I would prefer Hitler, since there is more stigma about him than there is about Stalin, so it would be harder for him to manage to do anything harmful.

I'm not even American and I find this quite offensive. This is pretty much like asking if a genocidal maniac like Idi Amin should hypothetically be made President of the US.

I thought Hitler was running the U.S.? ;^)

Ummmmmmmm.......

First of al..........

"not dictator or king, just President"

Wasn't Hitler "just" elected Chancellor?

I guess...neither? Really, how the hell do you CHOOSE?!

I guess Stalin, Hitler'd exterminate me...but STALIN killed Jews TOO...Hitler'd also kill me for my Russo-Polish side, and Stalin for my Austro-German side...

How the hell am I supposed choose?!?!?! LOL

I am FUCKED!

But really Hitler is the better 'front man'. no contest.

I would choose Stalin every time. He was far less of a weirdo than Hitler.

Plus Hitler was, ultimately, a failure, whereas Stalin won WWII and achieved some measure of other success.

Hitler definitely had some sort of mental disorder, but Stalin would purge the government - which may be a good thing and may be bad lol However, I would choose Hitler definitely.

Stalin's 5 year economic plans didn't work too well, except in certain industries - all low tech. Under Hitler's funding German scientists were the most advanced in the world (albeit in weapons-related fields).

But overall, I'd feel safer with Hitler. He killed less Germans than Stalin killed Russians

Stalin. Here' my logic:

Hitler got himself into power through quasilegal means, which would mean if he was president a huge chunk of the population would have to have voted for him - which indicates a vastly changed America.

Stalin basically slaughtered his way to the top, which would mean his best bet would to be assigned to an unimportant cabinet post and kill off everyone else in the line of succession. So that doesn't necessarily indicate changes to the electorate, just an idiot in the White House and a lazy Congress

Yes Stalin was far less of a weirdo than Hitler, he was a very boring mass-murderer. Hitler had style! Panache even! plus the white house would look cool with some of those long red nazi banners out front.

@goldfinger - you have to factor in that 1 german is worth like 10 russians, so it's not a fair comparison.

@Jamiet99uk - I'll thank you not to call Herr Wolf a failure. All depends how you measure success. A prosperous germany now dominates a europe where jewish people are thin on the ground. Accident? I think not.

@baumhaeuer - Really? You had to bring this into the forum for all the crackpots to chime in?

hitler or stalin.

sounds like every election we have, a choice between some asshole and some idiot.
or a douchebag and a turd sandwich

Given that ballot, I do believe I'd vote 3rd Party.

I'd move.

i'd rather have anarchy. or move to new zealand.

haha the only candidates Nader could win against.

Amazing how many Nazi apologists are on the internet. Rather disgusting, really. This is false equivalence par excellence.

The USSR saved the world from Hitler, and this kind of repulsive question is actually brought up. Proof that some people don't deserve freedom.

The USSR saved themselves from Hitler. The Allied forces (USSR, USA, UK, all of them) saved the world from Hitler.

Hitler everyone things he was nuts but without his funding for his scientists their would be know such thing as missles, spaceships or anything like that so what if he had some flaws. He contributed so much to science.

Some flaws = Genocidal maniac (sorry Maniac, not you)

That was meant to be dripping with sarcasm. Being a genocidal monster is *not* just having "some flaws".

Nazi scientists were so great : they manage to prove that Jews are soluble in sulfuric acid. =)

*managed

I don't think any of us would like to have either of them, but the question was one or the other so we answered honestly. We're not Nazi or communist apologists at all. Both Stalin and Hitler committed genocide on scales never seen before and it is horrible to condone that. But the question was one or the other and since they both committed mass genocide we had to look at what else they have done and pick the lesser of two evils.

"The USSR saved themselves from Hitler. The Allied forces (USSR, USA, UK, all of them) saved the world from Hitler."

80% of the war in Europe was fought on the Eastern front. The Soviets destroyed the bulk of the Nazi forces. "Allied" contributions were paltry by comparison to the USSR. The USA didn't do anything when Operation Barbarossa was underway. The French had already surrendered and the British were more preoccupied with saving their Empire than defeating Hitler.

I'm really tired of this historical revisionism to erase the Soviet contributions in the war out of a knee jerk anti-communism and jingoistic need to believe that why yes, the liberal democracies actually were instrumental to the war effort, even if they waited 4 years to even attempt the liberation of France and helped Nazi Germany carve up Czechoslovakia. Oh, but the African campaign I'm sure was very important...

Have you heard of the Great Terror? Or what about the Gulags?

And, to be clear, Stalin wouldn't have done jack shit if Hitler hadn't broken their pact.

And this 'both sides were equally bad' bs, do you really believe that? You really think it made no difference if the Soviets or Nazis emerged from the war victorious. Do you know what the Nazis did to the populations in Eastern Europe under their occupation? They starved and/or slaughtered them all. They mobilized Einsatzgruppen to shoot communists on sight, whether they surrendered or not. They enslaved people. They murdered millions in gas chambers. Their goal was extermination of those deemed 'inferior'.

You're comparing that to the damage caused by a collectivization policy in which rich farmers destroyed their own crops because they oppose Soviet policy. The goal was to increase agricultural production, not starve people.

And nobody speaks of the famine that occurred in British occupied Bengal during the war. Was that "genocide"?