Was Stalin really that evil?

Nubclear · February 21, 2003, 20:47

Yes.

But SOMEONE on Poly thinks its a no. So everyone who agrees with me: Debate!

KrazyHorse · February 21, 2003, 20:48

He was less evil-looking than Hitler, and had a better moustache.

Az · February 21, 2003, 20:52

I think he was less immoral.

David Floyd · February 21, 2003, 21:07

Less immoral than Hitler?

Stalin killed Jews too, don't forget.

Boris Godunov · February 21, 2003, 21:09

Is it more immoral to kill people out of cynical opportunism or out of a heartfelt, fervent belief--no matter how twisted and mad that belief may be?

Or is there any difference?

David Floyd · February 21, 2003, 21:09

In any case, quantity is irrelevant. The fact that either killed even ONE person makes them equally immoral. In fact, they are equal in terms of immorality with someone who killed someone during armed robbery.

Again, I don't find quantity relevant, and because of that, the two are equally bad.

DinoDoc · February 21, 2003, 21:10

Why don't we ask the people of, for example, the Ukraine?

Az · February 21, 2003, 21:12

Quote:

Less immoral than Hitler?

Stalin killed Jews too, don't forget.

If you think I judge people's morality by how they treat jews, you're sorrily misguided.

So Hitler and... say... OJ are equally immoral?

monkspider · February 21, 2003, 21:17

Stalin was a jerk who set back the cause of socialism by perhaps a century.

Boris Godunov · February 21, 2003, 21:18

"Jerk?"

Whoa, careful with the strong condemnations, there!

DinoDoc · February 21, 2003, 21:21

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
Stalin set back the cause of socialism by perhaps a century.

Let's not underestimate Lenin.

monkspider · February 21, 2003, 21:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
"Jerk?"

Whoa, careful with the strong condemnations, there!

He was a worldclass knucklehead even. Down with Stalin!

David Floyd · February 21, 2003, 21:25

Quote:

So Hitler and... say... OJ are equally immoral?

If OJ actually committed murder, then yes.

DinoDoc · February 21, 2003, 21:26

You're wierd.

monkspider · February 21, 2003, 21:28

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Let's not underestimate Lenin.

Lenin was a great guy. Say what you will about him, but he was a man who was truly dedicated to improving the lives of others.
Whether policies of his directly or indirectly led to bad stuff is debateable. I don't think that Lenin did any serious damage to the future of socialism, on the contrary, I think his writings, and the experiment of the pre-Stalinist USSR will prove to be most advantageous to future socialism.

Az · February 21, 2003, 21:34

We're getting sidetracked here, though I would say that the damage that Stalin has caused the socialist movement is a (-) mark, in the general score.

So, let's see the score that we have:

Bad:
-used mass starvation.
-used forced labor.
-created terror.
-was responsible to the death of millions of people.
- was responsible for the cases of genocide, that is the direct targeting of a certain group, just because it's nationality.
-hurt the socialist movement badly.
- made mistakes during the war.

Good:
-was instrumental in creating an educational and industrial system in the territory of the SU.
- was instrumental in the defeat of Hitler's Germany.
- created an economic model that would support the population of the SU.

Hitler:

Bad:
- Instigated, and commanded an organization that would be the capital reason for the deaths of tens of millions of people in war.
- responsible for the organization of industrialized genocide.
- Created a state of terror in his own country.
- Lowered education levels in germany.
-Went deeply into debth to switzerland.

Good:
-was instrumental in building the autobahn.
- has created an economic basis that would support the people of germany, in the pre-war years.

St Leo · February 21, 2003, 21:35

"Evil" is a meaningless catchall word. We should be having a discussion about Stalin being "murderous" or "stupid" or "bloodthirsty".

DuncanK · February 21, 2003, 21:36

I don't think Stalin set back Communism. Russia created an amazing steal industry under Stalin

Az · February 21, 2003, 21:41

Quote:

amazing steal industry

Sandman · February 21, 2003, 21:44

Stalin was a monster. Everything good he did by accident, everything bad he did by design.

Az · February 21, 2003, 21:44

Stalin was a moron, and he didn't care for the welfare of people. They had the opportunity to create something really big after WWII. But NOOOO we have to have the largest standing army on earth....

David Floyd · February 21, 2003, 21:55

Quote:

was instrumental in the defeat of Hitler's Germany.

I take issue with that. Germany was doomed once the US entered the war, regardless of what the Soviet Union did.

Az · February 21, 2003, 22:00

Quote:

I take issue with that. Germany was doomed once the US entered the war, regardless of what the Soviet Union did.

no way I am going to enter this discussion.

DuncanK · February 21, 2003, 22:01

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
I don't think Stalin set back Communism. Russia created an amazing steal industry under Stalin

hehe, oops I mean steel. Well he did steal

David Floyd · February 21, 2003, 22:02

OK, OK we'll save it for another thread.

DuncanK · February 21, 2003, 22:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Stalin was a moron, and he didn't care for the welfare of people. They had the opportunity to create something really big after WWII. But NOOOO we have to have the largest standing army on earth....

But he did create something big. Just imagine if he had better priorities and he wasn't so paranoid about the Imperialists.

Joseph · February 21, 2003, 23:19

Yes

JCG · February 21, 2003, 23:46

Stalin wasn't a moron, but he could be incredibly paranoic (and thus became a bloody murderer)..."evil" is just a nice way of oversimplifying it, but whatever.

St Leo · February 21, 2003, 23:52

Germany was doomed once the US entered the war, regardless of what the Soviet Union did.

Okay, let's assume that the entire Soviet Union swears allegiance to Hitler in 1941 (and Hitler doesn't order one half to kill the other). There's no way the US could beat them without nukes. Will they be the first to get them?

Shi Huangdi · February 22, 2003, 00:16

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
Germany was doomed once the US entered the war, regardless of what the Soviet Union did.

Okay, let's assume that the entire Soviet Union swears allegiance to Hitler in 1941 (and Hitler doesn't order one half to kill the other). There's no way the US could beat them without nukes. Will they be the first to get them?

yep, and then europe becomes a radioactive wasteland.