The ethics of genocide

[Denny Crane!]

Stalin and Hitler.

Can you see a difference? Do you think one is better than the other?

I often find in this debate people of certain political tendencies will try and defend and rationalise Stalins crimes, while the already demonic Hitler villifies himself through the sheer common knowledge of the perfidy of his actions and heinous crimes the actions of Stalin seem less known, hidden and therefore more acceptable. I guess if Spielberg hasn't made a blockbuster about it, it isn't that bad.

Is there any kind of ethical debate here, can you even have a debate about who committed the worst genocide or is it analogous to asking whether you would rather get stabbed in the foot by a pitchfork or a hoe. Either way you are getting stabbed in the foot.

[Tajir]

This is a case of same sh...t, different smell. I don't see the difference, and neither should anyone with normal brain capacity.

Just like Bush and Saddam are in league with each other for kills.

As for Hitler/Stalin, one might have killed more than the other, but when they're both in the millions, there is no time to pick a 'lesser' evil since there obviously is none.

[Da Skinna]

The difference? Stalin is still revered.

[Mansa musa]

The difference? Stalin is still revered.

hitler is also still revered

[Ummagumma]

Possibly - any playing devils advocate - there is a difference. Yes I think both are evil in their own way, but I do see a difference.
Hitler wanted to make his 'master race' - which basically involved killing all those that were no part of his ideal. It was race-hate. He never killed what he saw as 'Germans'. They set up a system for specifically killing people in an industrial fashion.
Stalin, however - though he did have a lot of Baltic peoples and Ukrainians was not specifically racist - the 'correctional labour camp' (Or whatever they were called) was more for political reasons. Unexplained absence from work, political activists - even jokers were rounded up to be 'corrected' but it was never purely racially motivated. As far as I know they were never systematically murdered in the same way as the Nazi machine. Yes, building rail roads at -60^oC and unprotected uranium mining with poor nutrition and living conditions has an inevitable effect, but it was not specifically designed to kill them (It was to build a rail road or mine substances..)
Basically, I think that the Nazis intentionally killed, while the Soviets were incomprehensibly negligent. Still, both are unthinkable crimes.

[Earl of Rochester]

Of course there is a difference. Think of it like this.

Say I see a man sleeping in bed with my wife. In an uncontrollable rage I grab him by the neck and choke him to death. Not lets say instead of sleeping with my wife, the only offense the man gave me was being rich. So I mugged him and slit his throat. Both of these are murder, yet they are clearly different.

Genocide is still a form of murder, just a category of certain types of mass murder. While Stalin was certainly no Saint, I find it hard to lump him in the same category as Hitler.

[Gaidin]

Stalin and Hitler.

Can you see a difference? Do you think one is better than the other?

The difference is convenience. Hitler declared war on us and Stalin was fighting him. Convenience is often the difference it situations like this.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Stalin was worse than Hitler by far...

[MaximiIian]

I think Ummagumma put it best. The Soviets under Stalin were just ridiculously negligent and politically repressive. The Stalinist machine wasn't built from the ground-up to exterminate entire ethnic groups; it was a tool to scare the hell out of people, and rule by terror. The Stalinist massacres were more akin to democide than genocide.

The Nazis under Hitler and Himmler, however, created an industry of attempted genocide, built for the purpose of wiping entire ethnicities and races from the face of the earth, based on an exceptionally racist political and philosophical system, i.e Nazism.

Although Stalin killed more than Hitler in the long run, and while murder is murder and thus unethical regardless, there still remains the concept of purpose. When one takes purpose into account when considering the Soviet and Nazis multimillion-victim massacres, the Nazis' purpose was far more sinister and unethical, and their methods far more systematic and industrialised.

[Thanatos]

Uh.... Stalin killed more? There.

[basics]

I think in the history of man it is plain that some by nation and not race have left this planet where only story tells of them ever being here. Yet, we would be hard pushed to claim that they disappeared without their blood being mingled with other peoples. Indeed God never suggests that in His word.

Genocide however does not even allow for the mingling of blood for by what we know of the intention of Hitler and his dedicated followers their ambition was to destroy a race, even those of mixed blood. That he never succeeded doesn't take away that fact that he and his kind had every intention of doing so had things gone their way.

Stalin, Mao, even Pol Pot could be said to have ideology more than racism at heart with their endeavours. To them it was about staying in power once they had it, meaning obliteration for their enemies but these enemies were not a particular race as in the case with Hitler. That guy had conquered most of Europe, what possible animosity could the conquered Jews pose to him then?

For me that makes Hitler more than an unsuccessful conqueror, way beyond even the madness that consumed Stalin or any other for I cannot think of another who has set about to eliminate in an assembly like fashion, a people solely on race. He never hid the fact that above all the Jews were to him his greatest enemies. Why, who knows?

Perhaps we should have read the signs better. Some did but they were largely ignored. No, it is as though it had to happen for the world to realise that dictators may come and go, but what they do should never be excused and most certainly never ignored.

[Torment]

The difference between Hitler and Stalin was that genocide to Stalin was simply a means, whereas to Hitler genocide was an end. Stalin used genocide to keep control over his enormous, multi-ethnic and ultimately instable country by using it as a tool to keep people in fear. Hitler, however, committed genocide purely for the act of genocide itself out of a misguided sense of ethnic superiority, which ultimately worked against him during the war, rather than for him like in Stalin's case.

In the end, Stalin's genocides were much more effective and much more admirable from an objective, pragmatical point of view. He used it in a controlled and practical way, rather than Hitler's emotion-driven, irrational and ultimately clumsy attempt to get rid of entire races, even though this would have no beneficial results to his regime. It's one of the reasons why I consider Stalin to be superior over Hitler, even though the latter is far more interesting IMO.

But when it comes to ethics, I don't know. Both were tyrants who butchered millions, and in modern day society where all murder is considered evil, it's easy to simply both call them evil and let the issue rest. I suppose Hitler would have killed many more than Stalin if he'd been able to remain in power as long as Stalin did, so mathematically I think Hitler would come out on top.

I think Ummagumma put it best. The Soviets under Stalin were just ridiculously negligent and politically repressive. The Stalinist machine wasn't built from the ground-up to exterminate entire ethnic groups; it was a tool to scare the hell out of people, and rule by terror. The Stalinist massacres were more akin to democide than genocide.

Well, that's not entirelly true. Stalin was more than able to deport entire ethic populations if he thought it would work in his advantage. The Tatars and the Volga-Germans for example. Stalin's purposeful negligence in feeding the Ukrainians during the famine of 1932-1933 could also be viewed as an act of genocide. If he thought wiping out an ethnic group would lead to favorable results, he would have done it without a moment of doubt.

[Gaidin]

Uh.... Stalin killed more? There.

At the point it becomes a statistic the actual numbers really don't matter anymore.

[roy34543]

I would say that its good to remember that russia is a huge and vast country with a lot of uncontrolled parts. Can make it difficult to do much properly. and its especially difficult to feed everyone when tis so cold. I would say if stalin had been in a prosporous place such as germeny, he would not have committed so many genocides. Hitler on the other hand, probobaly would have even if he was in control of russia instead.

[Kritias]

The difference between Hitler and Stalin was that genocide to Stalin was simply a means, whereas to Hitler genocide was an end. Stalin used genocide to keep control over his enormous, multi-ethnic and ultimately instable country by using it as a tool to keep people in fear. Hitler, however, committed genocide purely for the act of genocide itself out of a misguided sense of ethnic superiority, which ultimately worked against him during the war, rather than for him like in Stalin's case.

So killing people with the purpose to rule for another day is better than killing them because of ideology? Both notions are equally sinister and unethical. Stalin killed to rule, Hitler killed because he thought it right. Wackos both of them.

...rather than Hitler's emotion-driven, irrational and ultimately clumsy attempt to get rid of entire races, even though this would have no beneficial results to his regime.

Money. They took the money of the killed people, golden jewels, clothes, even their tooths(if were gold). Hitler and co basically made a fortune by killing nations so it had beneficial results.

As a final statement, I think Hitler atrocities get to be more promoted because:

1) Hitler was an enemy of Us and Europe, plus he was defeated, the soviets were not defeated in the military manner. So, the "West" (England and US mostly) will keep reminding the world not the atrocities committed but of the victory. Example: PC games, movies, novels etc Industries like gaming industry and Hollywood will never forget WW2. Ever.
2) The western powers weren't concerned about Russians dying in the hands of the Soviets as were about Europeans, and mostly the Jews, dying by Hitler. Example: How many movies have you seen about Stalin's atrocities? How many have you seen about the Nazis?

[Torment]

So killing people with the purpose to rule for another day is better than killing them because of ideology? Both notions are equally sinister and unethical. Stalin killed to rule, Hitler killed because he thought it right. Wackos both of them.

Very much depends on what you mean with "better". More efficient, more practical, more effective, then yes. Ethically, perhaps no. But ethics don't really concern me.

Money. They took the money of the killed people, golden jewels, clothes, even their tooths(if were gold). Hitler and co basically made a fortune by killing nations so it had beneficial results

The money they stole didn't compare to the massive costs that came with the logistics and the sheer size of the Final Solution. Let alone the fact that the war against Russia had to suffer from it, since the deportations were so important to Hitler that he even gave trains deporting jews priority over trains carrying vital supplies for the front. The Holocaust was a complete waste of resources, manpower and infrastructure.

[Dr. Croccer]

Hitler did it out of racial and political hatred whereas Stalin did it out paranoia, disagreements, and personal megalomania and greed.

[Kritias]

Very much depends on what you mean with "better". More efficient, more practical, more effective, then yes. Ethically, perhaps no. But ethics don't really concern me.

Ehem... "The ethics of genocide". Yeah, I mean ethics.

The money they stole didn't compare to the massive costs that came with the logistics and the sheer size of the Final Solution. Let alone the fact that the war against Russia had to suffer from it, since the deportations were so important to Hitler that he even gave trains deporting jews priority over trains carrying vital supplies for the front. The Holocaust was a complete waste of resources, manpower and infrastructure.

In fact, they stole any amount of money the Jews had. Don't forget that many of the deported were immensely rich and all their property was to go to the Nazis. I believe that the amount gained was way bigger than the amount spent.

Hitler did it out of racial and political hatred whereas Stalin did it out paranoia, disagreements, and personal megalomania and greed.

Is that so? Dear me! And I thought Hitler was the lunatic while Stalin the ruthless dictator...

[Torment]

Ehem... "The ethics of genocide". Yeah, I mean ethics.

Ethics is such a boring topic. People are always forced to agree with each other, and if someone sticks his neck out and takes on another point of view, he usually receives little else than a truckload of hogwash. So I generally avoid such pointless debates.

In fact, they stole any amount of money the Jews had. Don't forget that many of the deported were immensely rich and all their property was to go to the Nazis. I believe that the amount gained was way bigger than the amount spent.

Even if what you say here was true, which it isn't seeing as most jews had the common sense to dump their money and other possessions on Swiss bank accounts before being deported, I can guarantee you that all the money together would still have been like a dustmote in a sandstorm compared to the costs an endeavour like the Holocaust would create.

But to avoid getting into another endless cycle where you end up creating a strawman argument and I keep explaining my point, let me simply say that you are not addressing my argument. I'm saying that Hitler attempted genocide purely for genocide, which is inefficient and doesn't generate beneficial results. Stealing jews' money was completely circumstancial, and if that had been Hitlers' goal from the start he could have thought of far more efficient ways to do it. So regardless of how you spin it, the Holocaust was an enormous waste of resources. Which of course, was my point in the first place.

[basics]

Torment,

Far from being circumstantial, if you consider the gold taken from six million victims alone that would be quite a tidy haul in itself. Gold fillings, gold jewellery, gold watches, gold rings, bangles and baubles when melted down would amount to a considerable amount.

And then there was the clothing, footwear, hair and the fat thereof that all in all helped keep Germany in the war. That in part was why they vied to see who could come up with the best and easiest way to dispose of the bodies whilst making use of the offshoots.

But further proof of that was that not all were immediately condemned to die for the strong were worked till they too were considered worthy of supply rather than work. It was literally a production line in death that suited the war effort as well as fulfilling the dreams of Hitler and nothing like it had ever been seen before nor seen since.