Economy Hitler, Stalin or Mao

[Anewt]

Indians agree

Not quite. There's a lot who believe he was responsible for the famine and racist., but not evil. Definitely not in comparison to Hitler.

There's still pride for their commitments/ sacrifices in that war.


They did fight against one and for the other after all, combine that with a predominately commonwealth / British education system it's not that surprising there's far more leeway given to Churchill.

 

[MichiganMMA1978]

I do believe this was discussed in another thread and we determined that the correct answer is....


@Ponchik mother in law

 

[BreatheSherBro]

When you are dealing with atrocities of this magnitude, t's not really worth debating who was worse IMO. They're all awful.

 

[Bobby00]

Stalin let his son die in german prison. Didnt want to trade for higher picks lol.

 

[Loiosh]

Who killed the most? There's your common sense answer.

Maybe, you have to take time frame into account.

How many people would Hitler have killed if he'd had as much time as Mao?

 

[Loiosh]

Length of tenure and numbers ruled over are critical to those numbers. The person who killed a highest percentage in the least amount of time is the common sense answer imo.

I need to finish reading threads before commenting.

Conservatives desperately need Mao to be worse than Hitler so they ignore the obvious.

 

[Siver!]

I need to finish reading threads before commenting.

Conservatives desperately need Mao to be worse than Hitler so they ignore the obvious.

You're going to get weird angry replies for making perfectly valid points.

 

[SammyPops]

Hitler for sure.

Mao and Stalin killed millions as a by-product of their ambitions... Hitler's specific ambition was to kill an entire people.

Unlike what Gen-Z believes, intentions matter.

Intentions matter more than read deeds?

Ever hear Afroman's 'because i got high'?

This is a stupid thread btw.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Hitler was way sexier.

I just get lost in his eyes...

 

[Sweater of AV]

Who killed the most? There's your common sense answer.

That's certainly a simple answer but definitely not the common sense answer. Context clearly matters.

"Going by most people killed isn't fair!" <Lmaoo>

 

[Barteh]

Who killed the most? There's your common sense answer.

Length of tenure and numbers ruled over are critical to those numbers. The person who killed a highest percentage in the least amount of time is the common sense answer imo.

Both wrong. It just makes them more effective, not necessarily more evil.

 

[Siver!]

Both wrong. It just makes them more effective, not necessarily more evil.

But then if we're discussing famines, we must also look at intent, right?

 

[KnightTemplar]

Joking aside: Hitler.

Stalin and Mao had the higher body count, but for one thing their atrocities were limited to their own backyards, so to speak. Hitler dragged the entire world into war. A war that claimed the lives of at least 60 million men, women and children.

For another, many of Mao and Stalin's victims died through their incompetence and ruthlessness. It wasn't so much they wanted to starve tens of millions of people to death, more that they simply didn't care about the cost as long as they got what they wanted.

By contrast, Hitler set out to exterminate entire races as efficiently as possible. He industrialised genocide. And there is no doubt that had the Nazis not been defeated, Hitler's final body count would have been exponentially higher than Stalin or Mao's score. Probably both of them combined.

 

[Barteh]

But then if we're discussing famines, we must also look at intent, right?

Yes it makes a whole lot of sense to take intent into account when judging how evil somebody is.

 

[MMAisGod]

Stalin was the worst. He'd have done exactly what Hitler did if Hitler didn't do it first, plus he did a lot of things the others didn't do like "Oh you're upset? I'll kill your children, wife, and grandma while you watch me kill them all and save you for last".

All were Evil, but Stalin was cartoonish levels of evil.

 

[My Spot]

Maybe, you have to take time frame into account.

How many people would Hitler have killed if he'd had as much time as Mao?

 

[My Spot]

That's certainly a simple answer but definitely not the common sense answer. Context clearly matters.

Previously banned account.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Maybe, you have to take time frame into account.

How many people would Hitler have killed if he'd had as much time as Mao?

That's another important point. Hitler planned for the settlement of most of Eastern Europe with Germans and the deportation, enslaving or Germanization of it's mostly Slavic populations. That would cause from 50 to 100 million deaths.

 

[AbominableJoman]

It’s always the atheist…

 

[Sweater of AV]

Previously banned account.

Angry high school dropout.