Stalin. Worse than Hitler?

[Ecofarm]

Thanks, germanos. I was tired of hearing that "democracy produced (people voted for) dictatorship in Nazi Germany" crap.

An aside: Did they actually vote for dictatorship in Italy?

[Kidlicious]

Well, I respect 'we are superior because we think this way' a bit more than 'we are superior because we look this way'.

And Hitler did have much less time to 'work his magic' than Stalin did. Had he beat the Soviets, his would surely have been the larger headcount.

Headcount should count for nothing as neither of them probably tried to kill less people.

[Ecofarm]

When mass murder or genocide is the objective, we should give points for success appropriately. Pol Pot, for percent of population, scores highest there; however, Hitler's limited time is a reasonable consideration. Perhaps we should check the %pop/year stats (individual years and over time). There could be some years where Mao, Saddam or an African could win (or be in the top years/decades).

Side note: I think for Stalin we should include the pointless human waves that were pretty much known to be pointless at the time; he kinda just slaughtered his least-trusted/loyal/pretty/lucky units via battle and then did so internally (purges).

[BeBMan]

Thanks, germanos. I was tired of hearing that "democracy produced (people voted for) dictatorship in Nazi Germany" crap.

An aside: Did they actually vote for dictatorship in Italy?

More of a transition, IIRC Mussolini was appointed chief of govt (at this time not completely fascist) by the Italian king in a time of violent struggles between left and right during the 1920ies. Later he actually won majorities but in an alliance with other parties, and also after changing electoral law to act in his favour plus doing massive violence and voter intimidation. After some guy tried to assassinate Benito he used the momentum to introduce more and more dictator-stuff to "restore order", like banning opposition parties, relying more and more on secret police doing stuff etc etc.

[Monk]

Thanks, germanos. I was tired of hearing that "democracy produced (people voted for) dictatorship in Nazi Germany" crap.

But in a sense they did. The anti-democratic parties combined got the majority of votes in more than one election. In the end, even if the parties hated each other, the majority of Germans did prefer some sort of a regime and voted accordingly. At that point it was probably just a matter of which one.

Wow, only 33% of the population supported exterminating Jews. I feel so much better. :P

Again, that's not really his platform in 1933 ... nobody could reasonably know by then what was coming.

[Zevico]

1. Better Red than Dead.
2. A vast majority of Germans were, at the time of the extermination of Jews, Gypsies et al., quite supportive of these policies. See e.g. the book Hitler's Willing Executioners.

[BeBMan]

2. A vast majority of Germans were, at the time of the extermination of Jews, Gypsies et al., quite supportive of these policies. See e.g. the book Hitler's Willing Executioners.

Debatable, and Goldhagen's book, while drawing a lot of public attention, isn't really that great work. There are a lot of problems with it, one being for example how to measure how many Germans were supportive of Hitler and his policies at a given point between 33-45 when there are not much sources about public opinion, since a dictatorship doesn't do polls how people felt about Hitler etc...

Afaik the best historical research has shown so far is that there were vague tendencies, like that support for Hitler was at its height after the fall of France. But that isn't enough to explain the Holocaust. About this, Browning's "Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland" gives much better exanations and IIRC in one of the later editions he also added a part dealing critically with Goldhagen which is worth reading IMO.

[Provost Harrison]

Wow, MOBIUS, it worked

[Monk]

2. A vast majority of Germans were, at the time of the extermination of Jews, Gypsies et al., quite supportive of these policies. See e.g. the book Hitler's Willing Executioners.

That's possible. I'm just talking about the early 30's here, y'know.

[Ecofarm]

But in a sense they did. The anti-democratic parties combined got the majority of votes in more than one election. In the end, even if the parties hated each other, the majority of Germans did prefer some sort of a regime and voted accordingly. At that point it was probably just a matter of which one.

So there were dictatorship parties other than the Nazis?

So far, I've got... The Nazis received 33% in 1932 and 45% in the next election (1933?!) and the president died in 1934. Then Hitler declared himself Dictator.

How can two or more parties running on a dictatorship platform share power? Who were the other parties and what percent did they get?

Note: I am not a history nerd (I'm a debate, politics, religion, ethics, ecology nerd), so please keep it as simple as possible.

[germanos]

But in a sense they did.

No, they didn't.

[Kitschum]

So far, I've got... The Nazis received 33% in 1932 and 45% in the next election (1933?!) and the president died in 1934. Then Hitler declared himself Dictator.

How can two or more parties running on a dictatorship platform share power? Who were the other parties and what percent did they get?

There was a nationalist party that was allied to the veteran/paramilitary organization Stahlhelm. They used to get about 8% or so. They were Versailles revisionist, but were otherwise less radical than the Nazi party. I understand they supported Hitler because they hoped to ride out his initial popularity and take over after he had ****ed up as they expected. They received some cabinet seats in return for giving Hitler the majority he wanted.

But it turned out that he didn't. Hitler seemed to have solved the unemployment problem in record time, and when he eliminated the SA leaders he had alleviated some of the conservative fears of a revolution and at the same time defused the potential threat of an opposition from that camp. It only reappeared when the war started to go badly.

[Joseph]

How old was this guy? Stalin had been deade for over 55 years by 2008? The guy couldn't have been very old during the years that Stalin did most of his dirty work, i.e. the 1920's and the early 1940's. Furthermore, how could one guy supply 50 million names?

The SU had a population of 150 million when Stalin took power, its population rose to 196 million by the beginning of WW2, fell to 175 million by the end, then reached 185 million by the time Stalin died. I don't see any room there for 50 million deaths, unless you're blaming Stalin for WW2. Hey guys! It's Ned! He's back!

There were 2 guys on the interview. But they worked for the KGB section that was required to supply names. The 2 guys were in their 70s or 80s about 2 years ago. Stalin died in 1953. I remember the hearing the Radio brodcast, and yes I knew who Stalin was. I was 9 at that time.

[One_more_turn]

It was very dangerous to work for Stalin, not so for Hitler.

Hjalmar Schacht and Heinz Guderian regularly got into shouting match with Hitler, but the worst they suffered was neglect. Stalin would have shot them on the spot.

[Serb]

There were 2 guys on the interview. But they worked for the KGB section that was required to supply names. The 2 guys were in their 70s or 80s about 2 years ago. Stalin died in 1953. I remember the hearing the Radio brodcast, and yes I knew who Stalin was. I was 9 at that time.

Oh, my. The KGB did even EXIST at times of Stalin. I can't believe people can be SOOOOO unbelievable dumb to buy such bullsh!t.