Current Events > CMV Saying Stalin was worse than Hitler is racist dog whistle for the right

(+) Yeah! (+)

I love calling out dog whistles lol

---

CMV?

caps

---

I mean by some measures, he was. You could also say Saddam was worse.

boxington posted...

CMV?

caps

change my view

---

coh posted...

I mean by some measures, he was. You could also say Saddam was worse.

We saw what an occupied East Germany looked liked, if Hitler would have occupied the USSR he would have just exterminated them

---

I agree with this honestly. Hitler was really the most evil dictator, at least of modern times.

That being said Stalin is tragic in the sense that the USSR could have actually been a good country if put in the right hands. Stalin's actions set the left back hundreds of years.

---

I think a "defense" of Stalin is that he was a psychopath - in other words he was mentally ill. He didn't have the feelings of empathy or remorse. Whereas Hitler was just evil.

Did you seriously create a topic to defend Stalin, though?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Sorry TC
---

idk if I've ever heard anyone say that Stalin was worse than Hitler, but I've heard people try to whitewash the evils that Russia committed around that time period since they were fighting against the Nazis during the war.

---

Politics posted...

I agree with this honestly. Hitler was really the most evil dictator, at least of modern times.

That being said Stalin is tragic in the sense that the USSR could have actually been a good country if put in the right hands. Stalin's actions set the left back hundreds of years.

Stalin industrialized the USSR and won WW2. WW2 is the real reason for the collapse of the USSR because the Russians never really recovered from it and had to fight a economic Cold War right after it.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

I think a "defense" of Stalin is that he was a psychopath - in other words he was mentally ill. He didn't have empathy or remorse. Whereas Hitler was just evil.

I think it's the opposite. Hitler was a lunatic especially towards the end. Stalin was cold calculating evil.

Country Music Videos?

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

I think a "defense" of Stalin is that he was a psychopath - in other words he was mentally ill. He didn't have the feelings of empathy or remorse. Whereas Hitler was just evil.

Did you seriously create a topic to defend Stalin, though?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Sorry TC

I never said Stalin was a good person, but telling me he was worse than Hitler is utterly insane.

---

They're both mass murderers. I don't weigh what one did against what the other did. In the end, Stalin and Hitler killed millions. Both from extremely shitty political ideals, fascism and communism. Both forms of which should be dead and buried by now, but yet still live, communism is still alive and well with China and NK.

---

Obligatory:

boxington posted...

CMV?

caps

Cytomegalovirus

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Obligatory:

okay, what if Hitler won ww2 then

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

okay, what if Hitler won ww2 then

Pol Pot and Mao would have a little german buddy?

JBaLLEN66 posted...

okay, what if Hitler won ww2 then

You're demonstrably wrong, so you have to resort to what if, hypothetical scenarios.

In terms of the Ethical Fourier transform, Stalin was in fact worse than Hitler. If you reach beyond his own personal record and look to the global destruction his red tactics caused in other countries you would need like six Hitlers to top Stalin.

In terms of war crimes / morality / etc that's just not really a debate I think is worth having.

---

Esrac posted...

You're demonstrably wrong, so you have to resort to what if, hypothetical scenarios.

im not wrong, Hitler stopped because he lost the war not because he came to heart. We all know how the world went with Stalin and Mao because they didnt lose WW2 which was caused by Hitler himself btw

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

im not wrong, Hitler stopped because he lost the war not because he came to heart. We all know how the world went with Stalin and Mao because they didnt lose WW2 which was caused by Hitler himself btw

Okay but what if instead the time travelers killed Stalin as a baby?

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Okay but what if instead the time travelers killed Stalin as a baby?

High five from Trotsky, probably.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Okay but what if instead the time travelers killed Stalin as a baby?

Last time I checked, Stalin didnt have death camps enacted in every Warsaw Pact country/Soviet satellite

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Last time I checked, Stalin didnt have death camps enacted in every Warsaw Pact country/Soviet satellite

Well, I mean, he only really needed one.

JBaLLEN66 posted...

I never said Stalin was a good person, but telling me he was worse than Hitler is utterly insane.

These are very subjective things. If you go simply by number of people killed by his actions, Pol Pot would not be considered more evil than Stalin, Mao, or Hitler. But Pol Pot ran a torture regime. So does that make him more evil? And what about people who are even more evil than the ones mentioned, but didn't have nearly as much political power? They are never going to be a list of most people ever, but would someone who was directly affected by them be wrong for calling that person the most evil ever?

And anyway, the people mentioned are among the most evil people ever when considering both intentions and political power. So it really doesn't matter who is more evil than the other. No reasonable person thinks defending Hitler is a good thing, so you had to word this topic the way you did. In other words, this topic sucks.
---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

im not wrong, Hitler stopped because he lost the war not because he came to heart. We all know how the world went with Stalin and Mao because they didnt lose WW2 which was caused by Hitler himself btw

Yes, Hitler stopped because he died. Are you suggesting that Stalin and Mao stopped killing millions of people because they had a change of heart?

It's not just a matter of how many died, but also why they died.

Hitler's motivation was racial hatred and he was so fervent in his hatred that he pulled soldiers from the front lines to hunt down Jews in neighboring countries. Genocide was his top priority; even over winning the war itself.

Stalin was evil, and murdered more people over a greater span of time, but Hitler's top priority was ridding the world of an ethnic group he despised. And that's a heinous as anyone could possibly be. Even Stalin would have prioritized the war over personal prejudices.

The gas chamber itself largely came about because the people who had previously been tasked with genocide had a high suicide rate. They needed to make death impersonal and so they created a system for which one would not have to look the victims in the eyes. Murderous scumbag human beings who swallowed the Nazi rhetoric wholesale were killing themselves because they were being forced to be more evil than most human beings are capable of and a new system had to be devised to make death impersonal for the murdering party. And the only motivation was ethnic hatred.

You can't get more evil than that.

---

The fuck was Leopold doing anyway?

...okay I should not have looked that up before bed.

Honestly, there's not much difference between the top ten genociders in the world. They were all evil as shit, so trying to determine the most evil is kind of pointless. Though I think Stalin had like thirty years on Hitler, so Hitler ruling for that amount of time could have led to an even higher body count if that's the only comparison you're making.

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Last time I checked, Stalin didnt have death camps enacted in every Warsaw Pact country/Soviet satellite

Not for lack of wanting. While he hated just about everything about Hitler he did praise relocation / concentration camps as a useful tool for quelling political dissent.

Edit: and besides, he was plenty effective at killing people without those camps anyway. See: Holodomor.

---

Esrac posted...

Yes, Hitler stopped because he died. Are you suggesting that Stalin and Mao stopped killing millions of people because they had a change of heart?

Dying due to a forced suicide to avoid being captured is different than dying of natural causes

Damn_Underscore posted...

These are very subjective things. If you go simply by number of people killed by his actions, Pol Pot would not be considered more evil than Stalin, Mao, or Hitler. But Pol Pot ran a torture regime. So does that make him more evil? And what about people who are even more evil than the ones mentioned, but didn't have nearly as much political power? They are never going to be a list of most people ever, but would someone who was directly affected by them be wrong for calling that person the most evil ever?

And anyway, the people mentioned are among the most evil people ever when considering both intentions and political power. So it really doesn't matter who is more evil than the other. No reasonable person thinks defending Hitler is a good thing, so you had to word this topic the way you did. In other words, this topic sucks.

isn't this a dog whistle too lol

---

nemu posted...

Honestly, there's not much difference between the top ten genociders in the world. They were all evil as shit, so trying to determine the most evil is kind of pointless. Though I think Stalin had like thirty years on Hitler, so Hitler ruling for that amount of time could have led to an even higher body count if that's the only comparison you're making.

So Hitler winning WW2 wouldn't have made a difference in the world?

---

Theyre both equally horrible but the commies on here love some Stalin.

a dude one time asked me on college campus why I had a problem with Stalin when I was talking about the movie the death of Stalin.

fucking idiots.

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

So Hitler winning WW2 wouldn't have made a difference in the world?

You seem to think Germany had any chance against the Soviets.

A dog whistle for what lol? You're literally calling my post some arbitrary insult because I called you out and you're mad.
---

Is op a tankie?

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

You seem to think Germany had any chance against the Soviets.

Well the poster said the mere difference was just kill counts derp

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

A dog whistle for what lol? You're literally calling my post some arbitrary insult because I called you out and you're mad.

No, the alt right always does this balance fallacy to make their neo nazi ideas not seem as bad compared to other fringe beliefs.

---

You made a topic implying that what Stalin did wasn't that bad because Hitler was worse, and then when someone questions it you call them an alt right agent perpetuating neo nazi ideas.

What dog whistle are you doing TC?
---

Time to take a break.

---

It's like Bill Burr said: Mao and Stalin have steroid-era stats.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

You made a topic implying that what Stalin did wasn't that bad because Hitler was worse, and then when someone questions it you call them an alt right agent perpetuating neo nazi ideas.

What dog whistle are you doing TC?

Now you are pivoting smh

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Last time I checked, Stalin didnt have death camps enacted in every Warsaw Pact country/Soviet satellite

I don't know about being in every country, but I guess if you don't count forced slave labor camps/gulag labor colonies where they would send you for reasons as arbitrary as "being a doctor" for years to try to work you to death. But only about 1.5 - 2 million died in those.

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Dying due to a forced suicide to avoid being captured is different than dying of natural causes

Not functionally, no. They only stopped killing because they died. It just happens that the rest of the world didn't effectively act to kill the two longer-lived genocidal dictators.

I know it would be smart to stop giving TC attention but I can't help it.

You never answered my question TC, what dog whistle are you doing? What are your actual intentions with this topic?
---

I think an interesting take on this is that one of the main reason Hitler couldn't kill as many as Stalin was because unlike Stalin (or Mao for that matter), we actually stopped Hitler midway through his efforts.

Because other things were going on, nobody interfered to put a hard stop to what Stalin and Mao were doing, while Hitler lost the war he was fighting and basically had to unconditionally surrender and stop his efforts dead. We'll never really know what would've happened if Hitler could continue doing what he was doing, but saying Stalin is worse because he got to finish what he started doesn't seem quite right.

Also,
Skye Reynolds posted...

It's not just a matter of how many died, but also why they died.

Hitler's motivation was racial hatred and he was so fervent in his hatred that he pulled soldiers from the front lines to hunt down Jews in neighboring countries. Genocide was his top priority; even over winning the war itself.

Stalin was evil, and murdered more people over a greater span of time, but Hitler's top priority was ridding the world of an ethnic group he despised. And that's a heinous as anyone could possibly be. Even Stalin would have prioritized the war over personal prejudices.

The gas chamber itself largely came about because the people who had previously been tasked with genocide had a high suicide rate. They needed to make death impersonal and so they created a system for which one would not have to look the victims in the eyes. Murderous scumbag human beings who swallowed the Nazi rhetoric wholesale were killing themselves because they were being forced to be more evil than most human beings are capable of and a new system had to be devised to make death impersonal for the murdering party. And the only motivation was ethnic hatred.

You can't get more evil than that.

This.

Esrac posted...

I don't know about being in every country, but I guess if you don't count forced slave labor camps/gulag labor colonies where they would send you for reasons as arbitrary as "being a doctor" for years to try to work you to death. But only about 1.5 - 2 million died in those.

Not functionally, no. They only stopped killing because they died. It just happens that the rest of the world didn't effectively act to kill the two longer-lived genocidal dictators.

so if Hitler won WW2 and would have remained alive because he didn't commit suicide, do you think the world would be different today or similar?

Damn_Underscore posted...

I know it would be smart to stop giving TC attention but I can't help it.

You never answered my question TC, what dog whistle are you doing?

I'm not aware of me doing any dog whistling, I've stated plenty of times that Stalin wasn't a good guy

---

Proto_Spark posted...

I think an interesting take on this is that one of the main reason Hitler couldn't kill as many as Stalin was because unlike Stalin (or Mao for that matter), we actually stopped Hitler midway through his efforts.

Because other things were going on, nobody interfered to put a hard stop to what Stalin and Mao were doing, while Hitler lost the war he was fighting and basically had to unconditionally surrender and stop his efforts dead. We'll never really know what would've happened if Hitler could continue doing what he was doing, but saying Stalin is worse because he got to finish what he started doesn't seem quite right.

I don't think its accurate to say Stalin got to finish what he started. More like he died doing what he loved. That is being a cold blooded dictator who methodically enslaved and killed millions of people.

Esrac posted...

I don't think its accurate to say Stalin got to finish what he started. More like he died doing what he loved. That is being a cold blooded dictator who methodically enslaved and killed millions of people.

And what if Hitler died doing what he loved without induced suicide?

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

I'm not aware of me doing any dog whistling, I've stated plenty of times that Stalin wasn't a good guy

So your defense of Stalin is waived by you saying he wasn't a good guy, but you read my post and think it's a secret alt-right message?

Sorry TC, but I don't think you're being consistent.
---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

so if Hitler won WW2 and would have remained alive because he didn't commit suicide, do you think the world would be different today or similar?

Sure. But it's not a point worth discussing in-depth, because we don't like in a world where Nazi Germany won the war. Its irrelevant what might have happened.

But I could just as well ask you if the world would be different if Stalin had been in power for another decade. Or if the US had lost the war, but the USSR won, giving Stalin even more power.

Fictional history hypotheticals are pointless.