchmen Mezhinsky, Molotov, Yagoda etc. In 1930 Stalin and his gang knew that their policies would result in mass starvation. Their own census figures from 1939 gave them final proof. Stalin toured the lower Volga region in '33 to see for himself the results.

Zebra3

CoolGirl101 wrote: »

Stalin.

Yet ironically, it is not seen as bad to support Stalin today, as bad as it is to support Hitler.

IE communists are accepted these days, when in reality, both are of equal 'badness'

People have no problem backing the so-called democracies who have carried out genocide.

jonniebgood1

CoolGirl101 wrote: »

Stalin.

Yet ironically, it is not seen as bad to support Stalin today, as bad as it is to support Hitler.

IE communists are accepted these days, when in reality, both are of equal 'badness'

It is very important to make the distiction between supporters of communism and supporters of Stalin and his methods. Communism is a system rather than a person and to link 'communists' to the crimes of Stalin is incorrect.

PatsytheNazi

Delancey wrote: »

Both vile but I would give Stalin the edge.

Russia has a long history of ' strong men ' leaders and many Russians still admire that quality - despite Vladimir Putins unorthodox views on press freedom and democracy he still seems to be very popular , personally I view him as the ' Prince of Darkness '

That's true about the Russian political culture of admiring the 'strong leader' ( a reason given for the rise in Stalinist/fascist movements of today ?). But the thing about Stalin was that he was a Georgian not a Russian. His real name was Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili and correct me if I'm wrong, but took the pen name of Stalin in a communist newspaper as it means Steel in Russian ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Joseph_Stalin

Reekwind

rokossovsky wrote: »

Of course the famine wasnt confined to the Ukraine, collectivisation resulted in famine across the SU in 1930-1933 it just was worse in the Ukraine because of Stalins vindictiveness against land owning peasantry of whom there was a greater proportion living in Ukraine

Hmmm? The Ukraine contained some major industrial centres - such as the Donbass, Kiev and Kharkov - and I've not seen any figures to suggest that it was more rural than, say, the Central Black Earth Region. Perhaps you can provide some?

Additionally, the terror/famine in the countryside served the ideological goals of the CP in agriculture in both cowing the remaining populace and eliminating their political enemies.

Again you are conflating terror and famine. This is simply inaccurate. We all know that the purpose of collectivisation was to break up the obshchina (which was actually less established in the Ukraine than Russia) and we all know that the Stalinist state used political terror to quell dissent. What is entirely unproven - and in decades of research no one has produced anything resembling a 'smoking gun' on this issue - is that Stalin planned and used the famine as a means of either eliminating or cowing the Ukrainian peasantry. He certainly didn't care much that millions were dying but this was at no point part of any grand Soviet design

Centrally planned agricultural quotas demanded from Moscow equates to planning

Planned agriculture is not the same as planned famine. Everyone can agree that the disastrous collectivisation drive played a major role in the famine. What is extremely contentious, and what there is no proof of whatsoever, is the assertion that famine was a desirable outcome out this programme. That is, that Stalin 'planned' the deaths of millions through policies that he knew "would result in mass starvation"

Frankly, given the threat that the famine posed to the industrialisation drive and the mass unrest that hunger unleashed elsewhere in the USSR, it seems absurd to suggest that Stalin deliberately set out to bring the economy to its knees. All to spite the Ukrainians

Delancey wrote:

Russia has a long history of ' strong men ' leaders and many Russians still admire that quality

I'm not a fan of writing off an entire culture or nation as prone to dictatorship. As if a yearning for the whip was somehow ingrained in the Russian psyche

rokossovsky

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is very important to make the distiction between supporters of communism and supporters of Stalin and his methods. Communism is a system rather than a person and to link 'communists' to the crimes of Stalin is incorrect.

Besides splitting hairs whats your point? Every Stalinist I have known described themselves as a communist? Would Lenin have been any different? Would Goebbels as Furher been any different to his rascist boss. My point is not a rant against the Soviets, on the contrary I believe we owe a huge debt to the Soviet people and to their armed forces during the war. Whats your beef?
The OP was to choose between Stalin or Hitler. In my opinion it makes a difference which one you choose in historical sense but each possessed qualities of the monster. Be it dressed up in Nazism or Stalinism costumery it amounted to equal misery all over Europe. Stalin having the edge on numbers and years. Hitler had his strengths in a crystal clear rascist ideology that captivated Germany at a low ebb. The world is well rid of both.

jonniebgood1

rokossovsky wrote: »

Besides splitting hairs whats your point? Every Stalinist I have known described themselves as a communist? Would Lenin have been any different? Would Goebbels as Furher been any different to his rascist boss. My point is not a rant against the Soviets, on the contrary I believe we owe a huge debt to the Soviet people and to their armed forces during the war. Whats your beef?

This is an important distinction rather than splitting hairs IMO. As you say "Every Stalinist I have known described themselves as a communist". However every communist would certainly not describe themselves as a Stalinist, in fact I would think what he did to his own working people would be abominable to most of the founders of the modern communist movement. I have no graw for communism as its proven not to work but my point is that Stalinism and communism are 2 different things.

The OP was to choose between Stalin or Hitler. In my opinion it makes a difference which one you choose in historical sense but each possessed qualities of the monster. Be it dressed up in Nazism or Stalinism costumery it amounted to equal misery all over Europe. Stalin having the edge on numbers and years. Hitler had his strengths in a crystal clear rascist ideology that captivated Germany at a low ebb. The world is well rid of both.

I think we would all agree that the world is better off without them. Could you expand on how you feel "it makes a difference which one you choose in historical sense"?

Mance Rayder

Stalin had a brain disorder which confounded his paranoia and insanity, hitler was calculated and cold. Stalin at least wanted to bring the world together in his own twisted way, regardless of race. For example, oriental people were as welcome as Slavic people in the soviet union.

Hitler wanted a ruling Master race of Germanic peoples and to enslave the 'Lower races'

Hitler was worse.

When Stalins soviet troops arrived in Ukraine and defeated the Nazi occupiers they were seen as heros.
Ukraine flourished under soviet rule in comparison to what it is now.

People forget that nobody fought the Nazis like the soviets did, the sacrifice of 22 million people to defeat Fascism should not be overlooked.

During WW2 the soviets (the soviet union was not limited to Russia folks, so to call them 'the Russians' is incorrect) were the greatest ally of the free world. There is a strong possibility that if the Nazis managed to take the USSR then there would of been no stopping them. Britian would of certainly fell along with Ireland. USA would of had a very difficult time trying to stop a Nazi run Europe and Eurasia.

Dudess

I think they were as bad as each other, just in different ways. Never in my life heard of anyone, other than nut-jobs, admiring Stalin btw. And communists aren't necessarily fans of him.

Mance Rayder

Dudess wrote: »

I think they were as bad as each other, just in different ways. Never in my life heard of anyone, other than nut-jobs, admiring Stalin btw. And communists aren't necessarily fans of him.

Its true there were many years of communism after Stalin which are still admired in many CIS countrys by people who in USSR had money, jobs and security, now they live in poverty.

Reekwind

CiscoStudent wrote: »

...people who in USSR had money, jobs and security, now they live in poverty.

Yes, poverty much like under Stalin. Contrary to the opinions of some of his apologists, Stalin's industrialisation programme brought mass hardship to the Soviet people. Workloads increased, shortages multiplied, real wages collapsed and shortages multiplied. It wasn't until the Khrushchev era that the USSR of nostalgia came into being

Mance Rayder

Reekwind wrote: »

Yes, poverty much like under Stalin. Contrary to the opinions of some of his apologists, Stalin's industrialisation programme brought mass hardship to the Soviet people. Workloads increased, shortages multiplied, real wages collapsed and shortages multiplied. It wasn't until the Khrushchev era that the USSR of nostalgia came into being

Thats what I meant, the post Stalin soviet union is well remembered by many ex soviet citizens, I have family who were born and raised in soviet Ukraine.
The Soviet union broke the backbone of the Nazi's and took eastern Europe and Eurasia from illiterate serfdom to space exploration within 3 generations, while managing to dominate the olympics and ensure 0% unemployment and 100% housing needs met in the largest nation the world has ever known.


Compare that to the state of modern day Ukraine and the other non eu CIS countrys and you will see that it wasnt all bad unless of course you swallow all that anti communist US propaganda they've been pumping out for almost a century. why are Russians always the bad guys in US movies and video games? They were allies in WW2 and without them we would all be speaking German and 'sieg heil'ing

Also in the Hitler / Stalin comparison.

Hitler operated a slash and burn policy and sanctioned horrific experiments on soviet pows.
http://www.russian-victories.ru/burning_people_alive2.jpg
http://www.russian-victories.ru/burning_people_alive.jpg
USSR disnt have a patch on this evil.

Soviet POWS(WARNING!!GRAPHIC!) in Nazi concentration camp.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZQAaVehZF5Q/TbyVrdo8xCI/AAAAAAAAApQ/rw5QHgBsDAk/s1600/soviets.jpg

Nazi POW in Soviet camp - note the Soviets are saluting the German as a mark of respect.

http://www.russian-victories.ru/german_ace_downed_and_captured.jpg

Nazi experiments included using slavic peoples body parts and bones to fashion horrific furniture suitable for sadistic SS officers.
Look it up its true.

Nazis were demonic in their mass executions.
http://www.russian-victories.ru/public_executions_in_each_town.jpg

In the city my wife is from 20'000 people were marched to the centre of the town and gunned down by the Nazis , NONE of them were soldiers all of them were innocent people. the Soviets rescued this town so forgive them if they appreciated Stalin a little more then you can.

More innocent Slavs were executed then jews, millions more, but you wont hear this side of the story so often. a form of crucifixion was popular for them, they were lucky if they got gassed compared to starving to death nailed to a plank in a field.

Latchy

Stalin tended to see people in term of the masses,not individuals and people with feelings but cannon fodder and thought nothing of executing millions of russians ,slavs ,poles, latvians and anybody who gave the slightest hint of a threat to his power ,not to mention the millions he shipped off to the Gulags for same reasons or ona whim

He pulled the eyes over both Churchill and Roosevelt with his false promise of reform in the occupied countrys after the war but did the exact opposite

The Gerams were cruel ,no doubting that but the mass rape during the fall of Berlin of aprox 20 million German women ( and many russian female prisoners along the way to ) by the russian army was sanctioned by Stalin as '' prize of war /revenge '' .Stalins quote '' the death of one man is sad ,the deaths of millions is just a statistic '' is a man who's playing god