- Status
That's probably the reason is Hitler is more notorious, actually. His policies had an impact on a huge swathe of the world, not just on Russia.
PS: Are you sure that the 5 million figure for Hitler is accurate? From what I remember of my history, 6 million Jews alone died in the death camps, which doesn't count Catholics, Gypsies, homosexuals, dissidents and so on. And that's of course not counting the death toll from World War 2.
Best, Raptor
PS: Are you sure that the 5 million figure for Hitler is accurate? From what I remember of my history, 6 million Jews alone died in the death camps, which doesn't count Catholics, Gypsies, homosexuals, dissidents and so on. And that's of course not counting the death toll from World War 2.
Best, Raptor
Ladiesman^
Spaceman
I would think Hitler is more notorious because of his methods....Hitler actually went and rounded people up and did all sorts of crazy stuff to them. Stalin pretty much used guns.
ches dragon
Spaceman
I think Hitler is more infamous because of the sheer evilness of what Hitler did. They way that he disliked these jews so he rounded them up and killed them. Also Hitler now has several hundred cults and other sick evil organisations devoted to him Whereas Stalin does not.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Eh, Hitler's deeds were a lot less significant compared to Stalin's deeds. The real reason why Stalin is considered "less evil" is because all the propaganda in those days sought to demonise Hitler, and left Stalin alone (why demonise an ally?). This changed a bit during the Cold War, but it was too late - you can't tell people for a decade that Hitler was the most evil person ever, and then suddenly expect them to believe you that he actually wasn't as bad as the guy that helped you defeat him. And Skyfire, the people who lost their lives under Stalin were only "his people" in the same way that the people killed by the Germans were "Hitler's people" - that is, they happened to live in a place occupied by the Soviet Union.
Eh, I guess that's kinda true. The only problem is that Hitler set up his own governments-except in France-while Stalin allowed his satellite states to have their own government, it's just that their military was the Soviet Union's.
So while that is fairly similar, the ruling system was slightly different-and, technically, they were they're own countries-just within the sphere of Soviet Control.
So while that is fairly similar, the ruling system was slightly different-and, technically, they were they're own countries-just within the sphere of Soviet Control.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Heh, that's no more true than your first statement was. Stalin set up Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania as satellite states, but everything else that got under Soviet control was turned into a part of the Soviet Union proper. And when any of the satellites moved towards breaking away, the Soviet troops came marching in. Hitler did the same thing with Vichy France, so I'd say both used pretty much the same ruling methods.
OriginalPhoenix
Professor Emeritus
Hitler was far from a genius when it came to military matters.
Um...all you did was solidify my point. Hitler did it to France-Stalin did it to about 5 countries. Your saying because of places like Afganistan and the Yukran being part of the Soviet Union-the rest doesn't apply.
Like I said, they were independent governments-who's military was basically the Soviet Union's. And while the USSR might have crushed any rebellions in there-that's because their military was Soviet! Those were independent countries-they just chose a government form and went with the closest/strongest group they could find. (Both in becoming dictatorships in WWII, then becoming communists.)
While Hitler made all places Germany-not just a few, then set up the other half as puppet governments. That's a fairly different ruling system-as your creating another branch to deal with the problems of a conquered/held area than a governor. Your creating an entire, self running, beauracracy. (Which is much more effective at sending supplies to Russia, than German control was at trying to rebuild.)
Like I said, they were independent governments-who's military was basically the Soviet Union's. And while the USSR might have crushed any rebellions in there-that's because their military was Soviet! Those were independent countries-they just chose a government form and went with the closest/strongest group they could find. (Both in becoming dictatorships in WWII, then becoming communists.)
While Hitler made all places Germany-not just a few, then set up the other half as puppet governments. That's a fairly different ruling system-as your creating another branch to deal with the problems of a conquered/held area than a governor. Your creating an entire, self running, beauracracy. (Which is much more effective at sending supplies to Russia, than German control was at trying to rebuild.)
pygmypiranha
Vice Admiral
Re: Re: Could Tolwyn Be Compaired to Hitler?
I ammend my decision on that statement. I now remember that the allies didn't want to kill Hitler because he was doing a better job at running his own forces into the ground than a general would that would have replaced him had he been assasinated.
I ammend my decision on that statement. I now remember that the allies didn't want to kill Hitler because he was doing a better job at running his own forces into the ground than a general would that would have replaced him had he been assasinated.
Um...
What?
That's one I haven't heard before. The Soviets and the Nazis did not get along until just before the invasion of Poland (when they secretly signed a non-aggression pact). I've never heard that the Soviets trained the German army, and I have a heard time believing something like that was even suggested.
And given the importance of battlefield tactics developed by Guderian, I think the evidence pretty heavily suggests that the Germans did their own thing.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Skyfire, firstly, Afghanistan certainly never was a part of the Soviet Union.
Secondly, the satellite countries did have their own militaries (ironically, these forces participated in crushing the other countries' attempts to get out of the Soviet bloc), but they did not choose their own form of government. In all those countires, the Soviets promised free and fair elections in 1946-48 to determine the new government. Being the occupiers, however, it wasn't difficult for them to rig the elections.
Thirdly, you are assuming that Hitler intended to permanently occupy the rest of Europe. There is no evidence to support this assumption. While it's difficult to guess what his exact intentions were, it's most likely that had the war ended with German victory, Germany would have set up Vichy-like governments in pretty much all of Western Europe - the places that Hitler wanted to directly attach to Germany were mostly in Eastern Europe.
Meanwhile, is it just me, or did somebody mention Tolwyn?
Secondly, the satellite countries did have their own militaries (ironically, these forces participated in crushing the other countries' attempts to get out of the Soviet bloc), but they did not choose their own form of government. In all those countires, the Soviets promised free and fair elections in 1946-48 to determine the new government. Being the occupiers, however, it wasn't difficult for them to rig the elections.
Thirdly, you are assuming that Hitler intended to permanently occupy the rest of Europe. There is no evidence to support this assumption. While it's difficult to guess what his exact intentions were, it's most likely that had the war ended with German victory, Germany would have set up Vichy-like governments in pretty much all of Western Europe - the places that Hitler wanted to directly attach to Germany were mostly in Eastern Europe.
Meanwhile, is it just me, or did somebody mention Tolwyn?
Tolwyn can be compared to Hitler. So can any other mass murderer.
Nobody mentioned Mao. Or Pol Pot. Can't forget those examples of misplaced rage either. Or for that matter Ivan the terrible, and Ghangis Kahn.
Anyone else want to add to the list?
Finally-the Jewboy could find a way into the Nazi thread. Oy.
Nobody mentioned Mao. Or Pol Pot. Can't forget those examples of misplaced rage either. Or for that matter Ivan the terrible, and Ghangis Kahn.
Anyone else want to add to the list?
Finally-the Jewboy could find a way into the Nazi thread. Oy.
Zarathustra
Spaceman
Since we are talking about mass murderers, why doesn't anyone mention the English. They have had so many mass murderers in power, but no one says anything about them b/c we are a country founded by English settlers. However, they had murdered and raped the Irish in Munster Leinster, and Connacht for seven hundred years, and continue to do so in ulster. They also did the same in Scotland, India, and well almost everywhere they go.
They murder the people and try to murder the culture.
Maybe Tolwyn should be compared to Edward I, or Henry VII or Elizabeth I (she killed more Catholics that "BLoody" Mary killed Protestants)? why does no one mention the limeys?
26+6=1 (26 counties in republic of ireland+ulster=one united nation).
"I would live but one day and one night, if my deeds would live forever"-Cuchulainn, the Hound of Ulster
They murder the people and try to murder the culture.
Maybe Tolwyn should be compared to Edward I, or Henry VII or Elizabeth I (she killed more Catholics that "BLoody" Mary killed Protestants)? why does no one mention the limeys?
26+6=1 (26 counties in republic of ireland+ulster=one united nation).
"I would live but one day and one night, if my deeds would live forever"-Cuchulainn, the Hound of Ulster
pygmypiranha
Vice Admiral
We are comparing Tolwyn to Hitler... try to keep things on the ball...
Keep in mind mass murderers killed because of different reasons that Tolwyn all together. Some didn't even have reasoning behind their actions.
- Status