Stalin Man of Steel

WTF are you talking about??? STALING NEVER KILLED HIS OWN PEOPLE??? Stalin and the russians forced people to go ifight in the war and since they didnt have enough guns they would give one guy in the front a gun and have one guy following him who had to pick it up if the front guy got shot, anyone who retreated or stopped the rush was shot deads instasntly.

Plus he starved millions of his people dont try to tell people on here that stalin never killled any innocents. That must be one of the most laughable statement s i have ever heard.

Quote from insider trading:

I agree it is a very good watch

I don't think Stalin was worse then Hitler.Stalin only ordered the murder of his enemies,the other deaths were the results of his polices which he thought was best for Russia

Hitler on the other hand was a mass murderer who intentionally killed many more people then Stalin did
More...
 
Quote from dwl603:

... That must be one of the most laughable statement s i have ever heard.
More...

Oh there is MUCH more, just do a search of his posts.

:D
 
Quote from MohdSalleh:

stalin is indeed an evil man, but i would take him over Obama anytime
More...

I've seen stupid, many times on this Forum, and I've seen ignorant, and every other variation there is of the completely idiotic.
I've even seen 99 and 44/100ths percent evil.

This, OTOH, is 100 percent evil. Also, 100 percent stupid. And, just to top it all off, 100 percent ignorant.
You really really really need to crawl back into the slime you slithered out of. You are, quite simply, the definition of idiocy.
 
Stalin, Mao and Hitler all have their defenders. But nobody defends little Charley Manson, and he only had a handful of people killed. I guess phrases like "only killed 1 million people" are reserved for politicians.

Here are the high fatality estimates for these "leaders of men" (it's a wonderful thing when historians have to guess at the body count):

Mao: 60 million
Stalin: 20 million
Hitler: 11 million

Saddam Hussein only killed 800,000. By 20th century standards, he sounds like a pretty good guy.
 
Quote from 4444CJones4444:

Stalin, Mao and Hitler all have their defenders. But nobody defends little Charley Manson, and he only had a handful of people killed. I guess phrases like "only killed 1 million people" are reserved for politicians.

Here are the high fatality estimates for these "leaders of men" (it's a wonderful thing when historians have to guess at the body count):

Mao: 60 million
Stalin: 20 million
Hitler: 11 million

Saddam Hussein only killed 800,000. By 20th century standards, he sounds like a pretty good guy.
More...

I don't know where you get your figures from but the Soviet Union lost over 20 million dead in WWII. I should think that Nazism/Hitler bears responsibility for that plus a whole lot more.
 
Quote from dcraig:

I don't know where you get your figures from but the Soviet Union lost over 20 million dead in WWII. I should think that Nazism/Hitler bears responsibility for that plus a whole lot more.
More...
Generally historians count (or guess) deaths from genocide, deaths from labor camps, deaths due to famine and deaths while exiled. For some reason they don't directly attribute casualties from armed conflict, even if the leader was the aggressor, probably because men like GWB would have an estimated 1 million deaths on his hands and the winner always writes the history. Besides, it's not always clear who the aggressor is in an armed conflict. Even with a modern war, some people argue the U.S. was the aggressor in Iraq, while the far right and the GWB administration swear Iraq was asking for it.

I don't get too caught up in the numbers, partly because the numbers are so damn hard to get 100% accurate and they're constantly changing for a variety of reasons, and partly because if I slaughter 1000 people to serve my own purposes and you do the same to 100 people, it doesn't make you 90% less evil than me. We're both pretty screwed up.
 
Quote from 4444CJones4444:

Generally historians count (or guess) deaths from genocide, deaths from labor camps, deaths due to famine and deaths while exiled. For some reason they don't directly attribute casualties from armed conflict, even if the leader was the aggressor, probably because men like GWB would have an estimated 1 million deaths on his hands and the winner always writes the history. Besides, it's not always clear who the aggressor is in an armed conflict. Even with a modern war, some people argue the U.S. was the aggressor in Iraq, while the far right and the GWB administration swear Iraq was asking for it.
More...

Which historians? Sounds like statistics of convenience to me.

It's pretty damned clear who the aggressor was in WWII in Europe.

And GWB was the aggressor in Iraq and does deserve the credit for a million dead. And to be tried as a war criminal.
 
Quote from dcraig:

Which historians? Sounds like statistics of convenience to me.

It's pretty damned clear who the aggressor was in WWII in Europe.

And GWB was the aggressor in Iraq and does deserve the credit for a million dead. And to be tried as a war criminal.
More...
Those numbers were from memory. I'll do a quick search on the internet if you like. Wiki is usually in the ballpark.
 
Quote from dcraig:

Which historians? Sounds like statistics of convenience to me.

It's pretty damned clear who the aggressor was in WWII in Europe.

And GWB was the aggressor in Iraq and does deserve the credit for a million dead. And to be tried as a war criminal.
More...

Bush is a war criminal but Stalin is ok. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top