'Tea with Hitler' attracts numberous americans and various neo-nazis. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;32185508]I agree. The gas bill joke is only funny when someone says it was the reason why Hitler killed himself.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Yeah, it was a joke I heard a while ago. I tried to work it into the situation, and it didn't work.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32183833]IIRC, the major causes were famine and the purges the purges were systematic, and had a death toll of around 9 million[/QUOTE] Yeah but still, Hitler killed people simply for their race and something they could not possibly have done anything about, while Stalin just killed people who opposed him and who he was suspicious about.

[QUOTE=sltungle;32184839]Are you kidding?! Hitler was an asshole! He basically single handedly ruined the toothbrush moustache.[/QUOTE] True. But he was a very charismatic asshole who ruined the toothbrush mustache. Enthusiastic, to boot. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n134uPfn_VA[/media]

[QUOTE=estrx;32182769]Who's Hitler ?[/QUOTE] a hugely successful [url=http://www.cracked.com/article_18389_the-5-most-widely-believed-wwii-facts-that-are-bullshit_p2.html]dumbfuck[/url]

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;32189457]a hugely successful [url=http://www.cracked.com/article_18389_the-5-most-widely-believed-wwii-facts-that-are-bullshit_p2.html]dumbfuck[/url][/QUOTE] I would say that in political terms he was actually a genius, climbing to the top. However in all others. (Military especially) he was a bit of a retard, and followed practical plans like alienating people in the war who would have helped him win it.

I would go but I wouldn't eat roast pork. Grilled sure, but nothing cooked in an oven.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32189518]I would say that in political terms he was actually a genius, climbing to the top. However in all others. (Military especially) he was a bit of a retard, and followed practical plans like alienating people in the war who would have helped him win it.[/QUOTE] well it kind of helps when you're taking over the entire world to know a little something about military affairs

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;32189698]well it kind of helps when you're taking over the entire world to know a little something about military affairs[/QUOTE] He knew about it certainly, just that he carried out things that were downright against the strategies and ideas he most likely learned of. For example having people ferried by train to extermination camps was stupid. Railways could move guns instead, the people being killed be scientists and generals instead whilst the camps themselves be used for something productive rather than killing people.

[QUOTE=sltungle;32184839]Are you kidding?! Hitler was an asshole! He basically single handedly ruined the toothbrush moustache.[/QUOTE] And it's because of him that no one calls their kid Adolf or has the surname Hitler. Stalin was a bad guy too - like, Hitler tier bad - but people still call their kids Joseph...

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;32189869]And it's because of him that no one calls their kid Adolf or has the surname Hitler. Stalin was a bad guy too - like, Hitler tier bad - but people still call their kids Joseph...[/QUOTE] It's a shame that Hitler trumps Stalin when it comes to evil for a lot of people, because they were both equally ruthless, awful dictators. It's borderline disgusting how people even ironically look up to Stalin.

[QUOTE=Reimu;32190031]It's a shame that Hitler trumps Stalin when it comes to evil for a lot of people, because they were both equally ruthless, awful dictators. It's borderline disgusting how people even ironically look up to Stalin.[/QUOTE] I don't really look up to Stalin, other than for his bitching 'stache [img]http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/joseph-stalin-1.jpg[/img] fuck yeah

replace Stalin with Hitler in that sentence. say in school. receive detention.

[QUOTE=Reimu;32190120]replace Stalin with Hitler in that sentence. say in school. receive detention.[/QUOTE] Although Stalin was ruthless, at least he was a practical bastard, unlike so many other rulers in history. Often the Russians get an intelligent cunning leader that helps put them on the map. Peter, Catherine, Stalin and Ivan are examples. Just at the time it often ends up killing many people.

[QUOTE=Reimu;32190120]replace Stalin with Hitler in that sentence. say in school. receive detention.[/QUOTE] hitler had a kind of cool stache too but then he went and ruined it for everyone that fuck

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32190151]Although Stalin was ruthless, at least he was a practical bastard, unlike so many other rulers in history. Often the Russians get an intelligent cunning leader that helps put them on the map. Peter, Catherine, Stalin and Ivan are examples. Just at the time it often ends up killing many people.[/QUOTE] Stalin was practical, but that doesn't excuse his crimes against humanity either. Russians do have a lot of interesting and clever, albeit cruel, leaders though. Peter the Great is easily one of my favorite leaders in history. He faced so many obstacles to the throne, and Russia has him to thank towards making Russia a proper European competitor.

[QUOTE=Reimu;32190515]Stalin was practical, but that doesn't excuse his crimes against humanity either. Russians do have a lot of interesting and clever, albeit cruel, leaders though. Peter the Great is easily one of my favorite leaders in history. He faced so many obstacles to the throne, and Russia has him to thank towards making Russia a proper European competitor.[/QUOTE] Thing is, the more practical a ruler you get the more cruel they become in order to achieve said goals.

I think it depends, personally. If we're talking about rulers, then power corrupts to begin with. But leaders, not so much.

[QUOTE=Reimu;32190643]I think it depends, personally. If we're talking about rulers, then power corrupts to begin with. But leaders, not so much.[/QUOTE] Power does tend to corrupt in some ways. Some leaders are thankfully frugal. Henry the Seventh was such a frugal king his wife wore tin buckles on her shoes and had to borrow money from other people. He made a lot of money for England, then his son spent it all on wars, wine and women. (None of which did fuck all for him in the long run.)

Joseph II is also a good example of a practical ruler. He was so intent on Enlightenment principles, he brought a peasant to court because the peasant's windmill kept him up at night. And he lost in court, and respected the decision. Instead of forcing the peasant to keep his windmill up, he participated in the legal system he personally encouraged. He's a perfect example of being a practical, powerful, yet ethical ruler. That's interesting about Henry VIII. Never knew that :v:.

[QUOTE=Reimu;32190777]Joseph II is also a good example of a practical ruler. He was so intent on Enlightenment principles, he brought a peasant to court because the peasant's windmill kept him up at night. And he lost in court, and respected the decision. Instead of forcing the peasant to keep his windmill up, he participated in the legal system he personally encouraged. He's a perfect example of being a practical, powerful, yet ethical ruler. That's interesting about Henry VIII. Never knew that :v:.[/QUOTE] Wait sorry I meant Henry the Seventh. Also Henry the Seventh kept a pet monkey that once tore up his diaries.

I find Stalin's bitchin stache better than Hitler's bitchin stache

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;32189869]And it's because of him that no one calls their kid Adolf or has the surname Hitler. Stalin was a bad guy too - like, Hitler tier bad - but people still call their kids Joseph...[/QUOTE] Joseph is a much more common name than 'Adolf', especially in North America/UK, which is where i'm assuming you live. How many Americans would name their kid Adolf, regardless of the holocaust?

Most people don't think Stalin when they hear Joseph though, personally I think Israel and the three sister religions.

[QUOTE=Draconian;32191632]Joseph is a much more common name than 'Adolf', especially in North America/UK, which is where i'm assuming you live. How many Americans would name their kid Adolf, regardless of the holocaust?[/QUOTE] I'd use it as a middle name. I'm sick and fucking tired of something that happened 70 years ago governing our lives today. which is not to say I want people to forget about the holocaust or world war II, goodness no.

been there once. nothing interesting. maybe i was too young

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32183214]I don't know man, Genghis Khan would be even better. Nobody even knows where that bastard was buried, everybody at the burial was killed to prevent the secret being found out.[/QUOTE] I remember that they killed a camel's child in front of his grave as well, but only so that the mother would forever remember it, and that it could lead them to his grave if they ever needed to.

There's no denying Stalin was intelligent, and intelligent enough to make it look like he was on the moral high ground for much of his life. Nobody even really criticised him until after he had died, and propaganda had made people less tolerable to criticism now. In fact I heard that he was recently voted as one of the top Russians of all time, despite all the dead people from famines when he screwed up in the Ukraine.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32194500]Nobody even really criticised him until after he had died,[/QUOTE] Could be because he'd have them sent to Lubyanka to be tortured to death. Maybe have them processed through the GULag and sent to a labor camp if he sort of liked them or was feeling generous. Both would be more than persuasive enough to keep me always praising him, anyway, whilst being extremely terrified of him at the same time. [editline]9th September 2011[/editline] As far as Hitler goes, at least with military affairs, let's put it this way: he was far from being as stupid as many have claimed him to have been, but he was not as ingenious as he believed himself to be. Even so, there's no denying that he possessed an amazing level of political skills and an uncanny grasp of strategic concepts.

Yeah, I don't think "he got rejected from art school," is a good example of Hitler being dumb. The reason why he was rejected was because his art was much too rigid and non-lifelike. He was also a successful WWI veteran and a successful servant in Vienna iirc. We have Vienna to thank for his ultra-radical philosophies, combined with the post-WWI environment of Germany.

I always find it funny how everybody thinks of Hitler as this evil guy who brainwashed his citizens and Churchill as a charismatic and charming Prime Minister, when in fact a lot of their techniques (especially in terms of speeches) were fairly similar. Although Churchill never seemed to get quite as... Into it... As Hitler did.