And I expect to be called out on it when I post wrong information, which is why I was not offended when someone tried to explain to me that Hitler wasn't elected democratically, despite it being completely irrelevant to my point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He was appointed by Papen as Chancellor - and regardless of whether or not he was fairly elected as President doesn't detract from the point which was that he had to be smart to get there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That sounds to me like a justification of opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't wrong with a technicality. I said he got elected and that takes brains. I never said he was fairly elected, did I? It takes brains to get elected PERIOD. All I did was restate my point that I had made earlier.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't make any sense.

My point on the first page was that according to the Chaos Theory, if Stalin or Hitler wouldn't have acted like that, today we could be all dead from nuclear explosions and radiations, we could still have no man-made objects in outer space, we could be dead due to extreme global warming, we could be all united under one peaceful democratic government, we could be all united under one really bad autocracy, etc.

 

 

 

Therefore, we cannot call either one of them "bad," because their absence could've caused worse things to happen.

Therefore, we cannot call either one of them "bad," because their absence could've caused worse things to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except you don't know what would have happened without them and what they did was bad. So they're bad.

My point on the first page was that according to the Chaos Theory, if Stalin or Hitler wouldn't have acted like that, today we could be all dead from nuclear explosions and radiations, we could still have no man-made objects in outer space, we could be dead due to extreme global warming, we could be all united under one peaceful democratic government, we could be all united under one really bad autocracy, etc.

 

 

 

Therefore, we cannot call either one of them "bad," because their absence could've caused worse things to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's quite an interesting theory as I believe there was a "baby boom" in the 1920's, I've always wondered about that being coincidently before WW2. But what you said it pretty irrelevant as it isn't answering the question I was asking. Historians are always debating about these things, they happened, it's history now and there is nothing left to do but to discuss it.

 

 

 

Actually Stalins pre-war purges greatly weakened Russia's military power as he killed so many of his own Generals that he had to replace them with far inferior skilled/inexperienced replacements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah yes, its coming back to me now :P.

 

 

 

The purges thing simply helped kick start the country into developing economically. People were too scared to ask for raises or days off, and so by sheer terror, Stalin managed to get his country mobilised for war relatively quickly

 

 

 

(even if all the quality of the Red Army had been lost :x )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The purges had nothing to do with the economy. The purges were the mass killing of enemies (or at least those who suspected of being) of Stalins. Alot of those killed where members of the Red Army (from all ranks) as well as leading politicians, communist party members & anyone else who was considered 'enemies of the people'. In the end its estimated that during the main period of the purges ('37 & '38) around 1.2 Million people died either by firing squad or due to their treatment in the Siberian Gulags. Long story short the purges had nothing to do with the economy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 5 year plans were the set brutally swift nation wide plans to drag USSR into the 20th century kicking and screaming. The plans were successful in the sense that they helped Soviet industial & economic strength sky-rocket, but they cost the USSR alot in terms of lives lost.

 

Therefore, we cannot call either one of them "bad," because their absence could've caused worse things to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except you don't know what would have happened without them and what they did was bad. So they're bad.

 

 

 

If something worse would've happened if they wouldn't have existed, they would be good. So we don't know if they're bad or not. (There are different degrees of bad. They did something bad (event A), but if they wouldn't have done that something worse would've happened (event B), event A would be good compared to event B.)

 

 

Therefore, we cannot call either one of them "bad," because their absence could've caused worse things to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except you don't know what would have happened without them and what they did was bad. So they're bad.

 

 

 

If something worse would've happened if they wouldn't have existed, they would be good. So we don't know if they're bad or not. (There are different degrees of bad. They did something bad (event A), but if they wouldn't have done that something worse would've happened (event B), event A would be good compared to event B.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But that didn't happen so that isn't worse. Whereas what they did was bad.

 

 

 

Therefore, we cannot call either one of them "bad," because their absence could've caused worse things to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except you don't know what would have happened without them and what they did was bad. So they're bad.

 

 

 

If something worse would've happened if they wouldn't have existed, they would be good. So we don't know if they're bad or not. (There are different degrees of bad. They did something bad (event A), but if they wouldn't have done that something worse would've happened (event B), event A would be good compared to event B.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But that didn't happen so that isn't worse. Whereas what they did was bad.

 

 

 

It could still be worse, regardless of whetever it happened or not.

 

 

 

I know that what they did is bad, but if they wouldn't have done that, right now we could be talking about how much better today's world would be if Hitler and Stalin had done all that.

 

 

 

 

Therefore, we cannot call either one of them "bad," because their absence could've caused worse things to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except you don't know what would have happened without them and what they did was bad. So they're bad.

 

 

 

If something worse would've happened if they wouldn't have existed, they would be good. So we don't know if they're bad or not. (There are different degrees of bad. They did something bad (event A), but if they wouldn't have done that something worse would've happened (event B), event A would be good compared to event B.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But that didn't happen so that isn't worse. Whereas what they did was bad.

 

 

 

It could still be worse, regardless of whetever it happened or not.

 

 

 

I know that what they did is bad, but if they wouldn't have done that, right now we could be talking about how much better today's world would be if Hitler and Stalin had done all that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right. But it also could have been better. The problem with discussing it under your theory is the chances of it being better are equal to the chances of it being worse, therefore, those two chances cancel each other out and we are left discussing what actually happened. Not would've, could've, should've.

 

Don't get me wrong Hitler was truly evil but I consider Stalin worse since he created the power structure to keep him in power for as long as he lived where as Hitler was erratic & couldn't even control his closest allies towards the end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you think if Hitler was smarter in the way he handled himself, he would have ended up just as evil in Stalin?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that if Hitler insulated himself to the same degree as Stalin did then its possible he could have gone on to be more destructive than he was. However, the way Hitler ruled Germany (by annexing foreign nations) meant he could never have a long reign, where as when Stalin took land he did it in an opportunistic manner (mainly during the post-war conferences) Stalin in my opinion was far more shrewd politically than Hitler which I feel made him more dangerous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A smarter enemy is more dangerous than an aggressive enemy in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christ I'm starting to sound like Sun Tzu...

 

 

 

The purges had nothing to do with the economy. The purges were the mass killing of enemies (or at least those who suspected of being) of Stalins. Alot of those killed where members of the Red Army (from all ranks) as well as leading politicians, communist party members & anyone else who was considered 'enemies of the people'. In the end its estimated that during the main period of the purges ('37 & '38) around 1.2 Million people died either by firing squad or due to their treatment in the Siberian Gulags. Long story short the purges had nothing to do with the economy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 5 year plans were the set brutally swift nation wide plans to drag USSR into the 20th century kicking and screaming. The plans were successful in the sense that they helped Soviet industial & economic strength sky-rocket, but they cost the USSR alot in terms of lives lost.

 

 

 

Thats essentially what I meant. You obviously know a ton more than me about this, and so can word it correctly :P

 

 

 

The point I was trying to get at was, what with all the politcal opposition, and sometimes public opposition, Stalin wouldn't be able to take a strangle-hold on the country, which is what eventually got him the reforms for a brutally efficient country. But doing the purges, he just scared the people into forming an efficient communist economy.

A smarter enemy is more dangerous than an aggressive enemy in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nevertheless Hitler started the war, by the end of it over 50 million lives had been lost because of it. I would class that as dangerous.

I think that if Hitler insulated himself to the same degree as Stalin did then its possible he could have gone on to be more destructive than he was. However, the way Hitler ruled Germany (by annexing foreign nations) meant he could never have a long reign, where as when Stalin took land he did it in an opportunistic manner (mainly during the post-war conferences) Stalin in my opinion was far more shrewd politically than Hitler which I feel made him more dangerous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A smarter enemy is more dangerous than an aggressive enemy in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think I'd have to agree with you actually. Stalin did much more damage in the long run, creating more damage overall, is essentially the point you're making, correct?

 

A smarter enemy is more dangerous than an aggressive enemy in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nevertheless Hitler started the war, by the end of it over 50 million lives had been lost because of it. I would class that as dangerous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course I don't dispute that for a second.

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore, we cannot call either one of them "bad," because their absence could've caused worse things to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except you don't know what would have happened without them and what they did was bad. So they're bad.

 

 

 

If something worse would've happened if they wouldn't have existed, they would be good. So we don't know if they're bad or not. (There are different degrees of bad. They did something bad (event A), but if they wouldn't have done that something worse would've happened (event B), event A would be good compared to event B.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But that didn't happen so that isn't worse. Whereas what they did was bad.

 

 

 

It could still be worse, regardless of whetever it happened or not.

 

 

 

I know that what they did is bad, but if they wouldn't have done that, right now we could be talking about how much better today's world would be if Hitler and Stalin had done all that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right. But it also could have been better. The problem with discussing it under your theory is the chances of it being better are equal to the chances of it being worse, therefore, those two chances cancel each other out and we are left discussing what actually happened. Not would've, could've, should've.

 

 

 

The problem with your theory is that you don't know if the chances cancel out. It's called Chaos theory for a reason. You don't really know what would've happened, so you don't know whetever what they did was good or bad. (Using a supercomputer that knows everything that happened within at least 100lyrs of Earth (this includes the number of bacteria that replicated on Pluto) in about 1920, one could calculate the effects of their absence... But we don't have the technology to do that yet.)

Hitler by far, think otherwise? go watch a few movies... Movies are pretty disturbing actually...

The problem with your theory is that you don't know if the chances cancel out. It's called Chaos theory for a reason. You don't really know what would've happened, so you don't know whetever what they did was good or bad. (Using a supercomputer that knows everything that happened within at least 100lyrs of Earth (this includes the number of bacteria that replicated on Pluto) in about 1920, one could calculate the effects of their absence... But we don't have the technology to do that yet.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are an infinite number of possibilities as to what would happen according to the Chaos Theory. An infinite number means there is an infinite number of good, and infinite number of bad consequences. If there are both an infinite number of good and bad, then that cancels out rendering it completely pointless to discuss the possibility.

 

The problem with your theory is that you don't know if the chances cancel out. It's called Chaos theory for a reason. You don't really know what would've happened, so you don't know whetever what they did was good or bad. (Using a supercomputer that knows everything that happened within at least 100lyrs of Earth (this includes the number of bacteria that replicated on Pluto) in about 1920, one could calculate the effects of their absence... But we don't have the technology to do that yet.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are an infinite number of possibilities as to what would happen according to the Chaos Theory. An infinite number means there is an infinite number of good, and infinite number of bad consequences. If there are both an infinite number of good and bad, then that cancels out rendering it completely pointless to discuss the possibility.

 

 

 

You're wrong... If I wouldn't have picked up an eraser one milisecond ago, there is no way that something on the other side of the universe would've blown up because of that. The number of possibilities varies with the amount of time passed, and as more time passes, the number of possibilities approaches infinity.

 

 

 

And it's not about what could've happened, it's about what would've happened. You can't say that if I hadn't picked up that eraser I would've had a heart attack and not had a heart attack at the same time. There isn't an infinite number of time lines that would've resulted, there's an infinite number of time lines that could've resulted. We know that an infinite number of time lines could've resulted from Stalin not being born, but only one of those time lines would've resulted from that. And since we don't know which time line that is, we have no way of knowing whetever they were bad or not.

 

 

 

Anyway... this is getting kinda off-topic. We should stop...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abbysalwhip, have you even seen any movies about Stalin. Some Russian people would say that Stalin was worse by far and tell us to go watch some movies. You only think that Hitler was worse because you live in a country where everyone else also thinks that Hitler was worse. And because Hitler came after Stalin and more people told their children about Hitler than about Stalin. (I heard that Stalin would send people to Siberia, where they would slowly starve and freeze to death with no way of escaping. Hitler sent people to camps where they actually used the prisoners as a work force. Therefore more of Hitler's prisoners lived. I might be wrong though...)

Who was worse? Neither, all tyrant dictators are on the same level, regardless of the numbers killed, tortured, or anything else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They're all on the same level, these cruel leaders.

Hitler did try to eradicate a whole religion... well anyone that was different for that matter.

Well starlin was a hilter wanna be

 

 

 

Wait, how was this overlooked? Stalin came before Hitler, and practically acted as his mentor through his younger years.

I say Hitler. Firstly, he has a sort of..power in a way. Some people describe it as Mysticism..if you know about the Charles Manson trials, Hitler could convince someone 10x more effectively. e could look at you, and convince YOU your name was hingleydingleydoodadey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So..he takes over an ENTIRE country during an economic depression, raises it up, and brainwashes millions into the Nazi Army using this 'power'. Then, he convinces them that Jews should not be here. There goes the Holocaust. Then, they continue to take over Europe..and the U.S. comes. Hitler commits suicide a year or so afterwards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He killed MILLIONS of Jews and MILLIONS of innocent people just to satisfy his thirst for a perfect world. THATS evil.

Apart from his cruelty and political views Hitler was an exellent leader.

 

 

 

Before him Germany was weak, and could do nothing really.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion Lenin was worse, he killed way more people and in our country we had more than 30+ years of communist dictatorship. So I'm only effected by Lenin if at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't tell me I'm a nazi, but many people will say Hitler because his acts are so over exaggerated. In schools they put a emphasis on teaching how bad he was, but will say "well communism is just a fair view of things".

it all depends on how you look at it. from a purely human standpoint, stalin killed many more people then hitler ever did, including the jews. from another standpont though, stalin was.......... quiter about it. He never tried to take over the world.

Hitler by far, think otherwise? go watch a few movies... Movies are pretty disturbing actually...

Movies are almost always exaggerated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for who was worse, I will go with Stalin. Hitler was simply misguided in his attempts to make the perfect Germany.