Posted on 07/20/2014 10:25:50 AM PDT by WXRGina
Uh, why didn’t anyone kill Stalin or Mao?
Both were equally culpable.
Ask any Ukrainian about Stalin.
No one can see the future, so tyrants usually aren’t killed until the high-sounding rhetoric of change and hope turns into round up and imprison. By then, its too late. But the alternative of assassinating every leader who is leaning towards tyranny is even worse. Humans desperately want to have faith in their leaders and the bad ones exploit that desire.
Now that I’ve thought about it, I’m not certain Is history’s most infamous mass murderer.
I think that distinction belongs to Stalin and Mao.
Rock on dirt-bag lefties.
My guess would be this : "Hitler’s death might lead to a better-led German war machine"
The Guinness Book of records lists Mao as the greatest murderer.
THX.
Mao, Stalin, Hitler. Leftists all.
(Can anyone name the last right-wing mass murderer?)(Didn’t think so.)
If you’re looking at percentages of a population killed, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge was no slouch.
How do you know they weren’t killed?
Speculation is that indeed Beria poisoned Stalin when he caught wind that Stalin was about to purge the entire Politburo.
Yes, of course. But, if you noticed, this was written on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the failed von Stauffenberg plot.
Someone did kill Hitler . . . Hitler did it.
Good history column PING.
That was a very good, very interesting point, one not many would consider.
No one can see the future. Yes, people can see the future but the sheeple don’t listen.
An excellent point and one I hadn’t considered.
For all we know, Emmanuel Goldstien is still alive.
I don’t think we really wanted to take Hitler out. Look at the bonehead rookie mistakes he made when he took command away from his generals and personally took command of his armies. I think the Allies were afraid that this corporal would be replaced by someone who actually knew what they was doing...
Synchronization is important. How to do it right.
As always, depends on your definitions.
If you use the most common definition in America, right-wing as referring to those defending the traditional American conservatives values as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, then the answer is none. With the probable exception of the arguable genocide committed against the Indians in the 19th century.
If you use the European definition of right-wing, then there are a bunch of contenders.
Here's an excellent resource for body counts over the centuries.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM
I would argue that Hitler was indeed a right-wing mass murderer, as were his imitators in Croatia, Romania and elsewhere.
Nazism was a peculiar combination of generally leftist economics (never fully implemented, thought they might have been after the war, had they won) and Euro-type right-wing blood and soil social policies.
The reason I'd say his killings nevertheless qualify as right-wing is that they were almost all committed for reasons related to the Nazis' right-wing policies, not their left-wing ones.
I hasten to add there is very nearly zero correspondence between European style right-wingery, based on church and crown, blood and soil; and the American version.
In fact, I think the term right-wing doesn't properly apply to American conservatism, which upholds what is still the most radical revolution in human history. But it's a hopeless battle to try to correct the terminology at this point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.