Discussion in 'Leaders of World War 2' started by Miller phpbb3, Nov 1, 2006.
Hitler or Stalin? I'd say Stalin.
Stalin had reasons for what he did (however crazy or horrible)
Hitler had no reasons whatsoever
I have noticed on these forums that people on occasion quote Stalin. Nobody quotes Hitler
Why? It would be nice to know your reasons for one over the other.
IMHO, Stalin, while clearly nasty and cruel, was not crazy by any accepted definition. Hitler on the other hand made irrational decisions (e.g. "no retreat" orders).
Ok well lets see, one reason is the why he had his best generals shot for supposidly planing against him, another is when the Germans asked him for one of their generals for Stalin's sun he said, "I have no son." And another why is when he gave the no retreat order at Stalingrad.
Stalin was certainly paranoid...
And the battle was won...
Stalin would make Machiavelli proud. He was no fool. That can be seen from way he conducted war. From beggining he did have Hitler like ideas (i.e. meddling in tactical decisions), but later on he did gave his commanders a lot (for paranaoic dictator) of independance in decision making.
Reason for officer excutions was more or less his paranoia, but even paranoics do have enemies (and Stalin had a lot of those)
Yes, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean nobody's watching
Stalin also didsn't opt to have Paris (or any respective cities under his occupation) burnt to the ground
Both leaders were outstanding men in a generation of leaders .
the roster is impressive
Roosevetl ,Churchill ,Maotse tung , Tito , de Gaulle ,Mussolini ,Ho chi minh
All those men led their country through peace and war during the
mid 20th century interacting with others as allied ,enemy ,friend or foe
often changing stance under the winds of battle .
The greatest confrontation was between Stalin and Hitler
it would be suitable to reduce WW2 as the dramatic opera of those two men lives.
both from very poor background were self taugh , both men were abused by their fathers ,
stalin had an arm shorter , having had it broken during the regular trashings he and his mother
received , both were only sons . hitler was emotionnal , stalin spoke of his stony heart
they came to power trough the wreck of WW1
Hitler by a legal leveraged buy-out of germany political life so to speak
Stalin by being the administrator of the party machine of the bolchevicks
a subordinate position wich allowed him to stack the deck with his men
( beware of penpushers, they have the POWER )
to describe hitler as a fool or a maniac is to misjudge the man ,
he had a grand vision , if he failed it was a close thing against the whole
world after five years of bitter struggle .
Stalin learned paranoia from the starist police the okhrana,
from his early years he was a hunted man , well familiar with the inside of
a prison cell ,or working as an underground agitator .
As war leader , stalin come out the best , he made some big mistakes
the doubble crosser got double crossed in june 41 ,
but his behavior during the dark days at the end of november was excellent ,
he kept his cool , acting as the rock of stubborn resistance
he was a very hard worker , paying much attention to details without being mired in them
with his little notebook and pencil he controlled of all the strategic reinforcements of the red army ,
he was an outstanding negotiator and would have made a great poker payer
He overestimated the chance of breaking the germans in december 41
but a victory in his mind would have finished the war in 42 and save millions of lives
he was wrong but it was worth a good shot !
during stalingrad , he used the city and its heroes as bait ,
the goat tied to a post to fix the attention of the tiger , holding his hand for
two month of nail bitting suspense until the timing was perfect .
the plan was vasilievski and joukov but he requested it , aproved it and
followed it though , a great feat of management .
the burning question for russians is not if he saved them , he did ,
the question is , could russia have survived the same war
without the communist system running the country ,
were the milllions dead , the yejovchina , the purges , the famines an the liquidation of
the free peasants somewhat justified
:-? :-? :-?
Do the results justify their own history? This is not a matter of means to an end, no war with Germany was intended when Communist rule in Russia was declared. Everything that happened before 1941 must be regarded and judged on its own merits and horrors.
The forced industrialization and mass murders may be said to have led Russia to victory in WW2; on the other hand, very little indicates that the Russians were better off under Stalin than they would have been under Hitler. The price of the war was still 25,000,000 Soviet lives, victory or not.
In the bolchevick world view ,
" a war between capitalist/communist states was inevitable
and there was little difference between democratic and autoritarian states.
the war would be the continuation of the intervention of the french , british , americans , japannese and germans in the years
the whole purpose of propaganda and negotiation was purely tactical , to control the timing
and strategic , to avoid a grand coalition against an isolated USSR
war preparations were always a top priority , the breathneck industrialisation seen as a military nescessity . "
when the cruch came , socialist propaganda and terror wasn't enought
and recourse was made to the deeper appeal of russian nationalism ( by jewish bolchevicks !!?? )
the best , somewhat earlier , was the ferociously anti german "alexander nevsky " by einsenstein showing western crusaders burning babies alive !!
hitler had the firm and published intention of exterminating the totallity o the russian race ,
it is difficult to think of the russians as any better off under the nazis
every indications was that hitler believed it and wherever the germans had power , the russians got treated as noxious dumb animals .
The weird thing is that stalin ,a georgian wog with a thick accent , ended up as a typical tsar , stern , pitiless protector of his people , becoming a russian icon , still with his worshippers today !
an example if ever there is one of the function creating its organ
P.S. its 4.00 pm here and I just woke up with a headache , this is too heavy !
happy new year Roel !! happy new year youse all !!
Strange as it seems the Austrian Adolf still has his worshippers today as well
In the seven pillars of wisdom , lawrence mention a satan worshipping clan in northern syria .
same kin of thing !!
actually , worshiping the devil :evil: has made a big come back ,
sign of the times
Bulgarians biggest city on the black sea called Varna, was named Stalingrad! Can you imagine that? Renaming citys with your name! HITLER DID NO SUCH THING! He was not that much egocentric!
Personally I think this thread is rather subjective and I doubt many people here have a large background in psychology which would go to prove that this topic is just a matter of opinion not fact.
Just pointing out.... no need to start bashing me now.
Nah, he just had little things like army divisions and streets named after him. :wink:
You mean that there is a street called Adolf Hitler nowadays? May be that's somewhere in Germany? Or you are german and you have an adress called Adolf Hitler 88??
Who said anything about nowadays.
Stalingrad is no longer named Stalingrad nowadays.
All 'Adolf Hitler' names were purged after his downfall.
What has any of that got to do with which was the biggest egomaniac? :-?
There is actually a push by some to rename volgograd by the name of stalingrad on historical ground , the president of the association is an ex fighter from the battle ,I would think it make some sense .
Only if you believe that Stalin is worth naming a city after. It may be a symbol for the victory of communist Russia now, but we mustn't forget that essentially Stalin turned the place into a battleground, twice.
Besides, please note that the victory in both cases belonged to "communist Russia". How much praise and honour does this state deserve?