• Stop coping, and start posting. Register an account in order to gain full access to Lookism's features.

Hitler & Stalin

Supreme Cuckold

Champion
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
12,144
Reputation
7,520
...either deliberately or subconsciously, they wanted to kill as many humans as possible. 
They might started as idealists and along the way were eventually black pilled on human nature. 
They realised it's impossible to reform mankind. There is really no way to fix human problems because they are largely based on modes of behaviours that are irrational. You cannot fix what does not want to be fixed. Death seems the only rational solution.

They started by first exterminating their own peers. (Night of the long knives, Moscow trials)
The events of WW II reveal complete disdain for human life.
Hitler condemned thousands of his own soldiers to certain death in Stalingrad despite being well aware what would happen to them if they didn't retreat. 
Stalin personally signed the executions and the people that would perish in the labour camps. He manned the police state apparatus with people from the most repressed classes because they were more eager to act their frustration upon others (e.g. the subhuman midget Yezhov). 

 

elmoggerino

Banned
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
22,680
Reputation
15,346
The quote is fake
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Misattributed

Stalin was truly a great man with a great life, he was already famous as a teen. Hitler on the other hand was a raging incel:

Stefanie Rabatsch (née Isak; born 28 December 1887 – died unknown, after 1973) was an Austrian woman who was allegedly an unrequited love of then-teenage Adolf Hitler, a claim made by Hitler's childhood friend August Kubizek. Her Jewish-sounding maiden name, Isak, has been subject to speculation in this context. According to Kubizek, Hitler never spoke to Stefanie, always saying he would do so "tomorrow".[5] Kubizek wrote that Hitler loathed those who flirted with her, especially the military officers, whom he called "conceited blockheads";[6] he came to feel an "uncompromising enmity towards the officer class as a whole, and everything military in general. It annoyed him that Stefanie mixed with such idlers who, he insisted, wore corsets and used scent".[6]
 
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
5,325
Reputation
38
Stalin is one of the biggest looks frauders in the history of mankind. He was a short balding little rat.

Too many lies have been told about Hitler to believe anything the above me is rambling on about.
 

elmoggerino

Banned
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
22,680
Reputation
15,346
Fatasses All Around Me said:
Stalin is one of the biggest looks frauders in the history of mankind. He was a short balding little rat.

Too many lies have been told about Hitler to believe anything the above me is rambling on about.

Stalin was 5'6, which was rather normal in Russia in the year 1878, the year he was born. Even in Germany the average back then was like 5'7. I don't know how much was he balding but it doesn't look like it was that bad, in this video he was in his late 60s and still had a head full of hair:

[video=youtube]http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQuQ38XgdI0[/video]
@2:47 he uber moggs Truman
 

elmoggerino

Banned
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
22,680
Reputation
15,346
Hitler on the other hand:

Hitler insisted that Kubizek stalk Stefanie and delivered daily reports on her activity while he was away visiting his mother or family.[7] In one report, Kubizek wrote that Stefanie loved to dance and had taken lessons. Hitler disliked dancing and reportedly replied, "Stefanie only dances because she is forced to by society on which she unfortunately depends on. Once Stefanie is my wife, she won't have the slightest desire to dance!"[7] In June 1906, Stefanie allegedly gave Hitler a smile and a flower from her bouquet as she was passing him in her carriage.[8] Kubizek later described the scene:
"Never again did I see Adolf as happy as he was at that moment. When the carriage had passed he dragged me aside and with emotion he gazed at the flower, this visible pledge of her love. I can still hear his voice, trembling with excitement, 'She loves me!' "[8]

:cage:
 

WhatItIs

Joke
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
626
Reputation
2
The US, too - Hiroshima and Nagasaki, firebombing 60 something Japanese cities to the ground, hundreds of thousands killed in Dresden, etc
 
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
5,325
Reputation
38
elmoggerino said:
Fatasses All Around Me said:
Stalin is one of the biggest looks frauders in the history of mankind. He was a short balding little rat.

Too many lies have been told about Hitler to believe anything the above me is rambling on about.

Stalin was 5'6, which was rather normal in Russia in the year 1878, the year he was born. Even in Germany the average back then was like 5'7. I don't know how much was he balding but it doesn't look like it was that bad, in this video he was in his late 60s and still had a head full of hair:

[video=youtube]http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQuQ38XgdI0[/video]
@2:47 he uber moggs Truman

Dude was notorious for covering up his hairloss and his manlet status. 5'6" was manlet status even in 1878. C'mon.

Arguing with you about anything more complex than this is pointless.
 

Bhunnah

Megastar
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Messages
8,517
Reputation
41
elmoggerino said:
Hitler on the other hand:

Hitler insisted that Kubizek stalk Stefanie and delivered daily reports on her activity while he was away visiting his mother or family.[7] In one report, Kubizek wrote that Stefanie loved to dance and had taken lessons. Hitler disliked dancing and reportedly replied, "Stefanie only dances because she is forced to by society on which she unfortunately depends on. Once Stefanie is my wife, she won't have the slightest desire to dance!"[7] In June 1906, Stefanie allegedly gave Hitler a smile and a flower from her bouquet as she was passing him in her carriage.[8] Kubizek later described the scene:
"Never again did I see Adolf as happy as he was at that moment. When the carriage had passed he dragged me aside and with emotion he gazed at the flower, this visible pledge of her love. I can still hear his voice, trembling with excitement, 'She loves me!' "[8]

:cage:
:cage2:
 

Magnifique

let's get morbid
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
29,399
Reputation
21,025
This is complete and utter rubbish.
Complete nonsense.

I can't even begin to discuss how stupid this is.
 

Supreme Cuckold

Champion
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
12,144
Reputation
7,520
Magnifique said:
This is complete and utter rubbish.
Complete nonsense.

I can't even begin to discuss how stupid this is.

It shows that you are not good at thinking out of the box and considering alternative explanations.
 

elmoggerino

Banned
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
22,680
Reputation
15,346
Fatasses All Around Me said:
elmoggerino said:
Stalin was 5'6, which was rather normal in Russia in the year 1878, the year he was born. Even in Germany the average back then was like 5'7. I don't know how much was he balding but it doesn't look like it was that bad, in this video he was in his late 60s and still had a head full of hair:

[video=youtube]http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQuQ38XgdI0[/video]
@2:47 he uber moggs Truman

Dude was notorious for covering up his hairloss and his manlet status. 5'6" was manlet status even in 1878. C'mon.

Arguing with you about anything more complex than this is pointless.
What is your source about Stalin being bald though? You said it was notoriously known yet Russians viewed him as the "hairy" one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald–hairy

Regarding height:


5'6 was basically normal in continental Europe as well. Hitler was actually somewhat taller than average at 5'9. If you are still doubting this, look at this video, Stalin isn't really getting towered by his peers:
[video=youtube]
 

Magnifique

let's get morbid
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
29,399
Reputation
21,025
Supreme Cunt said:
Magnifique said:
This is complete and utter rubbish.
Complete nonsense.

I can't even begin to discuss how stupid this is.

It shows that you are not good at thinking out of the box and considering alternative explanations.

I would consider myself very good at thinking outside of the box.
Extremely good, in fact.

Would you like to hear my rebuttal of your theory?
 

Supreme Cuckold

Champion
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
12,144
Reputation
7,520
Magnifique said:
Supreme Cunt said:
It shows that you are not good at thinking out of the box and considering alternative explanations.

I would consider myself very good at thinking outside of the box.
Extremely good, in fact.

Would you like to hear my rebuttal of your theory?

ok.
 
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
5,325
Reputation
38
elmoggerino said:
Fatasses All Around Me said:
Dude was notorious for covering up his hairloss and his manlet status. 5'6" was manlet status even in 1878. C'mon.

Arguing with you about anything more complex than this is pointless.
What is your source about Stalin being bald though? You said it was notoriously known yet Russians viewed him as the "hairy" one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald–hairy

Regarding height:


5'6 was basically normal in continental Europe as well. Hitler was actually somewhat taller than average at 5'9. If you are still doubting this, look at this video, Stalin isn't really getting towered by his peers:
[video=youtube]

I know people used to be shorter. But 5'6" was never not manlet-sized. The dude took care to make himself seem larger than he was.

I honestly can't find the source where I read about his hairloss. I mean, the dude was old as fuck by the time it got "bad." He was a diffuse thinner.
 

Vuk

Regular
Joined
Apr 25, 2018
Messages
1,099
Reputation
4
They didn't hate people, they were pragmatists eg Stalin knew hat he needed to kill some proportion of the people to keep the majority happy.
 

Magnifique

let's get morbid
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
29,399
Reputation
21,025
Supreme Cunt said:
Magnifique said:
I would consider myself very good at thinking outside of the box.
Extremely good, in fact.

Would you like to hear my rebuttal of your theory?

ok.

That's good.
Now let's go through each of your points.

They started by first exterminating their own peers. (Night of the long knives, Moscow trials)

Night of the Long Knives was necessary in order for Hitler to win over the Army.
Which in turn was necessary to become Dictator of Germany (head of state, government and military).

The SA leadership also posed a considerable risk to Hitler's leadership.
As the SA's loyalty was to Röhm, rather than Hitler.

Therefore, it was far from being a random act of murder.

Similar to Hitler, Stalin used killing in order to cement his power.
He had rose to power by weakening first the left, and then the right of the Communist Party.
Now it was time to totally remove opposition, leaving no possibility of any resistance.
I could go into more detail but I think that it's unnecessary.

Therefore, Stalin's use of killing in this case was also a far cry from random "black-pilled" murder.

The events of WW II reveal complete disdain for human life.

Hitler condemned thousands of his own soldiers to certain death in Stalingrad despite being well aware what would happen to them if they didn't retreat. 

Since 1936, Germany had been gearing towards a war with the USSR.
This war was expected to begin in 1940.
Hitler's primary aim was the destruction of communism and did not expect a war over Poland with the Allies.

Hitler had severely underestimated Russia's power.
This was due to Russia being known as having an extremely poor manufacturing base.
However, the Five Year Plans of the late 1920s and 1930s heavily industrialised Russia's manufacturing base.

By the time Hitler realised this, it was too late.
All he could do was to continue fighting Russia in an attempt to prevent an advance of the Red Army into Germany from the Eastern Front.
Hence why troops remained in Stalingrad.

We can therefore conclude that this was not a "black-pilled" act of killing, but rather a strategical miscalculation.
And possibly some arrogance or delusion on behalf of Hitler.

The events of WW II reveal complete disdain for human life.

As do all wars.
World War Two was nothing special in that regard.

Stalin personally signed the executions and the people that would perish in the labour camps. He manned the police state apparatus with people from the most repressed classes because they were more eager to act their frustration upon others (e.g. the subhuman midget Yezhov). 


And?
Stalin was a vicious man, far from being an idealist.
He liked to have control.
He was focused on power for power's sake and all of his policies reflect this.

Yes, the USSR was brutal
But this was all part of Stalin's regime of terror in order to maintain control.

Here's a fun fact. 
The leadership of the Secret Police (NKVD) was purged by the new leaders of the NKVD, in order to prevent individuals from gaining too much power.
Here again, we can see that power is the basis of the terror, rather than killing for killing's sake.

If kisses and rainbows would have secured Stalin power, then he would have used it to his full advantage.



But anyway, if you're interested in this theory.
Then look into Pol Pot.
He really did kill for the sake of killing.
Really messed up regime, essentially mass random executions of any random group in society.
People were even killed for wearing glasses, due to their connection with intellectualism.
 
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
5,325
Reputation
38
Magnifique said:
Supreme Cunt said:

That's good.
Now let's go through each of your points.

They started by first exterminating their own peers. (Night of the long knives, Moscow trials)

Night of the Long Knives was necessary in order for Hitler to win over the Army.
Which in turn was necessary to become Dictator of Germany (head of state, government and military).

The SA leadership also posed a considerable risk to Hitler's leadership.
As the SA's loyalty was to Röhm, rather than Hitler.

Therefore, it was far from being a random act of murder.

Similar to Hitler, Stalin used killing in order to cement his power.
He had rose to power by weakening first the left, and then the right of the Communist Party.
Now it was time to totally remove opposition, leaving no possibility of any resistance.
I could go into more detail but I think that it's unnecessary.

Therefore, Stalin's use of killing in this case was also a far cry from random "black-pilled" murder.

The events of WW II reveal complete disdain for human life.

Hitler condemned thousands of his own soldiers to certain death in Stalingrad despite being well aware what would happen to them if they didn't retreat. 

Since 1936, Germany had been gearing towards a war with the USSR.
This war was expected to begin in 1940.
Hitler's primary aim was the destruction of communism and did not expect a war over Poland with the Allies.

Hitler had severely underestimated Russia's power.
This was due to Russia being known as having an extremely poor manufacturing base.
However, the Five Year Plans of the late 1920s and 1930s heavily industrialised Russia's manufacturing base.

By the time Hitler realised this, it was too late.
All he could do was to continue fighting Russia in an attempt to prevent an advance of the Red Army into Germany from the Eastern Front.
Hence why troops remained in Stalingrad.

We can therefore conclude that this was not a "black-pilled" act of killing, but rather a strategical miscalculation.
And possibly some arrogance or delusion on behalf of Hitler.

The events of WW II reveal complete disdain for human life.

As do all wars.
World War Two was nothing special in that regard.

Stalin personally signed the executions and the people that would perish in the labour camps. He manned the police state apparatus with people from the most repressed classes because they were more eager to act their frustration upon others (e.g. the subhuman midget Yezhov). 


And?
Stalin was a vicious man, far from being an idealist.
He liked to have control.
He was focused on power for power's sake and all of his policies reflect this.

Yes, the USSR was brutal
But this was all part of Stalin's regime of terror in order to maintain control.

Here's a fun fact. 
The leadership of the Secret Police (NKVD) was purged by the new leaders of the NKVD, in order to prevent individuals from gaining too much power.
Here again, we can see that power is the basis of the terror, rather than killing for killing's sake.

If kisses and rainbows would have secured Stalin power, then he would have used it to his full advantage.



But anyway, if you're interested in this theory.
Then look into Pol Pot.
He really did kill for the sake of killing.
Really messed up regime, essentially mass random executions of any random group in society.
People were even killed for wearing glasses, due to their connection with intellectualism.

This is all far too reasonable and sober for this forum.
 

elmoggerino

Banned
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
22,680
Reputation
15,346
Fatasses All Around Me said:
elmoggerino said:
What is your source about Stalin being bald though? You said it was notoriously known yet Russians viewed him as the "hairy" one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald–hairy

Regarding height:


5'6 was basically normal in continental Europe as well. Hitler was actually somewhat taller than average at 5'9. If you are still doubting this, look at this video, Stalin isn't really getting towered by his peers:
[video=youtube]

I know people used to be shorter. But 5'6" was never not manlet-sized. The dude took care to make himself seem larger than he was.

I honestly can't find the source where I read about his hairloss. I mean, the dude was old as fuck by the time it got "bad." He was a diffuse thinner.

Come on didn't you see the chart? 5'6 was average at the time.
 
Top