Hitler
>In power for a little over a decade
>Country reduced to ruin
>Kill yourself in disgrace
>Years later you're a literal parody of what a mad dictator is and used as a ad hominem to demonize someone
Stalin
>In power for nearly 30 years
>Turn nation into superpower with many allies
>Years later the country you once terrorized is now saying you weren't that bad and is used as nostalgia for slavs everywhere
Why was Stalin so much more successful than Hitler?
He won the war that Hitler lost.
This
the Russians weren't completely modernized and therefore less decadent than the germans and Italians were
Stalin was just as, if not more, ruthless than Hitler, but he was much more calculating. Hitler wanted to achieve lebensraum before he died, and his way of getting it was through military conquest. Stalin wanted all of Europe and eventually the world as well, but this was to be done through "global revolution." He didn't have to invade anywhere because, in his mind, the capitalists would all fight one another to the death and leave Europe wide open for his taking. People would be so tired of the war they would see as being caused by capitalism that they would come crawling to communism.
Of course it never happened, so you could say Stalin was about as successful as Hitler. One just got curb stomped by the other, while the other waited and watched the complete opposite happen in Europe than he expected.
Stalin did more good for his country than Hitler did for his. Hitler forced his people to spend at least the next century bearing the guilt of allowing the Holocaust to happen, and made Germany the fourth most powerful country in Berlin. Stalin was a tyrant, sure, but he brought the Soviet Union into the modern age with a rapid industrialization program. One of the main reasons for the Soviet Union's economic failures in the 1980s was that Stalin's successors did not put much effort into continuing modernization after his death, causing the Soviet Union to fall behind the West economically until it was no longer able to sustain itself.
>Stalin did more good for his country than Hitler did for his.
If hitler had won the war the results would be quite the opposite.
>One of the main reasons for the Soviet Union's economic failures in the 1980s was that Stalin's successors did not put much effort into continuing modernization after his death.
More because the rotten self-interested bureaucrats. The Stalin influence over the economy and the state just may reflect Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great (and even Nicholas I) without him the system staggered.
>He didn't have to invade anywhere because, in his mind, the capitalists would all fight one another to the death and leave Europe wide open for his taking. People would be so tired of the war they would see as being caused by capitalism that they would come crawling to communism.
>Of course it never happened, so you could say Stalin was about as successful as Hitler. One just got curb stomped by the other, while the other waited and watched the complete opposite happen in Europe than he expected.
But it kinda did. Socialist movements started to blossom all over the world after ww2. US and the western allies had a very hard time keeping the capitalist world order. Developed capitalist countries were so scared of socialism that they even instated welfare policies in their own countries to counter it. In less developed countries they used coups and direct military action to keep socialist influences out.
This. Exact opposite would be true if hitler won
Geopolitics
I think people care more about the whys of statistical mass murders, they find the genocide of the Jews for racial reasons more detestable than the culling of the Kulaks, the gulags, the holodomor and all that stuff for economic/utilitarian.
>genocide of the Jews
>culling of the kulaks
Easy to see where you're at.
Stalin was more cautious, less ideological, and more pragmatic. He also took over a nation that had greater innate material resources although worse organization.
Also, people expect such butcheries of Slavs. The Germans, on the other hand, why they were such nice people, so modern and advanced....
You could call the mass murder of the kulaks and the sub kulaks a genocide if you want but I'm using it in the sense of a people like the Jews or Armenians here and not an economic class.
>it's okay that I slaughtered millions of people because that was for communism!
Hitler was diagnosed with some heart problem in early 1940's, he became obsessed with his death and knew his time was limited he wanted to rush the war effort which made him irrational.
Socialism only blossoms when someone wants to take over control of their country with Soviet help. It's not like the people wanted it.
>>Kill yourself in disgrace
Where's the proof though?
Stalin didn't invade half the world and actually developed his economy
Yes
...
>leaving behind rape victims, cultural indoctrination and resentful people.