Hitler was Worse than Stalin

"In Hitler's mind, this is not the case. It's almost as if saying Russians are real Australians. It is all down to a matter of perception. As we know, Hitler believed the perfect and pure German had only German bloodline and Genes."So what Con is saying is that Hitler decided who lives and who dies. If Hitler suddenly decided that Christians were not real Germans, he would kill all the Christians. If Hitler doesn't like a group of people, he kills them. Don't you find that interesting? Simply because Hitler doesn't like people, he kills them. Stalin at least had a good reason to kill the people he killed and that reason was that the people who Stalin killed were either actual threats or possible threats."As Stalin once said, "one death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic". Also, Stalin's attitude in the war was carelessness and recklessness and bad leadership. The Soviet's did not plan effectively on tactics, and lost millions of soldiers. Stalin's policy on "no retreat" is not courageous, it is plain carelessness of his soldiers, and sending them to fight without weapons, knowing that they will die, shows just how immoral and inhumane Stalin was. This high casualty rate is Stalin's fault, as he had purged the great army leaders because of "his paranoia"." OK, Con seems to have found a quote thinking that a quote will support his position. Its one thing to say, a complete different thing to actually do. That quote could support Hitler just as much as it supports Stalin. Didn't Hitler also kill many of millions of people? Then Con talks about how Stalin's leadership led to heavy losses in WWII. I will counter this by saying that Hitler's leadership and Hitler's mistakes led to Germany's defeat."Although Hitler killed many Jewish, Polish or any ethnicity he did not like for personal reasons, he did look after his favored people and cultures, and did not let them starve to death with famine like Stalin did."OK, that is a complete lie. Millions of Ukrainians, Dutch, French, etc. people were starving under German occupation. So Con's assumption that only Stalin starved people is completely untrue. And these millions of people who were starving in occupied countries did not include the millions of people who starved in Concentration Camps. In addition to this, Hitler's reasons for killing the people he killed were not personal at all. His ideology led Hitler to believe that those people were the source of Germany's problems. Nazism controlled the decisions that Hitler made. "I do not want to sound immoral or to sound like a monster, but what use does a disabled person have in society, especially during Hitler and Stalin's era; a time of hard labor and a hard life. Nowadays, we have workers to support disabled people, to give them a chance, but back then, a disabled person was a burden on society, and Hitler recognized this. You can't send a disabled person to fight a war, to work in the factories, to work in the fields or to work in general. Hitler, during his time, was reasonably justified in the removal of disabled people."I would agree with your reason on this one. Hitler was somewhat justified in killing the disabled. However the disabled were less than 1% of the total people he killed. Therefor, this is a small argument to support your case. "I agree with this, but Stalin took the meaning "destroy all opposition" to a new level, essentially removing majority of opposition, and removing much of his own party. Hitler did remove opposition to come to power, but he did it legally by bending the rules and manipulating the system, as well as gaining majority of the support, even though it was through propaganda. Stalin, on the other hand, removed much opposition through the purges, with murder and imprisonment."Stalin removed much of his own party because much of his own party was against him. Therefor, that is called "opposition". Hitler removed opposition by bending rules and manipulating the system? Stalin did the same. Con says that Hitler came to power legaly. Hitler came to power legaly by lying to the people and scarying his rivals. He killed sent the entire Communist party to Concentration camps. His police killed anybody who opposed him. And Con is saying that Hitler came to power legaly. Either Con is a Nazi, or he has read too much Nazi propaganda. "Does this not make Stalin insane, to kill people because he 'feared' betrayal. Hitler feared betrayal, but only purged when he was betrayed. As seen with the night of the long knives, the purging of the corrupt politicians and prominent figures. Stalin, in contrast, killed innocent people because of his 'fear' of betrayal, as seen with the forced famine in Ukraine, where he killed millions of innocent people because he believed that they will rise against him. Yes, Hitler did millions of innocent people also, but not because he feared betrayal, he wanted a better and purer Germany, he wanted the best for "his people"." Its difficult to see what Hitler WANTED for his people. But its easy to see what he GAVE them. Berlin: 1945Now Stalin also wanted the best for his people. And He sure did a better job of giving them the best. Moscow: Victory Parade - 1945Pro stated that Hitler wanted the best for his people. Is attacking the world "the best for his people?" Clearly, Hitler cared only about his power, not about his people. The same can be largely said about Stalin, however as the pictures above show, Hitler was leading his nation to destruction while Stalin was actually doing something besides killing Jews and homosexuals. Conclusion: Con's two main arguments so far have been that Stalin killed more people than Hitler and that Hitler supported and wanted the best for his people. I have refuted the first argument by saying that Hitler killed people at a MUCH faster rate than Stalin. I refuted Con's second argument by stating that Hitler only led his nation to destruction. My first main argument was that Hitler killed people for no reason. Stalin had a good reason. Also, Hitler killed faster.