Author Topic: No Stalin, no Hitler?  (Read 98679 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2005, 10:03:50 AM »
I think that both Stalin & Hitler were in fact quite insane. Whether they were insane when their quest for power began I am not sure, but I think once they had reached the pinacle of their ambition they were devoured by it & truly lost all sight of reality in their obsession with their own omnipotence & total disregard for anyone or anything which stood in their way.
They are both - IMO - embodiments of Shakespeare's Macbeth who began with a niggling ambition which, 'o'erreached itself.'

The quotation (by whom?? I forget) 'Power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely' in both these cases could be applied to their own minds.

Their insanity does not excuse the evil that they did but is perhaps a warning of what happens when people seek only their own glorification.  

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2005, 05:05:12 PM »
Quote
Oliver Cromwell? :o Sorry, no no!! :P

Lass
   Why not? He was a regicide, a dictator, and a religious bigot and he was responsible for massive military crimes if not actually 'crimes against humanity" in Ireland? Perhaps you are not familiar with him... he was not that nice a person.

rskkiya

Offline Georgiy

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2024
  • Slava v vyshnikh Bogu
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2005, 05:31:34 PM »
There will always be monsters like Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and, indeed, Cromwell ;).
The trouble is these days, (and I include those 20th century people with these days) with our more efficient ways of disposing of people, those people are able to kill far more people than someone in say Cromwell's time, who after-all wasn't able to gas people in concentration camps.

As GD Olga said, quoting her father, "the evil that is in the world will become yet more powerful, but in the end it is not evil that destroys evil, but only love". (Paraphrased)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Georgiy »

Lass

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2005, 08:10:46 AM »
Quote
 Why not? He was a regicide, a dictator, and a religious bigot and he was responsible for massive military crimes if not actually 'crimes against humanity" in Ireland? Perhaps you are not familiar with him... he was not that nice a person.

Indeed, I am familiar with him. Before you condemn Cromwell as evil, remember the times he lived in. It was an accepted fact of war, that if you resisted and fought back, and were defeated, you could expect no quarter. The inhabitants of Drogheda knew that. They were offered mercy; they refused mercy, and they got none. If they had been on the winning side, they would have acted no less ruthlessly than Cromwell. I am not justifying what Cromwell did, but I am convinced that he was not evil.

Quote
Cromwell's time, who after-all wasn't able to gas people in concentration camps.

Surely you realise that is a gross mis-representation of Cromwell's character and attitude?! He did not condemn a particular race to die simply because of their race as Hitler did inthe concentration camps. He was, as stated above, acting within the acceptable laws of war at the time.

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2005, 05:00:53 PM »
lass
I am very familiar with Cromwell. Here it appears that we'll have to simply disagree. ::)
rskkiya

(PS I said nothing about 'concentration camps"!)

Offline Georgiy

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2024
  • Slava v vyshnikh Bogu
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2005, 11:42:18 PM »
Rsskiya, that was me talking about concentration camps. My point was that people use whatever means of destruction are available at the time and that these days we have nastier and nastier ways of disposal of people up our sleeves.

Lass- Ididn't want to imply that Cromwell was intent on wiping a race of people out, just what I (hopefully) have clarified in the above paragraph - that with different times there are different ways of killing people, and that these days, we have ways of destroying large numbers of people in one fell swoop. Thus 'monsters' of these days may well leave a legacy of more victims, but are they necessarily more monsterous than people from the past. To my mind it is the intent and the desire to eliminate people that is horrifying. (And of course even more horrific when they carry it out)

Lass

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2005, 05:32:46 AM »
But, as I have already said, Cromwell's mission in Ireland (as an example) was not to eliminate people. It was not the case that he did not kill as many as people/kill them as efficently as Hitler, because he did not have the means to. Given boundless powers over modern weapons and means of warfare/killing, I am convinced he would not have used them. As already stated, Cromwell was following the laws of war in his day in what he did at places such as Drogheda; he did not kill for the sake killing.

hikaru

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2005, 01:22:10 PM »
Cromwell took all gold art items (like jars, wine's bowl etc) of Great Britain and returned them to the pure gold condition. So
You could enjoy the 16-17th centuries unique gold
art items only if you could visit the Armoury Museum of Moscow Kremlin.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2005, 02:12:12 PM »
For those who would like a detailed calendar of Stalin's (Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili) life, see the following web ¬ site:

http://www.stel.ru/stalin/index.htm

Stalin's* Reign of Terror was not only tragic for Russia and the world, it is "unforgiveable".

Hitler was horrific ¬ but I think he would have always been in Stalin's shadow.

AGRBear

*Note: Stalin had ¬ the power to save his own son, who was a prisioner of the Germans, ¬ but he did not ¬ This is a mere footnote to his character.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2005, 06:09:32 PM »
Quote
http://www.stel.ru/stalin/index.htm
Stalin had ¬ the power to save his own son, who was a prisioner of the Germans, ¬ but he did not ¬ This is a mere footnote to his character.


  It would have been grossly inappropriate for any national leader to 'pull strings' to get his relatives out of internment durring a war ! Neither a saint not a sinner could justify that sort of behaviour -- so it's rather pointless to condemn poor Joseph D. for that!

    Ahhh well - how many angels can dance on a pinhead? What sort of dance would they do?

rskkiya

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2005, 06:34:37 PM »
Indeed, unlike our current lot of politicians, even WWII Roosevelt  had his sons serve, as did the Kennedys, no strings pulled.
Perhaps Bear is still looking under the bed.....

hikaru

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #26 on: April 09, 2005, 12:51:36 AM »
As for the son, Peter the Great killed or ordered to kill his eldest son Alexis , the heir , because he thought that
Alexis is in oposition to his policy in the country.

Lass

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #27 on: April 09, 2005, 05:29:29 AM »
Stalin probably thought it would be good for his image if his son was killed by the Germans. The people could relate to that.

hikaru

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #28 on: April 09, 2005, 07:04:35 AM »
As for Stalin's son .
He (Stalin's son) was defending his Patria as others, so for Stalin he was like one of the others.
If he would save only his child, russians could not be truste him for 1000%. During WWII , he was trusted and supported  for 1000%.
Do you know the slogan , crying  which Soviet Union won the war?
"For the Patria , for the Stalin". And it was not the propaganda, it was from the heart. Nobody was trying to kill the Stalin during the war as some upper Germans tried to kill Hitler. Because , at that time, everybody thought in Russia , that without Stalin , Soviet Union could not win WWII.

I think, Stalin suffered a lot knowing that his child will be killed.

As for Romanovs, they also participated in the war ,
For Example , Boris and Cirill Vladimirovich participated
in Russo-Japanese War ( Cirill was saved by miracle),
a son of Konstantin was killed by Germans (we could say , by relatives)

So , I think, it is the same with Stalin case.


lexi4

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #29 on: April 10, 2005, 06:12:39 PM »
I would be hard-pressed to pick between the two. They were both evil, evil men.