Who was more ruthless?

[Marcel]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

".. 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]

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]

Great movie.

 

[Njaco]

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]

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]

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]

".. 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]

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]

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]

" .. 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?]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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)

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]

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.