Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (14631)	9/17/2002 11:51:04 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

I merely claimed that I thought it was an interesting question. Stalin's clutch on power was more secure. As I recall there were more active asassination plots on Hitler than there were on Stalin. [There may have been some on Stalin, I just can't recall them.] So Hitler may not have survived much longer with or without the War. Though I think rather than headcount, I'd consider "motivation" as the driving characteristic for most evil. Hitler was intent on genocide; that's a lot of evil points. Stalin didn't discriminate, but that might be even worse, to kill for killing sake might be worse than trying to exterminate a group for irrational reasons. I think I'd call that tie in that field. With respect to war casualities, you can at least claim that there was some rationality, short of evil, in attempting to re-acquire the lands that were historically German, e.g., Posen, Pommern, Alsace-Loraine, etc. They lost them as part of WWI, but it's not unimaginable why Germany would want them back. Stalin, I can't think of any mitigating factors for his behavior. He was closer to someone like Genghis Khan. Kill everything in your path kind of guy. jttmab