Most Evil Human In History Aside From the Big Two

[Accountfailed]

Well, first of all Stalin wasn't that evil. I know that or sure, since I'm Russian.

Well, if I started talking about Russian historical figures I can safely say Ivan the Terrible. Not only he was a crazy dictator, he also murdered his own son, ending the Ruricovich dynasty.

Also he was a crappy politician, most of the wars he started has cost Russia a lot of land

You need to study Stalin my friend in a serious way. Your opinion of him will probably change... FAST.

I always wonder what would have been if Trotsky succeded Lenin and things like Valkayrie were a sucess where Hitlers best generals were put in charge in stead of executed.

Will. you. stop. bumping. this. thread. PLEASE.

 

[lordbuxton]

READ THE WHOLE POST

As a species we have produced some rather poor specimens. We have had dictators, serial killers, pedophiles (the ones that rape/murder/enslave kids, not just people with a fetish) and other degenerates in our society. But which is the worst? Which person is the epitome of human scum?

The answer to that question varies from person to person, we have seen many wastes of skin in our brief time on earth. From Stalin to Charles Manson there are plenty of human garbage to pick from.

So who get's your vote for most evil human in history? It can be anyone, but to avoid repeat answers I'll have to ask you to refrain from answering Hitler or Stalin. So aside from them, who is one person that you wish was never born? And please explain why.

Personally, Idi Amin comes to mind. He was born in a Ugandan tribe and joined the army, he was an immense human being with incredible physical strengths. When the British left Uganda he was promoted to Colonel, and began to commit murders and steal money. Before he was delt with he disposed of the current leader at the time in a military coup and began to build he army to get himself more money and power. His army was made up of thugs who raped and tortured many people under Amin's orders, they ran a jail that had only 7 survivors who only survived because they ate human flesh and drink their own urine to live. Amin was thought to be a canibal. He even kept the heads of certain victems in his fridge and had photos of people being tortured in his jails for his own pleasure. He even chopped up his first wife when she displeased him.

He also purged anyone who wasen't a born Ugandan from Uganda, leading to an economic crisis in the country when no one knew how to run the stores they were given. Amin made his thugs step up their cruelty. He eventually was taken out of power when he invaded another African country and his thugs only knowing how to bully civilians got their asses kicked. There he fled to Saudi Arabia and got asylum there, he never paid for his crimes.

I picked this monster because unlike many leaders at the time he had no real politcal agenda, he was just a greedy bastard with a drive for power.

impossible as "evilness" is a subjective value. Im sure Hitler didn't consider himself evil.

B

 

[Kanatatsu]

There is no such thing as good or evil. Only two or more sides with opposing views.

This is just plain stupidity. Your philosophy prof sucks.

Shall I provide an example for you?

There are many people in the world that view Americans and The West in general as being evil. Are you an American? Do you live in "The West"? Are you evil?

What we perceive as "good" and "evil" are just ideas brought upon us by what we are taught and our experiences through life. Can you scientifically prove something as being "good"? Can you scientifically prove something as being "evil"?

This is absolutely the worst kind of trashy, "look at me, I decided to be a moral relativist today!" horseshit. When you grow up a little, you'll realize your shiny new intellectual bauble is worthless.

There is no such thing as good or evil. Only two or more sides with opposing views.

This is just plain stupidity. Your philosophy prof sucks.

Shall I provide an example for you?

There are many people in the world that view Americans and The West in general as being evil. Are you an American? Do you live in "The West"? Are you evil?

What we perceive as "good" and "evil" are just ideas brought upon us by what we are taught and our experiences through life. Can you scientifically prove something as being "good"? Can you scientifically prove something as being "evil"?

This is absolutely the worst kind of trashy, "look at me, I decided to be a moral relativist today!" horseshit. When you grow up a little, you'll realize your shiny new intellectual bauble is worthless.

So instead of further engagement in the debate you resort to baseless insults? Who needs to grow up exactly?

It's not a "baseless" insult if it's true, child.

 

[Blatherscythe]

Well, first of all Stalin wasn't that evil. I know that or sure, since I'm Russian.

Well, if I started talking about Russian historical figures I can safely say Ivan the Terrible. Not only he was a crazy dictator, he also murdered his own son, ending the Ruricovich dynasty.

Also he was a crappy politician, most of the wars he started has cost Russia a lot of land

You need to study Stalin my friend in a serious way. Your opinion of him will probably change... FAST.

I always wonder what would have been if Trotsky succeded Lenin and things like Valkayrie were a sucess where Hitlers best generals were put in charge in stead of executed.

Will. you. stop. bumping. this. thread. PLEASE.

I'm not bumping it. I asked a question, a bump would be me going "shameless bump!" or "bump for great justice!". Besides, most peoples moral standpoint argurments are making this thread relevent again.

 

[Blatherscythe]

READ THE WHOLE POST

As a species we have produced some rather poor specimens. We have had dictators, serial killers, pedophiles (the ones that rape/murder/enslave kids, not just people with a fetish) and other degenerates in our society. But which is the worst? Which person is the epitome of human scum?

The answer to that question varies from person to person, we have seen many wastes of skin in our brief time on earth. From Stalin to Charles Manson there are plenty of human garbage to pick from.

So who get's your vote for most evil human in history? It can be anyone, but to avoid repeat answers I'll have to ask you to refrain from answering Hitler or Stalin. So aside from them, who is one person that you wish was never born? And please explain why.

Personally, Idi Amin comes to mind. He was born in a Ugandan tribe and joined the army, he was an immense human being with incredible physical strengths. When the British left Uganda he was promoted to Colonel, and began to commit murders and steal money. Before he was delt with he disposed of the current leader at the time in a military coup and began to build he army to get himself more money and power. His army was made up of thugs who raped and tortured many people under Amin's orders, they ran a jail that had only 7 survivors who only survived because they ate human flesh and drink their own urine to live. Amin was thought to be a canibal. He even kept the heads of certain victems in his fridge and had photos of people being tortured in his jails for his own pleasure. He even chopped up his first wife when she displeased him.

He also purged anyone who wasen't a born Ugandan from Uganda, leading to an economic crisis in the country when no one knew how to run the stores they were given. Amin made his thugs step up their cruelty. He eventually was taken out of power when he invaded another African country and his thugs only knowing how to bully civilians got their asses kicked. There he fled to Saudi Arabia and got asylum there, he never paid for his crimes.

I picked this monster because unlike many leaders at the time he had no real politcal agenda, he was just a greedy bastard with a drive for power.

impossible as "evilness" is a subjective value. Im sure Hitler didn't consider himself evil.

B

Not quite, most societies frown upon murder, rape, theivery and violence and tends to villify those who embody it. Sure villains in real life don't see themselves as evil, but they are usually insane or had an upbringing that lead to that and so to most of the world they are evil or as close as someone can get to it. Now if you don't like the term evil who do you think is the worst criminal (by severity of crime) be it war crimes, crimes against humanity etc, aside from Stalin and Hitler?

 

[Level 7 Dragon]

Well, first of all Stalin wasn't that evil. I know that or sure, since I'm Russian.

Well, if I started talking about Russian historical figures I can safely say Ivan the Terrible. Not only he was a crazy dictator, he also murdered his own son, ending the Ruricovich dynasty.

Also he was a crappy politician, most of the wars he started has cost Russia a lot of land

You need to study Stalin my friend in a serious way. Your opinion of him will probably change... FAST.

I know Stalins basic biography, I was told by the old folks that at the Stalin times anybody could by picked and get taken to execution for no real reason, also some woman got stuck for her entire life in prison for placing Stalins portrait to close to the toilet. Yea he was an asshole, yet he wasn't such a bad politic. He helped Russia survive WW2, and other countries as well.

 

[Blatherscythe]

Well, first of all Stalin wasn't that evil. I know that or sure, since I'm Russian.

Well, if I started talking about Russian historical figures I can safely say Ivan the Terrible. Not only he was a crazy dictator, he also murdered his own son, ending the Ruricovich dynasty.

Also he was a crappy politician, most of the wars he started has cost Russia a lot of land

You need to study Stalin my friend in a serious way. Your opinion of him will probably change... FAST.

I know Stalins basic biography, I was told by the old folks that at the Stalin times anybody could by picked and get taken to execution for no real reason, also some woman got stuck for her entire life in prison for placing Stalins portrait to close to the toilet. Yea he was an asshole, yet he wasn't such a bad politic. He helped Russia survive WW2, and other countries as well.

Stalin cowared away in a cottage in the country while the Nazi war machine tore up his country and slaughtered his underprepared people. When he finally had the balls to act his solution to the problem ammounted to throw bodies at it, because Russia has a lot more bodies than the Nazi's had. Here's some of his ground rules for troops fending off Nazi invaders. If you didn't suicide charge towards the enemy, you were shot, get captured, they'd shoot you, survive a battle that was lost, you were shot. He couldn't even outfit his troops properly, he needed American's to pick up the slack and give him some guns and even then it wasen't enough. Russian firearms distribution plan; 1 soldier gets a gun and some bullets, another soldier gets bullets, the one after that gets more bullets, when soldier 1 dies, 2 picks up the gun and uses it until he dies then 3 takes the gun. Stalin sucked, period.

 

[Arsen]

The members of Rage Against the Machine.

Fucking hypocritical, backwards notioned, unintelligent, dishonest bastards. I'll take warfare over these corproate guzzlers any day of the week.

 

[Blatherscythe]

The members of Rage Against the Machine.

Fucking hypocritical, backwards notioned, unintelligent, dishonest bastards. I'll take warfare over these corproate guzzlers any day of the week.

Okay, how are they fucking hypocritical, backwards notioned, unintelligent, dishonest bastard corporate guzzlers? Not everyone (including myself) is aquinted with them.

 

[Bonemonster]

There is no such thing as good or evil. Only two or more sides with opposing views.

This is just plain stupidity. Your philosophy prof sucks.

Shall I provide an example for you?

There are many people in the world that view Americans and The West in general as being evil. Are you an American? Do you live in "The West"? Are you evil?

What we perceive as "good" and "evil" are just ideas brought upon us by what we are taught and our experiences through life. Can you scientifically prove something as being "good"? Can you scientifically prove something as being "evil"?

This is absolutely the worst kind of trashy, "look at me, I decided to be a moral relativist today!" horseshit. When you grow up a little, you'll realize your shiny new intellectual bauble is worthless.

There is no such thing as good or evil. Only two or more sides with opposing views.

This is just plain stupidity. Your philosophy prof sucks.

Shall I provide an example for you?

There are many people in the world that view Americans and The West in general as being evil. Are you an American? Do you live in "The West"? Are you evil?

What we perceive as "good" and "evil" are just ideas brought upon us by what we are taught and our experiences through life. Can you scientifically prove something as being "good"? Can you scientifically prove something as being "evil"?

This is absolutely the worst kind of trashy, "look at me, I decided to be a moral relativist today!" horseshit. When you grow up a little, you'll realize your shiny new intellectual bauble is worthless.

So instead of further engagement in the debate you resort to baseless insults? Who needs to grow up exactly?

It's not a "baseless" insult if it's true, child.

Then explain how my argument is false. If someone truly believes that you are evil does that make you evil? If you answer "yes" to that question then you are correct, if you answer "no" to that question then I am correct.

What you are insinuating in your argument is that "good" and "evil" are defined in stone but you fail to realize that societies around the world have different views and beliefs on what is "good" or "evil".

What you are insinuating with your argument is that if someone doesn't believe exactly as you do, they're in the wrong.

If anyone is a child, it is you. If anyone is a fool, it is you.

 

[Kanatatsu]

There is no such thing as good or evil. Only two or more sides with opposing views.

This is just plain stupidity. Your philosophy prof sucks.

Shall I provide an example for you?

There are many people in the world that view Americans and The West in general as being evil. Are you an American? Do you live in "The West"? Are you evil?

What we perceive as "good" and "evil" are just ideas brought upon us by what we are taught and our experiences through life. Can you scientifically prove something as being "good"? Can you scientifically prove something as being "evil"?

This is absolutely the worst kind of trashy, "look at me, I decided to be a moral relativist today!" horseshit. When you grow up a little, you'll realize your shiny new intellectual bauble is worthless.

There is no such thing as good or evil. Only two or more sides with opposing views.

This is just plain stupidity. Your philosophy prof sucks.

Shall I provide an example for you?

There are many people in the world that view Americans and The West in general as being evil. Are you an American? Do you live in "The West"? Are you evil?

What we perceive as "good" and "evil" are just ideas brought upon us by what we are taught and our experiences through life. Can you scientifically prove something as being "good"? Can you scientifically prove something as being "evil"?

This is absolutely the worst kind of trashy, "look at me, I decided to be a moral relativist today!" horseshit. When you grow up a little, you'll realize your shiny new intellectual bauble is worthless.

So instead of further engagement in the debate you resort to baseless insults? Who needs to grow up exactly?

It's not a "baseless" insult if it's true, child.

Then explain how my argument is false. If someone truly believes that you are evil does that make you evil? If you answer "yes" to that question then you are correct, if you answer "no" to that question then I am correct.

What you are insinuating in your argument is that "good" and "evil" are defined in stone but you fail to realize that societies around the world have different views and beliefs on what is "good" or "evil".

What you are insinuating with your argument is that if someone doesn't believe exactly as you do, they're in the wrong.

If anyone is a child, it is you. If anyone is a fool, it is you.

No, I am telling you that you need to think more because you don't even understand the position you are taking.

Your argument is false in the first instance because there are obvious examples of acts that are so evil that there can be no possible relativistic position taken on them. The torture and murder of an infant would be an example. I could think of others but I would rather not. No serious philosopher has made a good argument for total moral relativism.

Please note that we're not talking about different social mores or cultural standards. Your example of the relative views of different societies on social and political issues (i.e., people think the West is "evil") misses the point entirely. You are arguing against against basic ethnocentricism or politicocentrism (basically, using the standards of one's own culture to evaluate others). That's not the same thing as arguing against any form of objective moral standard at all.

Also, when you ask if anyone can "scientifically" prove that something is good or evil, it's just a profoundly uninformed way to phrase the question. The discussion has nothing to do with science--it is a philosophical question that most of the great thinkers in human history have come down on the other side of than you. What you may be asking is a question of epistemological moral relativism (i.e., how can we *know* what is right and wrong), but again that is not the same thing as an argument against the existence of objective moral standards (it is an argument about our ability to know what those standards are).

If you want to be an informed moral relativist perhaps David Harmon would be a good place to start. Or just get on Google. Here's a link if you actually want to learn something about your own position:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

In general, please don't be such an uniformed hack. It's very easy to have a philosophical position and defend it on the ground that "everyone has the right to their own opinion", but that doesn't mean your opinion has any intellectual merit. I happen to have a Ph.D in philosophy and saw far too many kids like you (who have all the answers and didn't even understand the questions) when I was teaching. I generally failed them.

I'm done now, but congratulations--you baited me into the lecture I wanted to avoid.

 

[tthor]

Mussolini, leader of Italy during WW2. Some people would argue that Mussolini may be even more evil than Hitler.
for one example, he sent an army to invade Ethiopia, mostly just as a training exercise his troops.

 

[Level 7 Dragon]

Well, first of all Stalin wasn't that evil. I know that or sure, since I'm Russian.

Well, if I started talking about Russian historical figures I can safely say Ivan the Terrible. Not only he was a crazy dictator, he also murdered his own son, ending the Ruricovich dynasty.

Also he was a crappy politician, most of the wars he started has cost Russia a lot of land

You need to study Stalin my friend in a serious way. Your opinion of him will probably change... FAST.

I know Stalins basic biography, I was told by the old folks that at the Stalin times anybody could by picked and get taken to execution for no real reason, also some woman got stuck for her entire life in prison for placing Stalins portrait to close to the toilet. Yea he was an asshole, yet he wasn't such a bad politic. He helped Russia survive WW2, and other countries as well.

Stalin coward away in a cottage in the country while the Nazi war machine tore up his country and slaughtered his under prepared people. When he finally had the balls to act his solution to the problem amounted to throw bodies at it, because Russia has a lot more bodies than the Nazi's had. Here's some of his ground rules for troops fending off Nazi invaders. If you didn't suicide charge towards the enemy, you were shot, get captured, they'd shoot you, survive a battle that was lost, you were shot. He couldn't even outfit his troops properly, he needed American's to pick up the slack and give him some guns and even then it wasn't enough. Russian firearms distribution plan; 1 soldier gets a gun and some bullets, another soldier gets bullets, the one after that gets more bullets, when soldier 1 dies, 2 picks up the gun and uses it until he dies then 3 takes the gun. Stalin sucked, period.

This isn't what really happened, well it did, but differently . Sometime before WW2 USSR and Germany made a contract saying that they will not attack and of course they broke the contract and started the war, it was a surprise attack. Second, USSR was facing an economical crisis at the moment. Before the war USSR wasn't the monster America knew in the cold war.

I think this threat is kinda pointless. There is no black and white understanding of the human conciseness, even monsters like Hitler contributed to the world in a curtain way. I in no way agree with Hitlers understanding of "The perfect world" and killing millions of people for his black and white understanding is just inhuman.

Technology did advance for 20 years after WW2 and America the USSR got out of there economical crease's and became the biggest (and the baddest) nations out there. What what?!

 

[Bonemonster]

There is no such thing as good or evil. Only two or more sides with opposing views.

This is just plain stupidity. Your philosophy prof sucks.

Shall I provide an example for you?

There are many people in the world that view Americans and The West in general as being evil. Are you an American? Do you live in "The West"? Are you evil?

What we perceive as "good" and "evil" are just ideas brought upon us by what we are taught and our experiences through life. Can you scientifically prove something as being "good"? Can you scientifically prove something as being "evil"?

This is absolutely the worst kind of trashy, "look at me, I decided to be a moral relativist today!" horseshit. When you grow up a little, you'll realize your shiny new intellectual bauble is worthless.

There is no such thing as good or evil. Only two or more sides with opposing views.

This is just plain stupidity. Your philosophy prof sucks.

Shall I provide an example for you?

There are many people in the world that view Americans and The West in general as being evil. Are you an American? Do you live in "The West"? Are you evil?

What we perceive as "good" and "evil" are just ideas brought upon us by what we are taught and our experiences through life. Can you scientifically prove something as being "good"? Can you scientifically prove something as being "evil"?

This is absolutely the worst kind of trashy, "look at me, I decided to be a moral relativist today!" horseshit. When you grow up a little, you'll realize your shiny new intellectual bauble is worthless.

So instead of further engagement in the debate you resort to baseless insults? Who needs to grow up exactly?

It's not a "baseless" insult if it's true, child.

Then explain how my argument is false. If someone truly believes that you are evil does that make you evil? If you answer "yes" to that question then you are correct, if you answer "no" to that question then I am correct.

What you are insinuating in your argument is that "good" and "evil" are defined in stone but you fail to realize that societies around the world have different views and beliefs on what is "good" or "evil".

What you are insinuating with your argument is that if someone doesn't believe exactly as you do, they're in the wrong.

If anyone is a child, it is you. If anyone is a fool, it is you.

No, I am telling you that you need to think more because you don't even understand the position you are taking.

Your argument is false in the first instance because there are obvious examples of acts that are so evil that there can be no possible relativistic position taken on them. The torture and murder of an infant would be an example. I could think of others but I would rather not. No serious philosopher has made a good argument for total moral relativism.

Please note that we're not talking about different social mores or cultural standards. Your example of the relative views of different societies on social and political issues (i.e., people think the West is "evil") misses the point entirely. You are arguing against against basic ethnocentricism or politicocentrism (basically, using the standards of one's own culture to evaluate others). That's not the same thing as arguing against any form of objective moral standard at all.

Also, when you ask if anyone can "scientifically" prove that something is good or evil, it's just a profoundly uninformed way to phrase the question. The discussion has nothing to do with science--it is a philosophical question that most of the great thinkers in human history have come down on the other side of than you. What you may be asking is a question of epistemological moral relativism (i.e., how can we *know* what is right and wrong), but again that is not the same thing as an argument against the existence of objective moral standards (it is an argument about our ability to know what those standards are).

If you want to be an informed moral relativist perhaps David Harmon would be a good place to start. Or just get on Google. Here's a link if you actually want to learn something about your own position:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

In general, please don't be such an uniformed hack. It's very easy to have a philosophical position and defend it on the ground that "everyone has the right to their own opinion", but that doesn't mean your opinion has any intellectual merit. I happen to have a Ph.D in philosophy and saw far too many kids like you (who have all the answers and didn't even understand the questions) when I was teaching. I generally failed them.

I'm done now, but congratulations--you baited me into the lecture I wanted to avoid.

 

[Blatherscythe]

Well, first of all Stalin wasn't that evil. I know that or sure, since I'm Russian.

Well, if I started talking about Russian historical figures I can safely say Ivan the Terrible. Not only he was a crazy dictator, he also murdered his own son, ending the Ruricovich dynasty.

Also he was a crappy politician, most of the wars he started has cost Russia a lot of land

You need to study Stalin my friend in a serious way. Your opinion of him will probably change... FAST.

I know Stalins basic biography, I was told by the old folks that at the Stalin times anybody could by picked and get taken to execution for no real reason, also some woman got stuck for her entire life in prison for placing Stalins portrait to close to the toilet. Yea he was an asshole, yet he wasn't such a bad politic. He helped Russia survive WW2, and other countries as well.

Stalin coward away in a cottage in the country while the Nazi war machine tore up his country and slaughtered his under prepared people. When he finally had the balls to act his solution to the problem amounted to throw bodies at it, because Russia has a lot more bodies than the Nazi's had. Here's some of his ground rules for troops fending off Nazi invaders. If you didn't suicide charge towards the enemy, you were shot, get captured, they'd shoot you, survive a battle that was lost, you were shot. He couldn't even outfit his troops properly, he needed American's to pick up the slack and give him some guns and even then it wasn't enough. Russian firearms distribution plan; 1 soldier gets a gun and some bullets, another soldier gets bullets, the one after that gets more bullets, when soldier 1 dies, 2 picks up the gun and uses it until he dies then 3 takes the gun. Stalin sucked, period.

This isn't what really happened, well it did, but differently . Sometime before WW2 USSR and Germany made a contract saying that they will not attack and of course they broke the contract and started the war, it was a surprise attack. Second, USSR was facing an economical crisis at the moment. Before the war USSR wasn't the monster America knew in the cold war.

I think this threat is kinda pointless. There is no black and white understanding of the human conciseness, even monsters like Hitler contributed to the world in a curtain way. I in no way agree with Hitlers understanding of "The perfect world" and killing millions of people for his black and white understanding is just inhuman.

Technology did advance for 20 years after WW2 and America the USSR got out of there economical crease's and became the biggest (and the baddest) nations out there. What what?!

Yep, Stalin's five year plan fucked up the Russian economy and I know that Germany and Russia had a treaty to not attack one another and to joint attack Poland. Stalin however, was not instrumental to the defeat of Nazi Germany, the citizens of Russia were.

 

[DeltaWolfson]

Who do you think, Obama.

 

[drag00n3r]

Does my little sister count? if so here are the reasons


1st: anyone you call ''evil'' here will SH!T them selfs if they see her
2nd:she has sharp nails
3th:she's a girl

Nuff said

 

[theheroofaction]

Well, tied at the top are Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin, with Adolf Hitler coming close behind.

But other than those three? Vlad the impaler. Sure he didn't kill as many people as some others did, but he pretty much did it for shits and giggles.

 

[Level 7 Dragon]

Well, first of all Stalin wasn't that evil. I know that or sure, since I'm Russian.

Well, if I started talking about Russian historical figures I can safely say Ivan the Terrible. Not only he was a crazy dictator, he also murdered his own son, ending the Ruricovich dynasty.

Also he was a crappy politician, most of the wars he started has cost Russia a lot of land

You need to study Stalin my friend in a serious way. Your opinion of him will probably change... FAST.

I know Stalins basic biography, I was told by the old folks that at the Stalin times anybody could by picked and get taken to execution for no real reason, also some woman got stuck for her entire life in prison for placing Stalins portrait to close to the toilet. Yea he was an asshole, yet he wasn't such a bad politic. He helped Russia survive WW2, and other countries as well.

Stalin coward away in a cottage in the country while the Nazi war machine tore up his country and slaughtered his under prepared people. When he finally had the balls to act his solution to the problem amounted to throw bodies at it, because Russia has a lot more bodies than the Nazi's had. Here's some of his ground rules for troops fending off Nazi invaders. If you didn't suicide charge towards the enemy, you were shot, get captured, they'd shoot you, survive a battle that was lost, you were shot. He couldn't even outfit his troops properly, he needed American's to pick up the slack and give him some guns and even then it wasn't enough. Russian firearms distribution plan; 1 soldier gets a gun and some bullets, another soldier gets bullets, the one after that gets more bullets, when soldier 1 dies, 2 picks up the gun and uses it until he dies then 3 takes the gun. Stalin sucked, period.

This isn't what really happened, well it did, but differently . Sometime before WW2 USSR and Germany made a contract saying that they will not attack and of course they broke the contract and started the war, it was a surprise attack. Second, USSR was facing an economical crisis at the moment. Before the war USSR wasn't the monster America knew in the cold war.

I think this threat is kinda pointless. There is no black and white understanding of the human conciseness, even monsters like Hitler contributed to the world in a curtain way. I in no way agree with Hitlers understanding of "The perfect world" and killing millions of people for his black and white understanding is just inhuman.

Technology did advance for 20 years after WW2 and America the USSR got out of there economical crease's and became the biggest (and the baddest) nations out there. What what?!

Yep, Stalin's five year plan fucked up the Russian economy and I know that Germany and Russia had a treaty to not attack one another and to joint attack Poland. Stalin however, was not instrumental to the defeat of Nazi Germany, the citizens of Russia were.

He didn't do anything to the economy, USSR had an economical crisis since 1917. Why do much hate?

 

[Hamish Durie]

Can't belive this thread is still going