So Veeky Forums, who was the worst?

Mao and Stalin arguably made their countries stronger, though at great human cost.

Hitler would've made Germany stronger, but he went full retard with the Russia thing. Had he not just focused on attriting Britain, Hitler could've made Germany a truly lasting empire.

The only thing i can see Hitler doing wrong is not killing all the jews in 1933.

>Hitler, invade Poland and we'll fight you, so just don't do it ok? We've been lenient with you abandoning all the agreements of the Treaty of Versailles, annexing the Sudetenland when we told you not to, and everything else - so just do as we say this time.
>Hitler invades Poland

In what way was it the allies fault?

I'm assuming you're not stupid enough to think that America joining the war was not the allies fault, but...

what? why?
>if we kill our enemies they win
if that you Trudeau?

>killed other countries civilians, which makes him worse than any leader who killed their own.

Killing your own people is far worse.

>What if you remove the whole "starting WW2" thing.
truly absurd considering it is the cornerstone of his legacy

>
If you look at the turnaround of the German economy then he and his cronies did a good job.
people still believe this meme? the german economy was headed straight into a crisis until the war allowed them to feed it with more plunder

>Russia always has been a complete shithole, surely that makes Stalin the worst leader.
stalin markedly improved the soviet union despite the purges and the war. i mean really dude, this is basic shit.

Hitler > Stalin > Mao

Both Hitler and Stalin were heroic men of power, truly great warrior-poets.

Mao was a bureaucrat and an effeminate intellectual, a worthless bugman for the bugman age.

Hitler because he lost.

Interesting as you assume so fast that they 3 were bad. Obviously projecting your fucking ideology, fucking libtard.

Stalin

>who are the kulaks?
>what was the holodomor?

Yeah Stalin killed plenty of other nations peoples.

>holodomor was stalins fault
Not this meme again

>2 literal commies
>libtard

>Stalin
>liberal

A war economy is not a fixed economy, bruv.

From the viewpoint of the other countries, I'd disagree

>If you look at the turnaround of the German economy then he and his cronies did a good job.
An unstable economic turn around that required war and plunder to continue functioning?

>implying it isn't

We get it. You have autism

Worst people list
>Stalin
>Hitler
>Mao
>Tojo
>King Leopold II
>Pol Pot
>Enver Pasha (The three Pashas)

Hitler took a fully industrialized and developed country and left it in ruins. Stalin and Mao objectively had it much harder, they had to secure power during civil wars and internal conflicts, work their way through industrialization in backwards, agrarian countries, eliminate illiteracy, increase life expectancy and fight IJA and Wehrmacht invasions.

This is the only right answer

>complaining about anything when you get btfo in a world war
sucks to suck, he was a german too so cant blame him for being a sperg

Why is Hitler even in this discussion? He wasn't bad at all.

Because the allies wrote the history books

back to /pol/

inb4 good goy/have a shekel shill

legitimately cannot tell if these spergs are just trolling or are actually straight up retarded

Personally, i like vicous dictators that have class

No, he wasn't bad. He just left Germany in ruins, destroyed half of Europe, starved several countries, looted and plundered all his neighbors and killed millions of people.

If you cannot hand the truth abot Hitler then get out of his.

>waah waah /pol/

Only 1.5 million deaths can be attributed to Stalin. These were 700k for the terrors, a few hundred thousand as upper estimates to Gulag deaths during war time and forced deportations. He also went from feudalism to space in 30 years, Stalin could literally be the greatest human being to have lived.

Next to nothing can be attributed to Mao because the data on China's population was and remained so horrible until well into his rule. Mao could have killed 20 million in the Great Leap Forward, or he could have caused a net increase in the population. What's certain is he went from poorer than Africa to 10% GDP growth every year for 30 years. Now thanks to his work China uncucked itself from a century of humiliation. There is nothing false about without Mao the new China wouldn't be possible.

Hitler killed and furthermore intended to kill 34 million civilians who had nothing to do with anything, that is within his country and without. Apart from that however Germany made a lot of technological breakthroughs. To the point that it's difficult to believe. Of course it was soon overshadowed when USSR and USA got a hold of their technology. He also lost which makes him a failure.

History should see Hitler as the worst, Stalin as the best and Mao as having pulled together one of the most difficult tasks of all time. Doing as much as he did for 1 Billion people puts him into unmeasurable status.

But was Britain who started the war

So, just like Stalin did?

i'm a tankie: the post

>hitler dindu nuffin
>But I'm not from /pol/ guys!!!

Effectively murdered the only fully European world power out of a feeling of insecurity about the ability of Germany to become relevant despite having numerous technological advances being made during a war that had no reason to be fought other than blind expansionism, effectively resulting in his nation getting triple fucked by the three major world powers, one of which was previously interventionist, and the other being on his fucking side, absolutely terrible leader.

feels > evidence: the post

The planned mass starvations in ukraine alone amount to quite a bit more than 1,5m

>facts
>35 Million deaths

Kek

I'm sure they did, poor Hitler just wanted Czechoslovakia, the Baltics, Poland and Russia for free.
No, just like Hitler did.

Not that guy but I'm of the same opinion as he is and I never go on /pol/, I just browse Veeky Forums and whatever shows up on Veeky Forums's first page (so, never /pol/).

Call me a normy, but Hitler. Hitler was on meth, he believed in meme conspiracy theories, he was nuts. Stalin and Mao were at least tempered through war and power politics

I mean, Hitler was just a messenger during the war, he was a pure politician when he started to gain power.

Why are you on Veeky Forums if you're so historically illiterate?

Are you implying the Russians didn't destroy half of Europe (and oppress for almost half a century), didn't starve several countries didn't loot their neighbourgs, and didn't kill millions?

Stalin, he was literally Hitler.

>poor Stalin just wanted Finland, the Baltics, Poland and the rest of Eastern-Europe for free

...

You have to make an argument first

Why are you desperate to change the subject? I was talking about Hitler and his fuckups, not Stalin and his fuckups.
>stalin = hitler lol

And again.

Seriously feels like I'm arguing with teenagers.

oy vey gevalt!
don´t forget the 1000 gargillion

How is pointing out that Stalin managed to be even worse than Hitler changing the subject?
Not saying that Hitler dindu nuffin, but Stalin is the clear winner here

i'm not the one who started with the ad hominem

how on earth is stalin the winner here? he fucked up a lot but still managed to transform the soviet union from agrarian backwater to superpower with 25 years. hitler took germany from primary european power to literally not even existing. i mean you really have to fuck up for your country to literally be gone from the map. dude didn't shoot himself out of glee.

>saying that Hitler isn't bad is making a valid argument
I wasn't the one "pretending" to be retarted.

>Yeah, is justified that you kill your own people if you win war and shiet

Mao
He was literally Hitler

Bruh he had a seven or even eight digit body count before the war even started
The rest of your post is basically saying: "Stalin wasn't that bad because he won the war"
thanks for pointing that out to me

not a tankie numbnuts, all three are various levels of bad. most people don't even know how bad mao was outside of the memes. that said, you have to ignore a LOT to see hitler as anything other dead last by several miles.

it isn't "stalin wasn't that bad" it's "stalin wasn't the bad compared to hitler", there is a thing called nuance you know. and yeah he probably up to a seven digit body count(8 is just meme territory), but at least with him you can point to something as an accomplishment. he left something behind.

i mean for fuck's sake, the only arguments for hitler are point out how bad others were. he's so fucking scant of accomplishments(can't name any) that you have to point to the failures of others, great sign of a loser.

I wasn't the one that only uses insults as arguments

Maybe make an argument first then we can have an argument. Explain why you think Hitler "wasn't bad at all" then maybe we can have an argument.

You totally ignored how Germany improved from 1933 to 1939.
>inb4 it wasn't sustainable etc
maybe that's true, but that's besides the point
You could argue that Hitler was a war happy maniac which is also true, but so was Stalin
So it all boils down to "He lost the war so therefore he's more evil"

Just pointing out that the history lessons we were given were written by the allies, so that the "evilness" of Hitler, or the nazi's in general compared to others has to taken with a grain of salt

That's far different than saying Hitler "wasn't bad at all"

>history lessons we were given

nigga this is Veeky Forums, do you learn history from high school textbooks?

>A war economy is not a fixed economy
*looks at america*

i am

The economy was fixed before wartime, that's the point

>maybe that's true, but that's besides the point
it really, really isn't. either way, germany improving from 1933 to 1939 is a bit irrelevant in light of it being bombed to shit due to a war that hitler started.

>So it all boils down to "He lost the war so therefore he's more evil"
no it doesn't, that's just you trying to shoehorn that view in. this isn't even a moral argument either, OP says any and all metrics, including and beyond the moral dimension. and hitler is a stunning failure on all fronts. it isn't losing that makes him evil, it's losing in such a dramatic fashion that makes him markedly worse than the others.

guarantee you 2/3rds if not more of the board gets their info from a combination of high school textbooks, TV specials, meme infographics, and selective wikipedia articles.

Okay? Hitler was still shitty and deserving of being in this thread even if high school history books portray him as being the devil incarnate.

again your only argument is that Hitler is worse because he lost

and? leading your country to a firery ruin and being wiped off the map isn't an abject failure?

>hitler was the worst because drugs affected his decision-making

Being a failure doesn't make you more evil. Is Stalin more evil because his blunder of purging his militairy top directly resulted in the death of milions?
In a war he is also partially responsible for

No it wasn't. Hitler's debt was massive and Schacht warned him that Germany would be bankrupt by the early 1940s if he continued that way. The Reichsbank reserve was exhausted and Germany was already having food shortages by the late 1930s. You call that fixed?

>Being a failure doesn't make you more evil.
this meme again. read the OP, it says any and all metrics. is that so hard to understand? you just keep bringing up the moral argument because that is the only slim possibility to equate hitler with the others. pretty transparent dude.

what are you even going on about?

look at the guy behind that quote, hans schmidt. do you think the user you arguing gives two shits about economics beyond whatever supports his talking point?

>claims hitler to be the worst
>doesn't even know why he was the worst
*closes the thread*

As you say, if the death/destruction of your own people is a good measure to point out how bad you were, then Mao is the winner by a very wide margin, followed by Stalin and then Hitler

stay stupid, my friend.

Yeah, I guess not

Give us some real academic sources for your communist drivel.

uhm excuse me? I consider it way more of a fumble to murder your own people.

you realize the US has some good civilian killstreaks going, don't you?

>As you say, if the death/destruction of your own people is a good measure
no, i didn't say that. i said when your nation literally gets wiped off the map, you fucked up epically. this is you, yet again, pushing some arbitrary standard put putting words in my mouth.

Can you point out out the USSR on the map for me please?

Marx.

>being this retarded

Why would you remove WW2? The Axis (The 3rd Reich to be specific) started the bloodiest conflict ever. Hitler is, without a doubt, the worst psychopath on that picture. Stalin brought a lot of good things to his country.