# Who was more ruthless?



## Thorlifter (Jun 8, 2009)

Now I'm still learning so much about the Nazi's, the death camps, Warsaw Ghetto, and their march through western Russia, but I want to get your opinion on who do you think was more ruthless in their tactics, either the Nazi's or the Khmer Rouge.

I must say I know very little about the Khmer Rouge so I'm really looking for ya'll input on this. I do know as far as pure numbers, the Khmer Rouge will pale in comparison to the Nazi's. But I'm thinking that was because the Nazi's were far more efficient and dealt with a larger area and greater populations than what was in Cambodia.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 8, 2009)

Stalin and the Communists - '30's till his death - far more brutal than either group you mention.

MM
Toronto


----------



## Amsel (Jun 8, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Stalin and the Communists - '30's till his death - far more brutal than either group you mention.
> 
> MM
> Toronto


Agreed, Stalin and the NKVD. I really don't think you can even compare though, because a human life is valuable and the terror of these goverments are the same if you are the victim. The 20th century was a horrific time and as an American I cannot even imagine the fear and hopelessness of being the victim of these horrific people. True evil has reared its ugly face with its mix of modern weapons and intelligence agencies and brutal cavemen behavior. I can only hope our human race has learned a few lessons. If you really think about we are all part of the human race and if it can happen in one place then it could happen anywhere.


----------



## diddyriddick (Jun 8, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Stalin and the Communists - '30's till his death - far more brutal than either group you mention.
> 
> MM
> Toronto



You would have a hard time convincing me that anybody is more brutal than the Nazis. They made shrunken heads, lampshades and soap from their victims.


----------



## davebender (Jun 8, 2009)

I agree. 

Aleksandr Yakovlev (Chairman of the Russian Commission for the Rehabilitation of the Victims of Political Repression) estimates that 35 million were murdered by the Soviet regime. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn estimates up to 60 million were murdered. I don't know of any other government that has murdered 35 to 60 million of their own citizens. However percentage wise the Khmer Rouge are in the same ball park.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 8, 2009)

diddyriddick said:


> You would have a hard time convincing me that anybody is more brutal than the Nazis. They made shrunken heads, lampshades and soap from their victims.



Here is the thing you have to remember. Hitler and his Nazi goons actually thought they were doing the right thing. They thought they were doing good for Germany and Europe (this in no way justifies what they did). Stalin and the Commies on the other hand knew that what they were doing was evil and brutal. They did it because they did not care at all about any form of human life.

Like I said, not trying to justify what the Nazi's did, they were evil and brutal, but Stalin may have been quite a bit worse.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 8, 2009)

I have never believed the lampshade/ soap stories. I think it was propaganda to frenzy the troops.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jun 8, 2009)

Based on numbers, Stalin and his henchmen get the slight nod. They murdered more human beings than Hitler and his goons.

But we are talking about degree here. Both regimes killed millions. There's a place in Hell for both of them.

Dishonorable mention....

Khmer Rouge
Sadaam Hussein

TO


----------



## Coors9 (Jun 8, 2009)

I'm sure when i was alot younger, I saw a picture of one of those lampshades in school. Pretty sure it was real.


----------



## DBII (Jun 8, 2009)

I vote for Uncle Stalin. One of the first groups he purged were from his home country of Georgia. I think that the Mongals would be in the top ten. You may be able to google the lampshade pictures. All of these people make my skin crawl, each one a monster.

DBII


----------



## Marcel (Jun 8, 2009)

Hitler did more in less time the Stalin. He just hadn't the time to catch up with Stalin. IMO there's no difference between the two, apart from the fact that the Nazi's were more effective.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 8, 2009)

I would agree with Marcel but also agree with Chris. Both regimes were awful and given time the Nazi's perhaps would of equalled Stalin's 'record'. I would give Stalin the nod because he did it knowingly whilst the Nazi's did it clinically for what they thought was the greater good.

You also I think have to mention the Japanese during the war as well, particularly their efforts in China between 1931 and 1945.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 8, 2009)

Pol Pot and his clowns were cold blooded in the fact that they made thier victims write who they were and where they were from, sort of a short biography, then photographed them and then murdered them.

The Nazis for the most part recorded the victim's ID and assigned them a serial number...from that point on, they either lived in a labor camp, a prison camp, or went to "the showers"...still pretty ugly, really.

The communists under Uncle Joe didn't really go to that much effort unless it was a well known person, then the victim died under "unfortunate" circumstances. Otherwise the faceless unknown masses went to thier graves much like Saddam Hussein's victims. Just mowed down and shoved into a slit trench or a shallow grave somewhere to be forgotten...

I'd say for the sheer numbers of victims and the anonymity of those victims, it would the be Soviet communists by a long-shot.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 8, 2009)

IIRC Stalin and Hitler seemed to target specific groups, whereas the Pol Pot seemed to target everybody. #'s has to go to Stalin, % is hands down Khmer Rouge.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 8, 2009)

Don't know who Khmer Rouge is, but everybody else that is mentioned gets my vote. Stalin killed more people, but Hitler was intent on wiping certain groups out of existence.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 8, 2009)

there are a few other candidates the Turks for there handling of the Armenians and certainly the Rwandans sunk below the line ands lets not forget the recent atrocities by the Serbs and Croats


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 8, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Don't know who Khmer Rouge is, but everybody else that is mentioned gets my vote. Stalin killed more people, but Hitler was intent on wiping certain groups out of existence.



Wiki either Pol Pot or Khmer Rouge and it should give you a decent picture of what those people were about. Sadly, you never hear much about them even though they terrorized Cambodia for about 20 some odd years.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 8, 2009)

I knew a little about Pol Pot, but not the Khmer Rouge. When going on Wiki, I found this. It says their genocide victims. I mean, some are just kids for Christs sake!


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 8, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> I knew a little about Pol Pot, but not the Khmer Rouge. When going on Wiki, I found this. It says their genocide victims. I mean, some are just kids for Christs sake!


I know...


----------



## Thorlifter (Jun 9, 2009)

The Khmer Rouge not only killed children, but used children as their killers. They made the Nazi Youth look like a bunch of boy scouts.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 9, 2009)

Gnomey said:


> I would agree with Marcel but also agree with Chris. Both regimes were awful and given time the Nazi's perhaps would of equalled Stalin's 'record'. I would give Stalin the nod because he did it knowingly whilst the Nazi's did it clinically for what they thought was the greater good.


So did Stalin. He tried to "defend" the "great" communism.



Gnomey said:


> You also I think have to mention the Japanese during the war as well, particularly their efforts in China between 1931 and 1945.



Very good point and totally agree.



vikingBerserker said:


> IIRC Stalin and Hitler seemed to target specific groups


This is not totally true. Many non-Jewish and non-gipsy civilians died by Nazi terror. But the Nazi's were smart enough to focus the public on a few groups to get their support.

I still don't see any difference between Stalin and Hitler.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jun 9, 2009)

While in numbers the Rwandan Genocide was the smallest of all genocides mentioned here, in RATE of people killed - by which I specifically mean the amount of people killed divided by the time it took to kill them - and RATE OF PARTICIPATION in that killing - by which I mean the amount of Hutus out of the total population of Hutus who participated in the attempted genocide of the Tutsis, and the amount of Tutsis out of the Total Tutsi population who participated in the shorter, smaller, but still horrific revenge counter-genocide against the Hutus...

The Rwandans win the "pound for pound championship" of Genocide in the International Hall of Shame.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 9, 2009)

This is an impossible question to answer, because it always will be a matter of opinion and perpective. However I notice that the idea of "ruthless" is being mixed up with the idea of "brutal". A person can be ruthless, and not necessarily "brutal". I beleive, for example that Churchill was ruthless in his pursuit of the Nazis, but I do not believe he was excessively brutal. 

The definitions of "ruthless" and "brutal" are given in the web dictionary as follows

Definitions of ruthless on the Web:

_pitiless: without mercy or pity; "an act of ruthless ferocity"; "a monster of remorseless cruelty" 
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn_

Definition of brutal on the web

_barbarous: (of persons or their actions) able or disposed to inflict pain or suffering; "a barbarous crime"; "brutal beatings"; "cruel tortures ...
harsh; "the brutal summer sun"; "a brutal winter" 
beastly: resembling a beast; showing lack of human sensibility; "beastly desires"; "a bestial nature"; "brute force"; "a dull and brutish man"; "bestial treatment of prisoners" 
disagreeably direct and precise; "he spoke with brutal honesty" _

I would suggest that the regimes of Stalin and Pol Pot were more brutal than ruthless, whilst Hitlers Nazis were more ruthless than brutal. Despite the semantic distiniction, however, all three regimes were guilty of massive human rights abuses


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 9, 2009)

I would have to throw them all in the same category. It is not about the numbers of killed, it is the simple fact that these governments killed innocent men, woman and children. Numbers do not matter to me as much, just the intent and purpose behind the killings.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 9, 2009)

".. Hitler did more in less time the Stalin. He just hadn't the time to catch up with Stalin..."

Sorry, Marcel but you're wrong. By June 22, 1942, Stalin had done more than Hitler. The purges, the crushing of nationalism in the various "republics" and the starvation of the Ukrainians.

Lampshades and soap are red herrings ... shall we talk about bounties for Japanese ears ..?

There was an anti-Nazi propaganda unit in the Kremlin - largely staffed by pro-communist refugees from Nazi-occuppied countries. While not diminishing or dismissing the horror of the holocaust in ANY RESPECT, some of the anti-Nazi propaganda photos were just amateurish smear-jobs - for example: photos of SS officers standing in front of a gallows with stripe-suited political prisoners hanging dead. Problem is that the officers shadows fall in one direction and the dead men's in another. Obviously a pre-PhotoShop cut-and-paste.

Wolf - the head of the East German Stazzi police grew up in Moscow after his parents fled Nazi persecution as Communists and Jews. Wolf was groomed by the Moscow Reds to return to a Communist Germany. [Little Kimmy - the Nork tin pot dictator also went to Daycare in Moscow when his family fled the Japanese].

Stalin and the Reds get the worst of the 20 Century award.

MM
Toronto


----------



## diddyriddick (Jun 9, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> I knew a little about Pol Pot, but not the Khmer Rouge. When going on Wiki, I found this. It says their genocide victims. I mean, some are just kids for Christs sake!



Check out "The Killing Fields" w/ Sam Waterston. Its a fair Hollywood version.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 9, 2009)

Great movie.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 9, 2009)

To me, Hitler and his ilk tried to give/have a reason for the inhumanity. The Khymer Rouge couldn't care about a reason. Stalin and the NKVD used both premises and they get my vote.

pb, great point about Rhwanda.


----------



## Butters (Jun 9, 2009)

It's all about the same thing and it never ends...

Once you dehumanize a group, moral obligations no longer aopply. The 'other', whether because of ethnicity, ideology, or religion, is not entitled to ethical treatment and may be fairly regarded as nothing more than vermin to be destroyed. Humans are tribalistic beings with a propensity for xenophobia. When demogogues inflame that xenophobic impulse, you end up with the results shown in the prior posts. 

A lot of people prefer to believe that the perpetrators of such atrocties are 'psychopathic/evil/ not like us', but unfortunately the facts and history suggest otherwise. The rank and file who actually perform these acts are just like us.

'The Lucifer Effect' by P Zimbardo, and 'On Killing', by David Grossman are excellent books on this subject.

As for who's more 'ruthless'-what difference does it make. How many are killed has as much to do with the means at the disposal of the perpetrators as it does their intentions.

JL


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 10, 2009)

Khmer Rouge were based in Cambodia lead by Pol Pot. IIRC 20% or 1.5m citizens were killed. There was an excellent movie about it called "The Killing Fields"


----------



## Marcel (Jun 10, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".. Hitler did more in less time the Stalin. He just hadn't the time to catch up with Stalin..."
> 
> Sorry, Marcel but you're wrong. By June 22, 1942, Stalin had done more than Hitler. The purges, the crushing of nationalism in the various "republics" and the starvation of the Ukrainians.



That's a question of how you look at it. By 1942 Stalin had been in power for 14 years. When he came in power in 1928, he already ruled a large country with many different etnic groups. Hitler on the other had had small Germany when coming into power in 1933 and only became effective after conquering more ground. So in 1942, Hitler was only starting. The Nazi's then proceeded in an alarming rate, killing a.o. 6 million Jews in slightly less than 3 years.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 10, 2009)

Definitely the KRs are the worst of the bunch, IMHO. 

Hitler was building a new world order. Twisted, psychotic, but he imparted his vision to his followers (to some extent). The Final Solution came about when all other options were ended due to the war (couldn't exile them). Jews, Communist, Homosexuals, Gypsies, ect. All of them got the same treatment.

Stalin was interested in terror for terror's sake. He methotically killed, imprisioned and tortured those that he saw as threats to his regime and others to keep the population in line. While the Nazi's were haphazard (Night of the long knives, Crystalnacht, ect), Stalin was methotical. Nothing was missed, details, lists, numbers were the methodology. 1000 people needed to work a project? Arrest 2000, shoot 1000 and send the rest to the project. All will die there, but then they'll get another 2,000 and do it all over again. But Stalin was building a new Russia. He was turning an agrarian society into an industrial society. If 30 or 40 million died in the process, so what. It was a statistic, nothing more. 

But Pol Pot and the KR were a regressive state. Stalin and Hitler moved, in an almost incomprehensible way, towards the future using National Socialism (internal socialism) and Communist Socialism (international socialism). Pol Pot took a country of 6-7 million that was fairly successful on it's own and turned it into an agrarian state. Anyone who might work against that goal, was murdered. In the end, close to 30% of the population died in about 3 years. Nobody has ever gotten even close to that. And the ideology wasn't progressive, it was an attempt to return to the past using Communist Ideology. 

That's why Pol Pot and the KRs get my vote. I hope we've seen the last of that type of ideology, but I doubt it.


----------



## bigZ (Jun 10, 2009)

The japanese must be up their with about 30million. I think what concentrates are minds on the Nasi's is the fact that they hailed from a western european country with a similar culture.

I heard extracts from Hitlers secretary book recently. The most perterbing thing is Hitler is shown as very human.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 10, 2009)

" .. I heard extracts from Hitlers secretary book recently. The most perterbing thing is Hitler is shown as very human..."

The BANALITY OF EVIL is the most disturbing aspect of the Third Reicht.

As for Pol Pot and the KR -- I've always thought there are real similarities with Chairman Mao and his rural revolution -- abuses and all.

MM


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 10, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Here is the thing you have to remember. Hitler and his Nazi goons actually thought they were doing the right thing. They thought they were doing good for Germany and Europe (this in no way justifies what they did). Stalin and the Commies on the other hand knew that what they were doing was evil and brutal. They did it because they did not care at all about any form of human life.
> 
> Like I said, not trying to justify what the Nazi's did, they were evil and brutal, but Stalin may have been quite a bit worse.



I think Hitler and Stalin were both brutal men, in some ways Hitler's killing was more illogical than Stalin, but ultimately it doesn't help his position much. Kill off all these Jews so Germany can be great again, or kill off all these anti-communists so Russia can be great agian? Both positions are ruthless. In some ways you can argue Stalin was more sensible than Hitler in not going to open war with the Allies like Hitler did, and that the Soviet Union lasted almost a 90 years, and the Third Reich only ten. Of course I wish the Soviet Union had not lasted so long, but it goes to show the craftiness of the Communists, something the Nazi's weren't the best at in their wreckless quest for power against impossible odds. The Nazi's couldn't wait, thus the terrible cruelities were quick and terrible, the Communist's were more patient, their cruelties were long and unending, but ultimately the Soviet Union sickened of something akin to a wasting disease. They were killed from within, no army marched in to conquer them. 

It's pretty hard to put one method above the other, except I think the Germans were in some ways blessed to be rid of Hitler after a decade, while the Russians were cursed with Commie Dictators for almost a century. 

The Russians have always liked a powerful leader, with absolute power, while in Germany, the Holy Roman Emperor was still called to listen to the Pope, and it was that way in Germany for hundreds of years. 

I imagine both thought they were using the best methods for their country to achive power.

Oddly enough, Hitler is a far greater villian to modern culture than Stalin is. Left leaning commies in the classrooms perhaps? 

At any rate, the Khemer Rouge sounds pretty bad, but I really can't give a vote in this case.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 10, 2009)

Germany was NOT a backward country stuck in the late middle ages - just a couple of decades past serfdom/slavery - when the Romanov Crown was overthrown in 1917 and the Communists took over. Germany in 1917 was the pinnacle of technology, philosophy and culture - and was about to slip into complete chaos within a year as a consequence of losing a ghastly world war on an unthinkable scale. What would follow was a brutal struggle to define and regain Germany.

In Russia - the Communist program and Stalin - were seen however brutal they were - as the path to modernity and the Future .

In Germany - the Nazi program and Hitler - were seen as a defensive breastworks to stop Communism and any force that would adulterate or weaken the potenency of the German culture and People.

In Russia the brutality was driven by vast ambition to control and BECOME.

In Germany the brutality was driven by the neurosis of having BECOME, collapsed and the struggled to recover.

Russia was a third world country. Still is - were it not for the BOMB. Russia's culture of brutality/corruption today mirrors my description of Germany (above) after 1918. Putin's mission is to restore Russia's greatness.

MM


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 10, 2009)

I read up on Moa and had no idea that he was responsible for the killing of 30 million+ people.


There are some other honorable mentions:

Idi Amin (Uganda: 1971-80) 
Ion Antonescu (Romania: 1940-44) 
Ataturk (Turkey: 1920-38 ) 
Francisco Franco (Spain: 1939-75) 
Gheoghe Gheorghiu-Dej (Romania: 1945-65) 
Yakubu Gowon (Nigeria: 1966-76) 
Radovan Karadzic (Serbian Bosnia: 1991-96) 
Babrac Kemal (Afghanistan: 1979-87) 
Le Duan (Vietnam: 1976-86) 
Haile Mengistu (Ethiopia: 1974-91) 
Benito Mussolini (Italy: 1922-43) 
Ante Pavelic (Croatia: 1941-45) 
Antonio de Salazar (Portugal: 1932-68 ) 
Hadji Suharto (Indonesia: 1967-97) 
Tito (Yugoslavia: 1945-80)


----------



## Amsel (Jun 10, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Germany was NOT a backward country stuck in the late middle ages - just a couple of decades past serfdom/slavery - when the Romanov Crown was overthrown in 1917 and the Communists took over. Germany in 1917 was the pinnacle of technology, philosophy and culture - and was about to slip into complete chaos within a year as a consequence of losing a ghastly world war on an unthinkable scale. What would follow was a brutal struggle to define and regain Germany.
> 
> In Russia - the Communist program and Stalin - were seen however brutal they were - as the path to modernity and the Future .
> 
> ...




They all have one thing in common; a totalarian goverment grown by the cult of personality and brutality. A people fooled or coerced until it is too late. The most advanced country in the world can potentially be led down this path if they elect a charismatic despot and give up all their rights in the name of progress. The radical ideas of the 1920's have totally shaped the last hundred years and maybe a hundred more.

Beware of the despotic leaders who want to shape a country in their image and not by the laws and traditions of their precious documents.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 11, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I read up on Moa and had no idea that he was responsible for the killing of 30 million+ people.
> 
> 
> There are some other honorable mentions:
> ...



Not sure why Ataturk is on that list, really. He was one of the greatest leaders in Turkish history with a list of accomplishments that is far too long to list here.

He was able to shed the Ottoman past, bringing Turkey into the 20th century as a republic and modernized the country with the goal of making it a western society grounded in it's ancestral roots. He centralized thier bank which helped stabilize thier economy and he was able to forge a peace agreement with thier ancestral enemies, Greece. He even had thier written language converted to a western style script. He is still revered by the Turks as one of the greatest people in thier history.

He wasn't responsible for the Armenian and Khurdish massacres which occurred during the last of the Ottoman empire and shortly before his assuming control of Turkey. And the Dersim incident happened (an escelation of tribal disputes turned ugly) without his being informed at first, and when he found out, he went to investigate, and the authorities expedited the trials and executions so they wouldn't "embarass" him with petitions and such.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jun 11, 2009)

And this is why I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this site. 

FANTASTIC discussion guys. I'm learning so much from this.

I'm curious Tim, you stated....... _While the Nazi's were haphazard (Night of the long knives, Crystalnacht, ect)_.....

If I understand the meaning of Haphazard, kristallnacht was anything but. It was a deliberate and coordinated attack on the Jewish community where 20,000+ Jews were killed.

That aside, I loved your post on #32. Great information for me.


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 11, 2009)

Agree 100% Thor. I learn something new every day! Great info!


----------



## Butters (Jun 11, 2009)

Kristallnacht was organized by the Nazis, but the '20,000 killed' is in error. IIRC, approx 90 were actually murdered during the event. Another 100,000 or so were arrested of which 20,000 were imprisoned. A sizeable number died in the prison camps, while others we eventually released (For a while...) Thousands of Jews of Polish origin were also expelled at the Polish border. The Poles turned most back, as they were also virulently anti-semitic. As was most of 'civilized' Europe...

JL


----------



## timshatz (Jun 11, 2009)

Thorlifter said:


> And this is why I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this site.
> 
> FANTASTIC discussion guys. I'm learning so much from this.
> 
> ...



Glad you enjoyed the post Thor. The KRs are one of the unknown elements in world history. Really make the Nazis and Stalinist look second rate when it comes to mass murder. 

My point about Krystalnacht (sp?) and the Night of the Long Knives is neither one really was planned, whereas Stalin's actions were based on quotas, lists and the mindless efficiency of state sponsored terror. 

Krystalnacht came about as a result of an assasination of a low level functionary in Paris by a Jewish Assassin. While the underlying intent had been simmering for a while, it took full form with the news of the assasination. It was more of a spontaneous outburst, a riot by the rank and file of those in power, than a planned event. Hitler, and this is not to his credit, did not want it to happen. More than anything, Hitler wanted power and control. Krystalnacht was a rampage and it got away from the authorities. Hitler wanted the Jews gone, he really didn't care where they went, just out of Germany and the German controled world. But he wanted it in an orderly fashion. 

Night of the Long Knives was the result of another long simmering conflict. The Brown Shirts were grunts and uncontrolable. They gave the Nazis a bad name (believe it or not). Same with Germany. There were also questons of power between the leader of the Brown Shirts (Rohm) and Himmler/Goering clan. Both sides were loyal to Hitler, but one side or the other was going to come out on top. The breaking point came when Rohm tried to take over the Army via political methods (becoming head of defense). The powers that be (Army) were against it and told Hitler to get rid of Rohm and his bunch. It was also the price the Army pressed on Hitler for their loyalty to him. So, in a spasm of violence, Hitler got rid of the heads of the SA, and greatly reduced the power of the SA. Therafter, the SA shrank to insignificance as a power in Nazi Germany. 

It was the way the Nazis were. They were passionate about their beliefs. Twisted logic, to be sure. They were not as methodical as the Soviets. Efficient? At times yes. But not in the political sense. They were more opportunists than working from a set plan. 

That is why I see the Soviets as darker. Stalin needed enemies, not friends. Stalin needed terror, not support. He kept everyone in line, then shot 5% of the people in the line. Further, he issued quotas for "enemies of the state" and they had to be filled. Didn't matter if they existed, they had to be arrested, tried and shot (or sent to the gulag). Most of the people arrested knew they were innocent, the jailers knew they were innocent, the courts knew they were innocent. But the populace had to be terrorized into submission. Further, the best way to make sure your name didn't end up on a quota, was to overfill your quota. Quota comes from Moscow for 3000 "enemies of the state", shoot 4000 and show you are a good communist and support Stalin. How do you do that? Pick up some guy off the street. Tell him he is going to be shot unless he tells you the name of 10 enemies of the state. He says he doesn't know. Beat him. He'll give you the names. Then you arrest them and get ten more from each of them. And so on and so on. In the end, you send those to the work camps that are required and shoot the rest. 

People lived in terror of the knock on the door. Some said it was a relief when it came because they didn't need to live in fear anymore.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 11, 2009)

For perspective let's see what nature can do [Wikepedia - Spanish flu]:

"...The pandemic lasted from March 1918 to June 1920,spreading even to the Arctic and remote Pacific islands. It is estimated that anywhere from 50 to 100 million people were killed worldwide, or the approximate equivalent of one third of the population of Europe [500 million infected] .."

Pause for thought on sheer scale and speed. Nature isn't put off by large numbers.

MM


----------



## Butters (Jun 11, 2009)

True enough. The difference being that a virus isn't really trying to kill you. it just happens...

When it comes to murder, it's the thought that counts.

JL


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 11, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Not sure why Ataturk is on that list, really. He was one of the greatest leaders in Turkish history with a list of accomplishments that is far too long to list here.
> 
> He was able to shed the Ottoman past, bringing Turkey into the 20th century as a republic and modernized the country with the goal of making it a western society grounded in it's ancestral roots. He centralized thier bank which helped stabilize thier economy and he was able to forge a peace agreement with thier ancestral enemies, Greece. He even had thier written language converted to a western style script. He is still revered by the Turks as one of the greatest people in thier history.
> 
> He wasn't responsible for the Armenian and Khurdish massacres which occurred during the last of the Ottoman empire and shortly before his assuming control of Turkey. And the Dersim incident happened (an escelation of tribal disputes turned ugly) without his being informed at first, and when he found out, he went to investigate, and the authorities expedited the trials and executions so they wouldn't "embarass" him with petitions and such.



GrauGeist - I read your comment and researched it a little more. It appears that the list I got his name from was perahaps a little biased. I have to agree with you.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 11, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> GrauGeist - I read your comment and researched it a little more. It appears that the list I got his name from was perahaps a little biased. I have to agree with you.


No prob!

The problem I have seen on the internet especially, is that there is no real formal forum to debate facts or research, the closest being Wiki, perhaps.

Yet another reason why this forum rocks, is because folks can ask questions, or post some info, and it'll get either clarified, validated or debated. It just can't get any better than that, in my opinion 

Otherwise, you had a decent list of junior douchebags...and maybe we could add Nicolai Ceausescu and Slobodan Milosevic to it...


----------



## imalko (Jun 12, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> GrauGeist - I read your comment and researched it a little more. It appears that the list I got his name from was perhaps a little biased....



Biased? No kidding! And they put Tito and Ante Pavelić on the same list. Talk about really stretching it too far...

I won't comment on GG mention of Milošević because this would very soon turn into political discussion and I don't want that... Let's just say that since I live in Serbia I know how he was first hand.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2009)

Amsel said:


> I have never believed the lampshade/ soap stories. I think it was propaganda to frenzy the troops.



No they did, I have actually seen some lamp shades made out of human skin at the Belsen Bergen Concentration Camp museum.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 12, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No they did, I have actually seen some lamp shades made out of human skin at the Belsen Bergen Concentration Camp museum.



Industrial Genocide. Turning people into assets, dismembered for profitable use. 

The thing that scares me about that is I don't think we've seen the last of it. Somebody will do it again in the future. And that, more than anything, bothers me most about the Nazis. It was the first, but certainly not the last, of the industrial genocides.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 12, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No they did, I have actually seen some lamp shades made out of human skin at the Belsen Bergen Concentration Camp museum.


My mind has a tough time processing that.


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 12, 2009)

That almost made me sick to think about that! Cannot imagine seeing it in person.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 12, 2009)

Amsel said:


> My mind has a tough time processing that.


It is a horrible thought, but I've seen photos of the lampshades. I've also seen the photos where the teeth with gold filling or crowns were piled into bins, sitting in a warehouse along with other items, like eyeglasses.


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 12, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> It is a horrible thought, but I've seen photos of the lampshades. I've also seen the photos where the teeth with gold filling or crowns were piled into bins, sitting in a warehouse along with other items, like eyeglasses.



I have seen photos about that too GG! Rooms completely filled with gold teeth. One of my most vivid memories is from watching a PBS show about the concentration camps, and seeing a bulldozer pushing this pile of what looked like skeletons with skin on them into a mass grave after the camp was liberated. I still see that, and it has been years since I watched that show.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jun 12, 2009)

Amsel said:


> My mind has a tough time processing that.



Understood Amsel. It's a tough thing for normal people to grasp.

Read this about the Bitch of Buchenwald
Ilse Koch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or just do a search for Ilse Koch. I'm sure there are tons of websites documenting her exploits.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 12, 2009)

Some people give me huge doubts about the condition of the human race.


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 12, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Some people give me huge doubts about the condition of the human race.



Ahh, Amsel, but I am also comforted by by the larger numbers of those who chose to stand up and fight against those who committed these heinous acts!


----------



## timshatz (Jun 12, 2009)

The really odd thing about these killers (doesn't matter if they were at Buchenwald or a Gulag or Cambodia) is the humanity of their character. They could kill people all day long and then come home to cry over the death of a family pet. It's mind boggling the lack of empathy they have, the lack of connection, with their victims. 

When you get right down to it, they were ordinary men and women that came to a situation which brought out the worst in their characters. Exploiting a character flaw, I guess. 

I don't have trouble understanding what they did. I have trouble understanding how they could do it and go on living relatively normal lives.

Of the three leader that committed these crimes, Hitler I see as the embodiment of ambition wthout moral scruples. In the end, with the Nazis, the Jews just got in the way. The Final Solution was just that. For the Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and any other morally or physically undesireables. Fixing a problem in the most efficient way. 

Pol Pot was trying to go back to his youth in a village and institute a life of "joy through work". One society, one community, all of it under "Uncle" as Pol Pot was known. He was a true believer, but the whole idea, from start to finish, was corrupt. Deaths were a neccessary evil to Pol Pot. Had to get rid of those who were a problem to his agrarian dream.

But Stalin is still someone who I don't get. Maybe in another life, he would've committed suicide or been a petty, local official in some Govt Agency with a mean streak. But, even when the movement to industrialize Russia is taken into account, the scope of his murderous regieme and depravity beggars description. Weird as it may seem, I understand Pol Pot and Hitler. I understand how it could happen. But Stalin, I just don't get. He went so far beyond what was needed to make Russia great. He went to terror for it's own sake, murder for murder's sake. With Stalin, it was enjoyable. At least that is the way I see it.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 12, 2009)

I understand Hitler and his reasoning which comes from the progressive movement that began in the 1920's. The progressives in that era were into eugenics. His reasoning was to build a mighty socialist state using the progressive ideas of the time. He is the embodiement of the narcissistic despot who in his progressiveness to force his utopian ideas upon his nation, has no scruples as to how to achieve utopia. For him the end justifies the means of getting there. He was so closely tied to Germany in his mind that he became Germany. As his mind eroded so did the true strength and morals of Germany. In his derangement and self defeating behavior he destroyed his nation. He differs very little from all the other progressive despots of the world except he was building a utopia for Germany while the Russian despots were building an international utopia. We can see his type of narcissistic, and insane behavior in many politicians the world over. The progressive ideas are the same but eugenics fell away to psychiatry, and then the health craze and now it is about global warming and ecoterrorism. For some people to build utopia the ends justify the means, and if it hurts regular people then in their mind those people are getting in the way of progress and need to be eliminated.

It is all about control. To a progressive leader, utopia is built not through liberty, life , and the pursuit of happiness but control of everybody and everything and shaped in his image.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 12, 2009)

Tim, I think in Uncle Joe's case, it was corrupted power mixed with paranoia.

The Bolsheviks came to power by deceit and maintained power by fear. Stalin knew that to hold power in that system, you had to be more ruthless than the system, which he was. He had war heros, seasoned generals, strong supporters and even his close friends murdered.

Abraham Lincoln once said "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power".


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 12, 2009)

With all this talk about corrupt leaders, I just hope history won't repeat itself.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 12, 2009)

History always repeats itself.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 12, 2009)

Amsel said:


> History always repeats itself.



Unfortunately, I just hope there's someone to stop that from happening.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 12, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Unfortunately, I just hope there's someone to stop that from happening.


There always is...usually at a great cost, however...


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 12, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> There always is...usually at a great cost, however...



Ain't that the truth.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2009)

Amsel said:


> My mind has a tough time processing that.



Believe it, it happened. Like I said, I saw one my self at the museum.

The reason you have a hard time processing it, is because you are not an Evil SOB! 



timshatz said:


> The really odd thing about these killers (doesn't matter if they were at Buchenwald or a Gulag or Cambodia) is the humanity of their character. They could kill people all day long and then come home to cry over the death of a family pet. It's mind boggling the lack of empathy they have, the lack of connection, with their victims.
> 
> When you get right down to it, they were ordinary men and women that came to a situation which brought out the worst in their characters. Exploiting a character flaw, I guess.
> 
> ...





Amsel said:


> I understand Hitler and his reasoning which comes from the progressive movement that began in the 1920's. The progressives in that era were into eugenics. His reasoning was to build a mighty socialist state using the progressive ideas of the time. He is the embodiement of the narcissistic despot who in his progressiveness to force his utopian ideas upon his nation, has no scruples as to how to achieve utopia. For him the end justifies the means of getting there. He was so closely tied to Germany in his mind that he became Germany. As his mind eroded so did the true strength and morals of Germany. In his derangement and self defeating behavior he destroyed his nation. He differs very little from all the other progressive despots of the world except he was building a utopia for Germany while the Russian despots were building an international utopia. We can see his type of narcissistic, and insane behavior in many politicians the world over. The progressive ideas are the same but eugenics fell away to psychiatry, and then the health craze and now it is about global warming and ecoterrorism. For some people to build utopia the ends justify the means, and if it hurts regular people then in their mind those people are getting in the way of progress and need to be eliminated.
> 
> It is all about control. To a progressive leader, utopia is built not through liberty, life , and the pursuit of happiness but control of everybody and everything and shaped in his image.




Very good posts, and very interesting insight. I can for the most part agree with the both of you. It is really hard to understand and sometimes it is painful to do so, but when one tries to understand the (note this does not mean agree with) what was all going on at that time, one can kind of understand how it came to happen.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Jun 13, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Unfortunately, I just hope there's someone to stop that from happening.





GrauGeist said:


> There always is...usually at a great cost, however...



True on both parts guys. Sadly, I do believe that the world is short of Churchill's and Eden's at the moment, hopefully that will change, but probably not anytime soon. 

Personally, I do have a tough time putting all the regimes mentioned here on a level of who was the worst. They are all ruthless bastards to me. However, I do have to say that, in terms of popular support, I think that Hitler and the Nazi's are up there, even just a pinch over Stalin and Tojo. 
I mean, the patriotic fever that I've seen from documentaries between '33 and '39 show that a huge majority of Germans and German oriented people in other parts of the world truely believed in Hitler and his damn nazi thugs (except for those few who openly criticized the Hitler Regime, and then disappeared into the night by the Gestapo). I can see like in Russia, people would support Stalin so they won't be shot or sent to the gulags. But a lot of Germans really supported Hitler not of terror, but out of their loyalty and devotion to him. Please criticize me if I'm wrong, but just the whole "cult of personality" that you are able to see in old films of nazi rallies from the regular German populace is kinda terrifying. It angers and scares the crap outta me! It was only when the Allies began to beat back the German armies, and were bombing the Third Reich back into the stone age, that the majority of Germans began to distrust the authority of the nazi's. Just my opinion, but I think that the Nazi regime is the worst because of this. 
This is kinda stupid, but one of my biggest regrets is that I was not alive in this time period. I wish I could've done something to help stop the Nazi regime, whether it would be a sole political voice like Churchill, Eden, or Duff Cooper, or even join the army and militarily combat this Fascist threat.


----------



## vanir (Jun 13, 2009)

> cult of personality" that you are able to see in old films of nazi rallies from the regular German populace is kinda terrifying.



It is propaganda footage. Like showing only sports events on the television, people start to think everybody in that city is crazy about sports. Footage like this is why Leni Reifenstahl is still hailed the most influential director in history. It is a movie production, like Star Wars.
The reality is indeed butchery in the streets and a whole lot of lying. Notably absent from these rallies is the ca.25% of the population being actively persecuted, and the countless others who felt they couldn't do anything to prevent it, but weren't exactly all for it. What about the ca 47% of the vote against the Nazis for example and like the US voting wasn't compulsory, so what about all those too cynical to vote. You won't see any of them at those rallies and on the newsmedia screenings around the world you won't see anything but the rallies (and concocted scenes of utopic aryan lifestyle in Germany now the Nazis are in power).
Careful not to believe the very thing the Nazis wanted you to.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 13, 2009)

Ferdinand Foch said:


> ...This is kinda stupid, but one of my biggest regrets is that I was not alive in this time period. I wish I could've done something to help stop the Nazi regime, whether it would be a sole political voice like Churchill, Eden, or Duff Cooper, or even join the army and militarily combat this Fascist threat.


Don't regret not being there, many people with the idea in mind to put a stop to that madness did step up, and eventually toppled those idiots.

Instead, armed with what you know of past history, look to today's world and be vigillant against any that would try and repeat those dark episodes.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Jun 14, 2009)

Vanir: Thanks. Forgot that most propaganda movies only focus on the 10% of population supporting 'em, while the other ninety percent is kept out of the spotlight.
GG: Thanks. Hopefully there are more out there like us that think the same way.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2009)

Ferdinand Foch said:


> Personally, I do have a tough time putting all the regimes mentioned here on a level of who was the worst. They are all ruthless bastards to me. However, I do have to say that, in terms of popular support, I think that Hitler and the Nazi's are up there, even just a pinch over Stalin and Tojo.
> I mean, the patriotic fever that I've seen from documentaries between '33 and '39 show that a huge majority of Germans and German oriented people in other parts of the world truely believed in Hitler and his damn nazi thugs (except for those few who openly criticized the Hitler Regime, and then disappeared into the night by the Gestapo). I can see like in Russia, people would support Stalin so they won't be shot or sent to the gulags. But a lot of Germans really supported Hitler not of terror, but out of their loyalty and devotion to him. Please criticize me if I'm wrong, but just the whole "cult of personality" that you are able to see in old films of nazi rallies from the regular German populace is kinda terrifying. It angers and scares the crap outta me! It was only when the Allies began to beat back the German armies, and were bombing the Third Reich back into the stone age, that the majority of Germans began to distrust the authority of the nazi's. Just my opinion, but I think that the Nazi regime is the worst because of this.
> This is kinda stupid, but one of my biggest regrets is that I was not alive in this time period. I wish I could've done something to help stop the Nazi regime, whether it would be a sole political voice like Churchill, Eden, or Duff Cooper, or even join the army and militarily combat this Fascist threat.



You have to understand though how this came about.

When Hitler was elected by the German people, he only promised good things. The German people were living in disgrace and economic ruin. He brought them out of it and did only good things at first. After he was elected, he banned all other parties and abolished elections which made him a dictator and he could do as he pleases. Until that point however he was a beloved leader. Hell I believe it was even the NY Times that called him the man of the year.

Hitler was also a very charismatic person. His speeches could literally "hypnotize" a viewer to follow him. He had this "charm" over people. 

A lot of these films that you see are "propaganda" films. They show the viewer what the party wanted you to see. The majority of the films take place Nazi Party Grounds in Nurnberg (which by the way are still here, in fact I was at a Rock Festival on the grounds last week). The people that are on the film are all Nazi Party members. They were filmed for a purpose, to show the viewer that this is what everyone was like.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 14, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Unfortunately, I just hope there's someone to stop that from happening.



There are some that who's careers were "truncated" (read: got whacked) relatively early in the process and didn't make it to positions of great power. Look at Huey Long, The Kingfish. He was in the same mold as other totalitarian dictators and he was in the US. Ran Louisiana like it was his own property. Ended up getting assasinated (some say mistakenly shot by his own bodyguards). He was the original "Share the Wealth" operator in the US.

He would've been trouble to the US and the World if he'd gone further.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 14, 2009)

timshatz said:


> There are some that who's careers were "truncated" (read: got whacked) relatively early in the process and didn't make it to positions of great power. Look at Huey Long, The Kingfish. He was in the same mold as other totalitarian dictators and he was in the US. Ran Louisiana like it was his own property. Ended up getting assasinated (some say mistakenly shot by his own bodyguards). He was the original "Share the Wealth" operator in the US.
> 
> He would've been trouble to the US and the World if he'd gone further.



Think I remember him from history. Pretty sure he got shot by his trigger happy guards.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Jun 14, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You have to understand though how this came about.
> 
> When Hitler was elected by the German people, he only promised good things. The German people were living in disgrace and economic ruin. He brought them out of it and did only good things at first. After he was elected, he banned all other parties and abolished elections which made him a dictator and he could do as he pleases. Until that point however he was a beloved leader. Hell I believe it was even the NY Times that called him the man of the year.
> 
> ...



 Thanks for the criticism Adler. I forgot about the fact that many Germans believed in Hitler because of his promises to get Germany out of the Great Depression, and make it a great country again. Kinda forgot to put myself in their shoes at the time, where people were starving, and the only thing that wheelbarrows of inflated money were good for were fuel for fireplaces. 
You are right, though, about Hitler being Man of the Year for the Times magazine back in 1938. Hell, Josef Stalin was Man of the Year twice!  
Got to tell you though, Hitler was a much better speaker than he was a writer, least when he was young. Started reading Mein Kampf at Barnes and Noble friday. He jumps around from place to place too much; it's like a slogging match through each page.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2009)

Ferdinand Foch said:


> Thanks for the criticism Adler.



Oh that was not criticism my friend. Just carrying on a conversation.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Jun 14, 2009)

Oh right, he. Still, promising all of this change in a short while and getting all of this support (even though many people were starving and in financial desperation) kinda scares me. I just hope that the U.S. never gets into this sort of situation again.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 15, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Think I remember him from history. Pretty sure he got shot by his trigger happy guards.



Yeah, bummer. Popped by your own Rent a Cops.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 15, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Yeah, bummer. Popped by your own Rent a Cops.



Couldn't happen to a nicer guy though.

After looking it up on wiki, there's two stories. One: Dr. Carl Austin Weiss shot Long once or twice. Two: Weiss punched Long in the face, and Long caught friendly fire from his bodyguards. Don't know the definitive answer, but Long had a swollen lip when he went to the hospital. And since Weiss was shot sixy-one times, I'm sure some stray bullet hit Long.


----------



## Yerger (Jun 17, 2009)

Stalin. Body count is hard to argue against, especally all being your own.


----------

