Who was worst, and who changed things for the better

But only one of them caused great technological advancement :)

Stalin best
Mao worst
Hitler fuccboi
seriously, why is this even up for Discussion.

>Hitler
>Socialist
You can only pick one

Mao was the worst, Hitler was a good boy

>Mao
>put pressure on the kmt to fight the japs, not them
>unifying China
No, he actually made the KMT stop fighting the Japs because they were both conserving their strength for the civil war.

Nationalsocialism

Get your dose of political directions everybody

regardless if it was socialism, it wasn't liberal socialism. literally 0 right-wingers today would be accepting of national-socialism

>ultra-anarchism
read a fucking book lmao

Hitler's incompetence lost the war for Germany and possibly prevented a war involving the indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons. This is why no one has gone back in time to kill Hitler, a more competent ww1 officer would just replace him as the figurehead of German militarism.

>Hitler apparently had a pretty decent run 1933-1939
His economic policies were unsustainable without a war

I got here.

>What is the Korean War

>What is the 3rd Front?

>What is the Annexation of Tibet?

>progressiveism

>middle-centre-right

This meme
>Socialism is totally what made Europe great, we need socialism!
>No, socialism was unsustainable in Germany without war

2 stripped their native people of their culture, faith, religion, regional dialects, economies, and property.
One didn't.

>Hitler was left-wing meme

Stalin for all his failures, actually accomplished a lot. Mao is by far the worst, everything about him, down to his haircut is completely JUST

>Socialism is totally what made Europe great, we need socialism!
When the fuck did I say that you strawmanning autist?
Hitler gutting Germany's gold reserves, importing massive amounts of raw materials, and focusing internal production on nothing but war materials doesn't lead to a sustainable economic boom.

Hitler left a country in smoldering piles of rubble.

Mao was a good revolutionary but awful at governing.

Stalin is probably the best of the three.

>right-wingers
>accepting of socialism
Hitler might not have been, but its still what go the people on board

My rankings would be -
1. Stalin
>Won the WW2, changed Russia from a shitty rural state ruined by RCW into a world superpower that made West shit their pants. Also caused the death of millions of people and didn't care for human life, was ruthless as fuck and a terrible human being.
2. Hitler
>Changed Germany from a bankrupt nation into a leading world power that the rest of the world feared. Eventually his state was doomed for failure since everyone in it was incompetent and it would have collapsed eventually. Brought the ruin to his country but had noble goals and was loved by germans (until the tide turned against them)
3. Mao
>Gained power by defeating the Nationalist forces but eventually didn't do anything and people were still living poorly. Ruined relationship with USSR because he was holding personal grudges against Khrushchev about Stalin. Tried to industrialize his nation but failed so bad that dozens of million people died. Destroyed all culture and made himself god
Shit person in general

Why?

>1
Stalin, through intense authoritarianism, was at least able to jump start some kind of industrialization in certain areas of the USSR. General quality of life didn't really improve for most Russians, but he at least did kind of something. But, the nature of Communism meant it never really improved beyond what he did, which I personally believed that at least industrialization was an inevitability for Russia. But the Holodomor and the genocide he committed to reach this point still means he's an asshole.

>2
Hitler did fucking amazing shit for Germany, but leading it to war was just silly. He ended up hurting the cause of Nationalism more so than helping it. A pity he also did what he did to the Jews, had he simply deported them he could have very well been the most respectable and beloved leader in recent history. But, credit where credit is due in regard to being the leader who killed the least amount of his own people out of the two others here.

Then again, I doubt Hitler's Germany would have been sustainable in the long term.

>3
Mao was a fucking retard, everything he tried doing was a disaster. The Nationalist government before him did more for industrialization in a shorter amount of time then what he did for over a half a century. Plus, more people died under him than either Stalin or Hitler, so Mao takes the cake for being the dumbest gook in history.

>>Stalin won ww2
lol no. Germany was fucked because it went to war with the three strongest powers at that time, if they only had to fight the USSR they could have won, even if they only won a favorable peace treaty.

Reading these retarded posts about Mao, I realize he was right : you all should really read about him or else not talk at all.

Mao always worked for the common people. I always hear about the great famine, but people forget it was also the last China experienced. And China was underdevelopped before Mao.

>And China was underdevelopped before Mao.
And it continued to be undeveloped under him. It was riding off what the Kuomintang had successfully developed within most urban centers, since China was experiencing unprecedented growth prior to him. Only problem was the Japanese invasion and Mao exploited this to suddenly force the government to fight a war on two fronts between a bunch of pissed of farmers and psychopathic samurai.

It was only when he died did China begin experiencing some kind of advancement.

>It was riding off what the Kuomintang had successfully developed within most urban centers, since China was experiencing unprecedented growth prior to him.
Wrong. The Kuomintang rule was shit, especially for the peasants who experienced many famines. But it's weird how people never talk about these famines.

>But it's weird how people never talk about these famines.
I never said the kmt improved the life of the peasantry? I said "urban centers", where there was unprecedented economic growth.

Peasantry life was very shitty both pre kmt, during kmt and during Mao's reign. It never saw improvement and famine continued to be a constant issue Communes dealt with. Communes still starved.

Xiaoping was what saved China.

KMT rule could have been great if it returned to something like it was before Chiang; it had a lot of intellectual vibrancy. But after him it was just a run of the mill military dictatorship.

Hitler was probably the only thing keeping Stalin from blitzing the west.

Stalin was a madman that murdered millions of his own people and forever ruined any notion of communism being a benevolent ideology

Mao was pants on head retarded. But somehow ended up making a half decent country out of it.

>Hitler was probably the only thing keeping Stalin from blitzing the west.
Stalin was the who stopped Hitler's blitz.

>Stalin was a madman that murdered millions of his own people and forever ruined any notion of communism being a benevolent ideology.
Hitler was a madman that murdered millions of people and forever ruined any notion of nationalism being a benevolent ideology.

This is why you don't fight fire with fire and loose.

Facism=\socialism

>there's someone on the usually ignorant Veeky Forums appreciates the 3rd front movement

For that price (waste of resources, famine, economy collapse, millions of dead) any nation would won.

Honestly I'd go with Mao

>successfully waged revolution against difficult brutal Japanese and nationalist forces
>organized the whole of china in a way few rulers ever had
>broke western imperialist's control over china
>did his own thing separate from Stalin

Hitler obviously gets last place because he failed and died like a bitch.

Stalin gets runner's up for whipping the Soviet Union into a first rate power and destroying the nazis

Stalin was a Russian nationalist too, that's what caused the whole split with Trotsky in the first place. He also killed millions more than Hitler, and for far less pretense. Both are pretty terrible human beings.

As for Mao, he dun goofed.

Stalin was surely evil, as are all of them, but unlike the others he was also extremely competent and won the biggest war of all time. Hitler showed promise (if you were an ethnic german, at least) but the end result of his actions make any positive effects he might have had on his country beyond moot. And Mao was the most catastrophically destructive commie who ever lived.

>organized the whole of china in a way few rulers ever had
yeah, and then tens of millions people died because of it
it turns out farmers aren't great at making steel, and it turns out not having enough farmers isn't great for not having catastrophic famine
mao was fool, and his ideology was garbage

Stalin is worst
Hitler helped the world

hitler caused germany to be completely obliterated, not to mention the rest of europe

>who changed things for the better
if we're going for lasting results in its country, its by far Stalin. The guy actually industrialized its country and contributed to the defense of the motherland.
The other two were incompetent shits at best, straight up psychopatic fucks at worst
Stalin was at least a competent psychopatic

This is leftism, you cannot escape it.

>He unified China
No. He just went from defeat through defeat, running away like a beaten dog until he found a way to march towards Beijing and usurp power from a completely exhausted warring China.
Thats literally two things he did good: usurping control of China and developing a personality cult

During their lives?
Stalin > Hitler > Mao

Overall impact to this day?
Stalin > Mao > Hitler

This is a bad meme

>No, he actually made the KMT stop fighting the Japs

This completely depends on the time period.

1937-1941 it was exactly as the other user stated.

His economy grew 30-40% in real terms 1933-1940.

I would disagree with you.

>It was riding off what the Kuomintang had successfully developed within most urban center

Which was very little. Most was US/Soviet funded anyways, and was destroyed during WW2.

And no. Mao relied on the countryside for the surplus he needed to industrialize.

>Only problem was the Japanese invasion and Mao exploited this to suddenly force the government to fight a war on two fronts between a bunch of pissed of farmers and psychopathic samurai.

The Communist and KMT were in a unified front that was generally upheld until mid-1941 when the KMT slaughtered 3,000 unarmed Communist soldiers.

Nice bait though.

>yeah, and then tens of millions people died because of it

Okay?

>it turns out farmers aren't great at making steel, and it turns out not having enough farmers isn't great for not having catastrophic famine

Okay?

>mao was fool, and his ideology was garbage

His economic policies were crap, but he forged a powerful and united nation.
Mao is the reason Deng was able to fashion such a state-led economic boom.
It's also the reason China today is at its most politically and economically stable stretch since the early 1700's.

Mao should have died in 1956. Instead the fucker lived 20 more years and goes down as an economic retard.

>No. He just went from defeat through defeat, running away like a beaten dog until he found a way to march towards Beijing and usurp power from a completely exhausted warring China.
>Thats literally two things he did good: usurping control of China and developing a personality cult

user.... You realize you are saying he united China, right?

>Socialism isn't a leftist idea

It's not entirely wrong.

Economically, that's where most progressives lie. They care more about race and gender than class.

Why do most historians think Stalin was more successful and competent than Mao?

Why do Maoists revere Mao?

No meme answers please.

Hitler's Germany wasn't bad for the ingroup of German Aryan heterosexual Protestant men. The economy was kind of shaky, but better than most of the world in the 30s. Obviously, though, it did not properly serve the vast majority of its inhabitants. The mass slaughter of innocents is never justifiable.

His decision to invade all his neighbors at once completely ruined Germany, however. Even if the Germans had won the war, the demographic and infrastructural damage was immense.