Obviously there is no objective standard here and we are kicking this around just for fun, considering they were all tyrants (Mao, IMO, being the least of them). But I strongly disagree that "Hitler killed for the sake of killing". Hitler, perhaps more so than Stalin, had a personal vision for Germany and he wanted to establish an invincible empire, even the Final Solution fit into his agenda quite well since he was distrustful of Jews and felt it necessary to eradicate them from the midst of the Germanic empire. He was cruel and ruthless, no doubt, but it might be important to point out that cruel and ruthless leaders tend to justify their acts for the greater good, and Hitler definitely believed his actions were for the greater good, moreover he believed they were necessary. Of all three leaders, there is no doubt that Hitler was the most methodical, he had his cruelty down to a science (in fact, he evoked science many a times to justify his actions, he consulted with astrologists and others because he believed fate was behind him). Mao also led a revolution and he absolutely believed that the ideology of the revolution was to be achieved at all costs, so again there is that same angle of ruthless leaders and revolutionaries justifying their actions for the sake of the greater good. IF, and I am not saying he was, but IF there was one of the three who committed the most senseless form of violence and had a sadistic nature about him and his actions, it was Stalin. There are numerous accounts of Stalin taking personal pleasure in the pain and suffering he caused other people, including first and foremost Russians and citizens of the USSR. Such accounts are far less prevalent with Hitler and Mao, who were downright obsessed with their revolutions and wars and were too busy strategizing. Stalin was, first and foremost, about him and his survival and personal pleasure. Saddam Hussein was probably the only modern day leader that I could think of who would match Stalin in his sadistic nature and his intents. Thankfully he never had the same capabilities at his disposal.
That I am not aware of. Could you tell me more about it? Thanks. I know Stalin in his later years went insane including starting to punish races that ,he thought, were disloyal to the Soviets in the war and after. Mao's cruelty had a similar vein during cultural revolution. Like you said, Hitler was more methodical and cold blooded. He didn't have much regard towards German people at the tail end of the war either.
Stalin was bat**** crazy well before he became General Secretary. He was a sociopathic bank robber before the Russian Revolution. He was Lennin's personal thug but even Lenin was afraid of the idea of him running the Soviet Union. Once he was running the show, there are documents where Stalin writes in the margins of official documents something to the effect of, "Kill 2000 more, I don't care who." He killed pretty much everybody with any military experience before WWII, out of fear that they could possibly depose him. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge He also murdered his "best friend" because he was popular and this made Stalin paranoid. Stalin murdered his wife, and when his son was captured by Nazis, he basically disowned him. He was basically a total sociopath and completely a paranoid delusional to boot.
He basically killed his wife and a number of his friends, including those who helped him get where he was. He would pick out random Russian girls and force himself on them, thinks like that. Not to mention he would wake up on some days and randomly order the murder of thousands of people that he felt less than entirely appreciated by. The guy's brutality was really sadistic in nature more than anything else. He ruled for HIM first and foremost, it was a lot more about him than the movement, and lot of people who were loyal to the movement had an intense dislike of him, but either were too afraid to say anything or were eliminated by Stalin. A more recent example of this type of sociopathic leadership is Saddam in Iraq. If you remember some of the stories about Saddam and his sons, and how they would randomly pick up girls from the streets to rape or how they would personally take part in the torture of Iraqi soccer players because they felt they had underachieved.......this is the same pedigree and pattern of behavior that Joseph Stalin exhibited. They are really the same type of people, Saddam and Stalin I mean. Both were crooks and criminals and enforcer types before they got into power, and then when they eventually ruled they acted like medieval kings, the guys who had their wives beheaded and would rape a different girl every night. They were career thugs and criminals and being in power only enabled their behavior. LOL! well his insanity started long before that, even before he was in power he had already developed a certain reputation. Stalin gets credit for a lot of things that he did not really do, but sort of just stumbled into on the backs of millions and millions of Russians who shed their blood for the nation. If anything, I feel like Stalin was actually a primary reason for the WEAKENING of the USSR and he made way too many strategic mistakes that have been glossed over by the fact that he was in leadership when the Allies won WWII. As has already been mentioned here earlier by other posters, Stalin probably made far more tactical mistakes (more like disasters than mistakes, but I digress) that were directly responsible for the early ass kicking the Red Army suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Had he been a better leader, and had he actually placed the country's interests above his own, the country would not have suffered nearly as much loss as it did at the end of the war. Like I mentioned, the Red Army would have defeated the Germans sooner or later, without any USA or British or French help, simply because there was no way in hell the Nazis could have occupied Russian land for long, they would have sooner or later been turned back and defeated. Had Stalin been better prepared, the Red Army would have taken a much less casualty rate and defeated the Nazis earlier on. So success would have come earlier rather than later. My point is if anything, the Red Army defeated the Nazis in SPITE of Stalin's poor decisions. The Russian nation was strong and resilient enough to withstand a couple of early blows and bounce back. Frankly, I cant find anything in history of warfare that parallels what happened with the Red Army, with devastating losses early on that made it look like a complete rout, only to turn it into total victory. I am starting to study the history of warfare a little more these days, so maybe I will find out. Of course, that 'victory' came at an astounding cost in both human and physical capital. Honestly, Russia has not completely recovered yet. The aftermath of WWII is still felt to this day (gender imbalance, for instance, which is one of the highest in the world).
I don't have the knowledge or stamina to debate this with any real fervor, but I feel comfortable giving all of the major, still unconquered Allied powers (chiefly Britian, Russia and the US) equal credit. Only because I can only speculate how horrible it would have been for the other two if any of these three parties either wholly capitulated or allied with the Germans. Russia's manufacturing and commercial infrastructure was presumably weaker than Germany's, and Britain's was probably gutted due to continuous German bombardment, so the war might have gone on for another 5 or 10 years, with Germany eventually conquering Britain. Having a fully industrialized ally like the U.S. with no actual war damage was probably critical for Allied success. the It's ironic, or sad, that companies like GM developed mass production, built the modern corporation and probably single-handedly helped win World War II; but are now completely unmanageable. And it should be a little humbling for hawkish Americans to imagine China today if they switched all their industrial capacity to war production. A fully cooperative and engaged Axis Russia might have made the Germans invincible, and the Italians bloody worthless. As quickly as the Soviets got the bomb after war, dear God, can you imagine them collaborating with German scientists and engineers ahead of time, in the '30s/early '40s? Can you imagine the Russians and Japanese permanently conquering China and Southeast Asia? And If Britian somehow falls to Germany, does Vichy India help Japan conquer Asia anyways? Do the Germans, ironically enough, use British Palestine as a jumping point for conquering the Middle East? If Britian cobbles out a peace pact with Germany, by extension Japan, before '41, what reason would Americans have to join, politically or least of all commercially?
I wish that I had more time to discuss because this is a point of interest for me. I'm actually crunching out a 30 page paper on the Nuremberg Trials (or, more specifically, von Schirach); otherwise, I would love to debate. Something important that I would like to relate to yall: The History channel is tragically, for the most part, worthless. I grew up loving it but after any kind of serious study involving some of the major themes (such as Hitler and WWII) you discover its mostly sensationalist b.s. I took a class about Nazi Germany with a leading researcher in the field - a kid asked about something he saw on the History Channel and was practically laughed out the room. I am glad I was not the one who asked because I was totally with that kid. A good outline and entertaining presentation of material? yes Reliable and entirely factual? not even close.
America not only won, but later on grabbed USSR/Russia by the shirt, pinned them to a wall and uttered.. "Feeling froggy? Jump than betch". They did not jump.
Except that they basically annexed Eastern Europe and half of Germany; helped the most populous country in the world turn Communist, indirectly scared us into our two deadliest wars since then, and started both a space race (which we won) and a half-century nuclear pissing match (which we lost). Unless you'd like to provide it, I see little to no historical reasoning for this statement.
Actually, from a German's perspective who was born way after the end of WWII: Germany won also in a way, because the Nazis lost. And the Germans are (and should be) thankful to the Americans for this.
cleverly disguised "russian women are better than american women" post. ??? otherwise, i have no idea what you're talking about.
That would be a good thread, and I agree with you. I learned this many years ago when I was dating a history grad. student (prior to Mrs. B-Bob entering the B-Bob universe.) It was amazing to hear this grad. student dissect the "history channel." Such a thread would get really political though, I think, when you follow their ownership structure and funding, etc. I know some people see them as another political propaganda arm; I don't quite agree, but I do think it's a sad disservice to TV audiences in any event. You could do real history and still make it entertaining and gripping.
I remember watching Victory at Sea on the TV back in the '50's and loved it. Great footage, great narration, terrific soundtrack, just a highly entertaining documentary about the war at sea during WWII. It's also riddled with inaccuracies. Still fun to watch, but not as serious history.
Yeah, I like to think if the US didn't dictate terms, post-war Germany and Japan would be a lot different in Russia's hands... Being a lazy American, what would be good and accurate sources in 300 pages or less?
As far as I can tell, Germany went to war because it was good for the economy, and so did the US, plus we're just damn good at it. What did the Allies win because of WWII?
....still don't get it, unless you're implying the Russians actually would have won a nuclear war, which in hindsight is a laughable claim.
