Avatar image for modernww2fare
Posted by modernww2fare (7017 posts) 1 year, 10 months ago

Poll: Who was worse - Hitler, Stalin or Mao? (171 votes)

Adolf Hitler 37%
Joseph Stalin 36%
Mao Zedong 27%
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for dshipp17
#151 Edited by dshipp17 (5436 posts) - - Show Bio

@anakon4 said:
@dshipp17 said:

Despite body count, the worse of the three was clearly Hitler; we have to look to plans and goals; Hitler wanted to eliminate entire ethic groups and was stopped in his efforts, prematurely. Stalin and Mao were the worse dictators possible (and some of those Roman Emperors who persecuted Christians were even worse still, as they did have a similar, but inferior level of wickedness of a Hitler kind, as they wanted to cleans the world of all Christians, but not all other ethnic groups) , but Hitler was on a whole different level; he literally had an objective to wipe out the entire Jewish race and nonwhites from the face of the Earth and existence, and clearly had made great strides to that end, but was stopped short of achieving his goal, while the other two, as bad as they were, had nothing planned on that level.

Stalin at least protected his folk, which makes him better leader than anyone who kills willingly his own people. You are talking about Hitler like he was the only one who ever killed specificaly other race.

Americans killed around 60,000,000 of native americans.

Stalin killed up to 7, 500, 000 of his OWN people of hunger + millions in world war.

You really compare fanatic patriot, to fanatic idiots?

"Americans killed around 60,000,000 of native americans."

Honestly, you should check these numbers; the world population hadn't yet reach the 1 billion mark, and I think the world population than was like 360 million. The killing of Native Americans wasn't for killing them with the goal of exterminating them, as Hitler's goal represented; also, I was staying on topic, as much as possible, so it wasn't geared towards answering every atrocity that had ever occurred. Yes, Hitler is clearly worse than the Europeans that colonized the Americans, even though they were of the same mold back than; these Europeans were at least content with making minorities slaves while Hitler wanted to exterminate.

"You really compare fanatic patriot, to fanatic idiots?"

It's not me, as I didn't make the thread, it's the OP.

"Stalin killed up to 7, 500, 000 of his OWN people of hunger + millions in world war."

And that's why Hitler is worse, relatively speaking; Stalin limited himself to his own people.

@kamik28 said:
@dshipp17 said:

Despite body count, the worse of the three was clearly Hitler; we have to look to plans and goals; Hitler wanted to eliminate entire ethic groups and was stopped in his efforts, prematurely. Stalin and Mao were the worse dictators possible (and some of those Roman Emperors who persecuted Christians were even worse still, as they did have a similar, but inferior level of wickedness of a Hitler kind, as they wanted to cleans the world of all Christians, but not all other ethnic groups) , but Hitler was on a whole different level; he literally had an objective to wipe out the entire Jewish race and nonwhites from the face of the Earth and existence, and clearly had made great strides to that end, but was stopped short of achieving his goal, while the other two, as bad as they were, had nothing planned on that level.

This is some disinfo you'd expect to hear from the most ignorant 12 y/o antifa.

Get your facts straight, Hitler was not racist, he was anti-Semite. Hitler allied with the Japanese and considered them honorary aryans, he respected Muslims and Islam because of their shared views on Jews, The nazi swastika was related to Hindu religious symbols, Hitler wanted to free the British colonies, from the British, I.E. India.

"I am sure that the Japanese, the Chinese and the peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France, in spite of the fact that we are related by blood."

He said "I respect the lowliest Indian more than any arrogant Islander (referring to the British)", does that sound like a white supremacist to you?

Hitler had a burning hatred for Jews, the British and the Slavs but the later ones was probably because of the threat that was the Soviets and the Red Arm and the many past territorial conflicts between the Germans and Slavs near East Europe.

"This is some disinfo you'd expect to hear from the most ignorant 12 y/o antifa.

Get your facts straight, Hitler was not racist, he was anti-Semite. Hitler allied with the Japanese and considered them honorary aryans, he respected Muslims and Islam because of their shared views on Jews, The nazi swastika was related to Hindu religious symbols, Hitler wanted to free the British colonies, from the British, I.E. India."

Hitler was clearly a racist, and this is very widely known; have you heard of the Neo-Nazi groups in the United States? What is their philosophy? Hitler was also anti-semitic, as is the case with all white supremacist groups; Hitler was a white supremacist, so, by default, he was racists. Hitler was using the Japanese, clearly; and, Islam is not a race; however, to the extent they were minorities, Hitler was clearly using them in like manner as he was the Japanese; the main question should actually be, why were the Japanese and Muslims willing to work with Hitler (e.g. the Japanese had no particular impression of say the Jews)? Since this is such a widely held view, my facts are already straight, as racist groups, for example, are my clearest evidence, if I actually knew close to nothing about Hitler; those groups clearly aren't emulating someone like LBJ for a reason, right?

Avatar image for anakon4
#152 Edited by anakon4 (438 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17:

"Americans killed around 60,000,000 of native americans."

Honestly, you should check these numbers; the world population hadn't yet reach the 1 billion mark, and I think the world population than was like 360 million. The killing of Native Americans wasn't for killing them with the goal of exterminating them, as Hitler's goal represented; also, I was staying on topic, as much as possible, so it wasn't geared towards answering every atrocity that had ever occurred. Yes, Hitler is clearly worse than the Europeans that colonized the Americans, even though they were of the same mold back than; these Europeans were at least content with making minorities slaves while Hitler wanted to exterminate.

Just in the Europe were around one hundred million people. Considering that in the capital of Aztecs were more people than in any major city of the European countries back then and that Aztecs were just one of the main kingdoms its relatively safe to assume that Indians had at least similar numbers to Europe back then.

Hitler's had mainly problems with Jews, Gypsies and Russians. There is no direct proof he would killed other germanic ethnicities or slavic races. Russians were only to be exterminated because they resisted. Settlers didn't even care if Indians resist or not, they killed them anyway.

"You really compare fanatic patriot, to fanatic idiots?"

It's not me, as I didn't make the thread, it's the OP.

"Stalin killed up to 7, 500, 000 of his OWN people of hunger + millions in world war."

And that's why Hitler is worse, relatively speaking; Stalin limited himself to his own people.

I really hope that you wont become president ever. Putting in front a leader that cares more for his potential enemies than his own blood is one of the worst things in the world.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#153 Edited by dshipp17 (5436 posts) - - Show Bio

@anakon4 said:

@dshipp17:

"Americans killed around 60,000,000 of native americans."

Honestly, you should check these numbers; the world population hadn't yet reach the 1 billion mark, and I think the world population than was like 360 million. The killing of Native Americans wasn't for killing them with the goal of exterminating them, as Hitler's goal represented; also, I was staying on topic, as much as possible, so it wasn't geared towards answering every atrocity that had ever occurred. Yes, Hitler is clearly worse than the Europeans that colonized the Americans, even though they were of the same mold back than; these Europeans were at least content with making minorities slaves while Hitler wanted to exterminate.

Just in the Europe were around one hundred million people. Considering that in the capital of Aztecs were more people than in any major city of the European countries back then and that Aztecs were just one of the main kingdoms its relatively safe to assume that Indians had at least similar numbers to Europe back then.

Hitler's had mainly problems with Jews, Gypsies and Russians. There is no direct proof he would killed other germanic ethnicities or slavic races. Russians were only to be exterminated because they resisted. Settlers didn't even care if Indians resist or not, they killed them anyway.

"You really compare fanatic patriot, to fanatic idiots?"

It's not me, as I didn't make the thread, it's the OP.

"Stalin killed up to 7, 500, 000 of his OWN people of hunger + millions in world war."

And that's why Hitler is worse, relatively speaking; Stalin limited himself to his own people.

I really hope that you wont become president ever. Putting in front a leader that cares more for his potential enemies than his own blood is one of the worst things in the world.

"I really hope that you wont become president ever. Putting in front a leader that cares more for his potential enemies than his own blood is one of the worst things in the world."

Hitler was killing his own people and potential enemies; and I don't think you will ever become any type of significant leader, as you're literally trying to make the preposterous case that Hitler somehow deserves more sympathy than the United States colonists and the United States, when that wasn't even the topic of the discussion.

"Hitler's had mainly problems with Jews, Gypsies and Russians. There is no direct proof he would killed other germanic ethnicities or slavic races. Russians were only to be exterminated because they resisted. Settlers didn't even care if Indians resist or not, they killed them anyway."

Again, you can't seem to get the point of my first post here, Hitler was stopped in the midst of his activities, while the other two examples and the example that you introduced into the discussion had time to fully implement their actions; he was operating in African, at points and he wasn't just in Africa because it was strategic for his military; want to guess why Hitler was operating in Africa? Generally speaking, the Indians were killed because they tried to resists, when the case was applicable (e.g. they mostly died because of the infectious organisms that the Europeans carried within their systems); the Jews and German minority groups were not resisting Hitler, they were just living their lives, when Hitler came into power and uprooted them, as an act of coronation for his power rise. Initially, the colonists did try to meet and exists with the Indians, but, politics came into play and everything went terribly wrong from there.

Avatar image for mad_jim
#154 Posted by Mad_Jim (2246 posts) - - Show Bio

Trump .

Online
Avatar image for noone1996
#155 Edited by Noone1996 (11469 posts) - - Show Bio

Do you have trouble with the concept of an epidemic? Smallpox is a highly contagious disease. These pieces of evidence that were provided show clear intent, proud admission of being the guilty party, and we have evidence showing that their deliberate actions have had significant impact.

So those few instances prove that every single Native American village and tribe was wiped out by smallpox blankets? Do you hear yourself?

No, you are trying to absolve someone of guilt when they outright admit to what they did and the intentions behind those actions. Why would you try to argue that deliberate intent and actions of genocide are unintentional? Are you that desperate to "free the white man" of responsibility to these actions?

Because there are very few instances of it being intentional? Does that fact not matter to you? You post a few admissions (with no evidence, it's just unsubstantiated commentary) and that means that all infectious disease deaths were intentional. That is almost as laughable as your agenda you are pushing right now lmao. Free the white man? Glad we're actually talking about the same thing here?

You clearly have no idea what this word means.

And you don't know what speculation means.

Yeah because I understand how dangerous smallpox is and how quickly it can spread. This isn't rocket science but it clearly has soared right over your head. We have letters from the military and those associated with them, which includes merchants and government officials describing exactly their plans for genocide but you want us to believe that this was all an accident.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

See, here I thought that you were actually going to correct me by saying, "Don't put words in my mouth" or "I never said that", but you are LITERALLY speculating to the HIGHEST degree because of a handful of sources from different ethnicities (British) and time periods simply wrote about doing something. You are saying that the 100% of Native Americans that died was on purpose! Every. Single. Instance. All disease deaths were on purpose. Every epidemic that started or spread was due to smallpox blankets. You actually believe this with confidence and certainty. It's so hilarious! I mean let's ignore the fact that smallpox wasn't the only disease that killed Native Americans on a large scale. How can you be so 100% positive that EVERY Native American disease death, or even MOST for that matter, came from an advanced form of biological warfare somehow systematically waged for hundreds of years against Native Americans? Because a few sources talked about it? That means the billions of interactions before and after those instances were biological attacks against the Natives?

What are you talking about? Native Americans were not wiped out by most diseases. Their numbers were largely impacted by smallpox, by your own admission.

Over 90-95% of Native Americans were killed due to disease. Smallpox was the number one killer, but not the only one. Measles, influenza, animal diseases (since Native Americans had not yet domesticated or lived with certain animals until Europeans arrived), typhus, bubonic plague, cholera, malaria, tuberculosis, mumps, yellow fever, and pertussis. There must have been disease ridden blankets for all of these too, huh?

Now that evidence was presented that the smallpox was deliberately introduced by whites, you desperately try to absolve them of any wrongdoing. It's goddamn insane.

...there are a handful of sources representing millions of people over hundreds of years... Do you not understand that? How do we know that every outbreak suffered by Native Americans was intentional? That's speculation. Look up the definition.

Hell, we don't even know if an outbreak occurred in the instances that YOU have provided. Let alone all of them. But yeah, I'm protecting the white man for pointing that out. I guess I shouldn't expect any form of logic from a SJW.

If a group of people introduced a lethal and highly contagious disease to a population with the expressed desire to murder them all, it would be decidedly illogical to refuse to acknowledge it. It is even more ridiculous to spew nonsense from a position of ignorance. How many times have I had to correct your nonsense on how diseases are spread already? You are ignorant to the subject but by damn, that isn't going to stop you from acting like you have any clue.

Just because I didn't address your "corrections" that doesn't mean you are right. It means that I didn't want to have a lengthy argument that stems away from what my original position was. I am literally giving you ground because even if you are right about those other details (like smallpox survival time), you are still ultimately wrong about most Native Americans dying intentionally.

You are ironically using blanket statements and generalizations to describe an entire group of people when those few sources do not represent everyone. Am I denying that genocide occurred? Am I denying that they wanted to get rid of the Native Americans? No. I'm saying that the REALITY is different from what they wanted. You act like because there was a British commander who said he wanted to use smallpox blankets against the Natives that that somehow psionically linked all Europeans to that policy of intentional extermination or biological warfare.

I guess because a few guys tried the smallpox blanket, that means everyone did it by default? That makes sense. Only to someone desperately trying to push an agenda. If you already have so many sources of the evil Europeans committing unspeakable acts and genocide, then why can't you let this go? Again, I ask, why does it bother you so much that most Native Americans died from disease? Goes against what you believe in about the evil Europeans, huh? Sorry that you revolve your life around that. Must be a happy life.

Yes, calling you out for your horse shit is me pushing an agenda.

You are reaching and speculating DESPERATELY to prove that EVERY and ALL Native Americans were killed by the intentional spreading of disease when there is no proof of that at all. Did it maybe happen a few times? I doubt it, but I'll give you that! We'll say that the sources you posted prove that it happened a couple of times. Hell, maybe it even happened a lot more. However, does that prove that it happened all the time? That it happened most of the time? Even HALF of the time? NO! What is so hard to understand about that????

But I might have made a mistake about pathology, so I just needed to be called out. Heh.

No, you have shown an absolute refusal to accept documented evidence. You have shown to refuse information to protect your beliefs. You are the one who is so afraid to acknowledge the truth because it is white guilt.

There it is! Now tell me I should pay a tax for my white guilt. Tell me how a Greek-American whose grandparents immigrated WAY after any of this happened were involved in this and how I benefit from it every day. Tell me how my ancestors were biological warfare MASTERMINDS and that I'm related to them just because I'm white. I need a good laugh.

How is your viewpoint without bias? You refused direct evidence for several posts because it hurts your feel-goods. Maybe you should just get over yourself and accept that some people in history were monsters, even whites.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Yes, I believe that the only people in history that were monsters WEREN'T white. Lmfao. You caught me! Even though I admitted that they committed genocide, even though I admitted what they did was horrible, etc. I point out that most of the Native American deaths originated from disease and now I'm a white supremacist who thinks white people can't do anything wrong.

No Caption Provided

Except for the fact that they literally admit to doing it.

Oh, you mean the 5 guys that you showed sources for? The instances where we have no clue what happened afterwards? Did they actually get a chance to try their strategy? Did it succeed? How many were infected? How many died? None of that is important. I'm just a white supremacist for pointing that out though. But yeah, those few sources alone prove that everyEuropean or American in a position of power did the exact same thing over the course of 200-300 years. Seems legit.

Anyone with even a basic understanding in microbiology would see how the likelihood of it working would be practically a guarantee. Why don't you even bother looking up these diseases instead of furnishing us with example after example of the Dunning-Kruger effect and cognitive dissonance?

Were you there? How did you survive the biological warfare if you were there and were so certain of what happened?

What wasn't common? The deliberate infection of Natives? We don't know what at all. In order to know that, we would need evidence from several sources from the time period decrying these actions. Do you have anything like that?

Ahh, so we don't know that it WASN'T common, so that means it probably was. Again, look up the word speculation for me, bud. You might learn something.

How? How is providing an admission of murderous actions against an entire people "twisting" anything?

Because you are saying that millions of people did the exact same thing that a handful of people did!

...just because a handful of people did it!

Did you just see someone else use that word and without even understanding what it means, decided to give it a try?

I find it so funny that you think you are so clever and intelligent. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

You are and you are a dishonest one at that.

I said that 90% died from disease and that makes me a genocide apologist in the eyes of SJW's. That's what's happening here.

Just ones that have a low volume body count because that makes you feel better.

So I have to admit to the ones that had high enough body counts (in your eyes) not to be considered a genocide apologist? Okay, dude.

Hilariously false... How someone can say that after being given direct evidence to the contrary is exactly what I mean by cognitive dissonance. If you don't know what that means, Google is your friend. It would have been nice if you started with its use. Perhaps you wouldn't have stuck your foot in your mouth time after time if you had.

I'm going to ignore this sad attempt to make yourself feel bigger there.

Do you, sincerely, believe that you have proven that a majority of Native Americans were killed on purpose just because of a few documented cases made that unsubstantiated claim? You are making an assumption about every European in power over hundreds of years based on the "actions" of a few.

We also know that the military on at least a few documented occasions deliberately infected them with smallpox. Why would they stop once they saw its effectiveness.

Again, you are speculating and reaching. "Herp why would they stop?" Well, derp, we don't know for a fact if their strategies worked. Do we have any diary entries where they note how effective their strategy was? Do they ever talk about it at all afterwards? Do we know if they even TRIED it? Either way, this is a loaded question for many reasons.

Is it because they knew that one day, some 'noone' would have a hard time dealing with it, so they stopped for your sake?

No Caption Provided

I am telling you that we have direct, irrefutable evidence of intent, action, and success. I am also telling you that the government had invested heavily in the extermination of Native Americans. You are trying to argue that even with this noted success, they wouldn't continue to do it... for some inexplicable reason. Are you sure that I am the illogical one here? Are you really sure? Because if you do, you really need to reevaluate your position. I know that is hard for you but it is expected when you are presented with new information that totally screws your argument.

You have no proof that it happened on the scale that you are claiming. Absolutely none. Period. Call me racist, a genocide apologist, white supremacist, etc. for pointing that out, but that doesn't change this fact.

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for patriotbear
#156 Posted by PatriotBear (352 posts) - - Show Bio

Who cares? They all deserved a bullet square between the eyes.

And not at all comparable to what happened in the U.S.

Avatar image for icedemonking
#158 Posted by IceDemonKing (9982 posts) - - Show Bio

Well this got... intense.

Avatar image for erik_soong
#159 Edited by Erik_Soong (1560 posts) - - Show Bio

So those few instances prove that every single Native American village and tribe was wiped out by smallpox blankets? Do you hear yourself?

No. But I am at least coming from a position of evidence. Given the high infection rate of smallpox, the incubation period, and the deliberate attempt to exterminate the Native Americans using smallpox on at least some documented occasions, there is not any reason at all to deny that it was likely entirely deliberate except to shield yourself from your own shame.

Because there are very few instances of it being intentional?

That is not factually true. There are a few documented instances of it being intentional from the US government. Your position is that because there is no evidence of it continuing to be used, that it wasn't. That is a moronic argument.

Does that fact not matter to you?

It clearly doesn't matter to you.

You post a few admissions (with no evidence, it's just unsubstantiated commentary) and that means that all infectious disease deaths were intentional.

You think the guy admitting that he did it is unsubstantiated commentary?

That is almost as laughable as your agenda you are pushing right now lmao. Free the white man? Glad we're actually talking about the same thing here?

What is my agenda? The only one with an agenda here is you. You clearly are doing everything you can to avoid having to acknowledge that the US government set to exterminating the Native Americans, despite all evidence presented to the contrary. What have you offered in defense? A logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Is this the best you can offer? An argument that logically invalidates itself?

And you don't know what speculation means.

Considering you have no clue what a not-insignificant amount of the words you are using even mean, I am going to remain fairly skeptical in relation to your opinion on the reading comprehension of others.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

See, here I thought that you were actually going to correct me by saying, "Don't put words in my mouth" or "I never said that", but you are LITERALLY speculating to the HIGHEST degree because of a handful of sources from different ethnicities (British) and time periods simply wrote about doing something.

It is not speculation when the evidence leads us to a conclusion. It is not speculation when there is admission of guilt.

You are saying that the 100% of Native Americans that died was on purpose! Every. Single. Instance.

See here you are putting words in my mouth. I only said that the introduction of smallpox to the Native Americans is documented to have been deliberate.

All disease deaths were on purpose.

You tried to tie this to my argument before and I corrected you then. I am not saying that all diseases were introduced to the Native American people on purpose. I am saying that smallpox was. We literally have several sources, including the military, confirming it.

Every epidemic that started or spread was due to smallpox blankets.

Not every epidemic... just smallpox. Given that the incubation period is so long and that many Native Americans were nomadic across many overlapping regions, it shouldn't be too hard for even an uneducated person like yourself to understand. This is forced ignorance at work.

You actually believe this with confidence and certainty.

I believe what historical evidence and modern science tells us, yes.

It's so hilarious!

What is hilarious is your understanding on how disease works. You honestly thought smallpox only had a 24 lifespan.

I mean let's ignore the fact that smallpox wasn't the only disease that killed Native Americans on a large scale.

What other diseases then? What was the death rate as a result of these diseases? You were the one that contributed most deaths to smallpox.

How can you be so 100% positive that EVERY Native American disease death, or even MOST for that matter, came from an advanced form of biological warfare somehow systematically waged for hundreds of years against Native Americans?

It wasn't advanced at all. It was giving them diseased blankets. It's not like they had to solve the riddle of the universe to figure that out. Some Natives were given diseased blankets with the intent to wipe them out. Unless you have evidence that Native Americans were already being wiped out before this happened, your position is rather stupid.

Because a few sources talked about it?

A few first hand sources? Yeah, why not?

That means the billions of interactions before and after those instances were biological attacks against the Natives?

Do you have evidence to support this question or are you just going to strut around like a peacock?

Over 90-95% of Native Americans were killed due to disease. Smallpox was the number one killer, but not the only one. Measles, influenza, animal diseases (since Native Americans had not yet domesticated or lived with certain animals until Europeans arrived), typhus, bubonic plague, cholera, malaria, tuberculosis, mumps, yellow fever, and pertussis. There must have been disease ridden blankets for all of these too, huh?

Again, what is the death rates for these? I am not going to assume that the others were a result of deliberate inoculation but smallpox was. I also find your desperate fear to avoid having to provide evidence to be pretty amusing. You're not half as smart as you think you are.

...there are a handful of sources representing millions of people over hundreds of years... Do you not understand that?

I clearly understand disease a lot more intimately than you do. Smallpox doesn't simply go away after infecting a few people.

How do we know that every outbreak suffered by Native Americans was intentional? That's speculation. Look up the definition.

I know what speculation means. You clearly don't though. I am using evidence. Speculation requires that I make conclusions without evidence. You know, kind of what you are doing.

Hell, we don't even know if an outbreak occurred in the instances that YOU have provided.

We do know because we know the infection rate of smallpox. Your argument is that the military tried to infect some Natives that just so happened to be one of the few people immune to it?

Let alone all of them.

There was a reason why smallpox is credited as being one of the biggest killers before the development of the first vaccine. It was remarkable in its ability to cover large distances because of the incubation period, high virulence, and ease in which it is spread.

But yeah, I'm protecting the white man for pointing that out. I guess I shouldn't expect any form of logic from a SJW.

Yeah, those damn SJW and their "facts". Their damn "evidence". Only idiots use that stuff. Smart people, like you, use the power of their imagination to understand history.

Just because I didn't address your "corrections" that doesn't mean you are right.

It does.

It means that I didn't want to have a lengthy argument that stems away from what my original position was.

Horse shit. What do you call this post?

I am literally giving you ground because even if you are right about those other details (like smallpox survival time), you are still ultimately wrong about most Native Americans dying intentionally.

Okay, I will adjust my opinion on the matter once you actually provide evidence. That pesky thing that you never use.

You are ironically using blanket statements and generalizations to describe an entire group of people when those few sources do not represent everyone.

It doesn't need to represent everyone. It was a position held by those who had the power to do anything about it. Further, Native American bigotry was well documented in American history. I didn't use blanket statements anyway. I said some people in American history were monsters, which includes those who have white skin. A blanket statement would have been to say that all were.

Am I denying that genocide occurred?

You are. You are saying that only about 10% were a result of active genocidal actions.

Am I denying that they wanted to get rid of the Native Americans? No.

Yes. You are saying that they did not resort to methods of extermination that they admit to using.

I'm saying that the REALITY is different from what they wanted.

They wanted the Native Americans wiped out. That is what they got. How is reality different than what they wanted?

You act like because there was a British commander who said he wanted to use smallpox blankets against the Natives that that somehow psionically linked all Europeans to that policy of intentional extermination or biological warfare.

No. That is exactly why you look like a white guilt zealot. I never said, nor did I imply that all whites are guilty of Native American genocide. That is what you try to turn the argument into so you can avoid having to face reality. You want to punch up on a strawman because the real argument is too scary for you to internalize, which is that several military leaders admit to trying to infect Native Americans with smallpox. That the US government invested heavily in the extermination of the Native Americans. These are all relevant pieces of factual information that run contrary to your fantasy.

I guess because a few guys tried the smallpox blanket, that means everyone did it by default? That makes sense.

So you think that military leaders are too dumb to try the same method twice, even if it is met with success?

Only to someone desperately trying to push an agenda.

The agenda of historical and scientific education? Yeah, what a monster I am.

If you already have so many sources of the evil Europeans committing unspeakable acts and genocide, then why can't you let this go?

If you have been met with so many sources of these acts, why can't you let this go?

Again, I ask, why does it bother you so much that most Native Americans died from disease?

It doesn't. I simply recognize the historical significance that colonization has had on the Native American people. I don't bury my head in the sand because some information implicates historical figures. That's what you are doing.

Goes against what you believe in about the evil Europeans, huh?

Did I ever say that Europeans are evil?

Sorry that you revolve your life around that. Must be a happy life.

These sentence make literally no sense. Just a sad attempt to bait. I have seen better insults from children.

You are reaching and speculating DESPERATELY to prove that EVERY and ALL Native Americans were killed by the intentional spreading of disease when there is no proof of that at all.

Strawman. I am not saying that all Natives died as a result of deliberate infection. I never said that. I am saying that they were deliberately infected with smallpox though and that smallpox was an incredibly successful disease to use.

Did it maybe happen a few times? I doubt it, but I'll give you that!

The entirety of your argument is directly opposed to this admission. Maybe you should collect your thoughts and try again.

We'll say that the sources you posted prove that it happened a couple of times. Hell, maybe it even happened a lot more. However, does that prove that it happened all the time? That it happened most of the time? Even HALF of the time? NO! What is so hard to understand about that????

Even one person infected with smallpox is capable of launching an epidemic. Please, for the love of god, do something productive with your time and maybe look up the disease.

But I might have made a mistake about pathology, so I just needed to be called out. Heh.

Your ignorance on disease is a relevant point in this topic, so yeah.

There it is! Now tell me I should pay a tax for my white guilt.

If you want to, sure.

Tell me how a Greek-American whose grandparents immigrated WAY after any of this happened were involved in this and how I benefit from it every day.

You do benefit from the extermination of the Native Americans by virtue of you even living here... I never said that you or your family is responsible but damn, you sure defend the actions of the men who are guilty as though you are responsible.

Tell me how my ancestors were biological warfare MASTERMINDS and that I'm related to them just because I'm white. I need a good laugh.

I doubt you come from that kind of stock. Nothing in your posts suggest that you are a descendant of anything worth note. But if you can't have your strawman, I suppose you wouldn't have anything to say at all and Jesus Christ, do you ever need something to say, however ignorant.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Oh no. All caps. Better run.

Yes, I believe that the only people in history that were monsters WEREN'T white. Lmfao. You caught me! Even though I admitted that they committed genocide, even though I admitted what they did was horrible, etc. I point out that most of the Native American deaths originated from disease and now I'm a white supremacist who thinks white people can't do anything wrong.

If the hood fits...

Anyway, you are the one who is defending these guys. You have on several occasions said that they are not responsible. What is a genocide apologist if not someone who makes excuses for those who commit genocide?

Oh, you mean the 5 guys that you showed sources for?

The several men in highly influential position? Yes.

The instances where we have no clue what happened afterwards? Did they actually get a chance to try their strategy? Did it succeed? How many were infected? How many died? None of that is important.

We know that they got a chance to try. They literally said they did. We know that smallpox was a major contributor to the Native Americans being decimated. This is not a logical leap by any means. Military officials talked openly about wiping them out. They clearly admitted to giving the blankets and we have a epidemic of smallpox among the Native American people after this admission. If detectives approached investigations as you approach history, there would never be a solved crime in the United States.

I'm just a white supremacist for pointing that out though.

That is big of you to admit.

But yeah, those few sources alone prove that everyEuropean or American in a position of power did the exact same thing over the course of 200-300 years. Seems legit.

Another strawman. I did not say this. What we do have however, is several documented sources of government officials plotting and acting on the plans to wipe out the Native Americans. The state of California alone spent the equivalent of over 24 million dollars every year on killing Native Americans. I already said I would welcome you to provide any evidence of the government taking an opposing position to this but you flat refuse. You refuse to attempt to bring evidence or you tried and there is no evidence of any attempts to protect the Native American people during this time period. Whatever the case, evidence on your part is laughably non-existent in an argument about history.

Were you there?

Obviously not. But I don't need to be. I study microbiology. I researched the historical records. This is not beyond anyone with critical thinking skills. If only you had some...

How did you survive the biological warfare if you were there and were so certain of what happened?

What a stupid question this is. Even for you.

Ahh, so we don't know that it WASN'T common, so that means it probably was. Again, look up the word speculation for me, bud. You might learn something.

This is not speculation. It is deductive reasoning. Your entire argument is based on ignorance. I find it ironic that you are trying to project that buffoonery onto my argument. I am not saying that it was the case that everyone wanted to exterminate the Native Americans because there is no evidence that they didn't. I am saying that those of political influence, military and career politicians, could openly promoting it without ridicule or fear of being voted out. I am also saying that people were paying taxes that were used to exterminate the Native Americans. They did so without any complaint, as far as my research suggests. This would not be possible unless people either agreed with these openly held positions or were indifferent to them.

Because you are saying that millions of people did the exact same thing that a handful of people did!

Where did I say that?

...just because a handful of people did it!

Nowhere did I say that. I have only attributed evidence of genocide to those who are documented to have committed it. Your white guilt is clouding your judgment... again.

I find it so funny that you think you are so clever and intelligent. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

Being intelligent is relative. I am decidedly average in my profession but considering the field, I could jump off of a building, land on my head, and still run circles around you all day long. You seriously thought that to beat smallpox, people just needed to avoid the infected for 24 hours. How stupid is that?

I said that 90% died from disease and that makes me a genocide apologist in the eyes of SJW's. That's what's happening here.

No. You said that the men who admit to infecting Native Americans with smallpox did not such thing. You even admit to it in this very post. That is what is happening here.

So I have to admit to the ones that had high enough body counts (in your eyes) not to be considered a genocide apologist? Okay, dude.

You are confused. You are attempting a diversionary tactic by admitting to a smaller crime, to draw attention away from the larger crime. It's called an "infraction distraction".

I'm going to ignore this sad attempt to make yourself feel bigger there.

The fact that I know more about everything we are discussing is quite enough. I would just like you to stop embarrassing yourself, so I encouraged you to actually perform research on the topics you wish to discuss.

Do you, sincerely, believe that you have proven that a majority of Native Americans were killed on purpose just because of a few documented cases made that unsubstantiated claim? You are making an assumption about every European in power over hundreds of years based on the "actions" of a few.

The problem here is that it isn't unsubstantiated at all. The man literally said he did it with the intent of wiping out the Natives. As for your summation of my assumption, you are wrong. I never said that. Perhaps if you would put your white guilt in check, you would have realized this and maybe, just maybe, would have made something resembling a rational argument. Who am I kidding? You couldn't do that for a million dollars.

Again, you are speculating and reaching. "Herp why would they stop?" Well, derp, we don't know for a fact if their strategies worked.

It isn't speculation. We know they gave them infected blankets of a highly contagious disease. A disease so contageious, that is it virtually impossible that it was not met with success. One man is capable of starting a smallpox epidemic. Just one. There were at least two.

Do we have any diary entries where they note how effective their strategy was?

No. We instead have documented evidence of smallpox sweeping the population...

Do they ever talk about it at all afterwards?

My research isn't exhaustive. What we do have is enough to implicate them.

Do we know if they even TRIED it?

Yes. We do know at least this much as fact.

You have no proof that it happened on the scale that you are claiming. Absolutely none.

See deductive reasoning. You are using argumentum ad ignorantiam. It is true because I cannot prove it false.

Period. Call me racist, a genocide apologist, white supremacist, etc. for pointing that out, but that doesn't change this fact.

You have presented absolutely no facts at all. Facts are as smallpox to you. You avoid them for 24 hours and then return to see if they have gone.

Avatar image for anakon4
#160 Posted by anakon4 (438 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@anakon4 said:

@dshipp17:

"Americans killed around 60,000,000 of native americans."

Honestly, you should check these numbers; the world population hadn't yet reach the 1 billion mark, and I think the world population than was like 360 million. The killing of Native Americans wasn't for killing them with the goal of exterminating them, as Hitler's goal represented; also, I was staying on topic, as much as possible, so it wasn't geared towards answering every atrocity that had ever occurred. Yes, Hitler is clearly worse than the Europeans that colonized the Americans, even though they were of the same mold back than; these Europeans were at least content with making minorities slaves while Hitler wanted to exterminate.

Just in the Europe were around one hundred million people. Considering that in the capital of Aztecs were more people than in any major city of the European countries back then and that Aztecs were just one of the main kingdoms its relatively safe to assume that Indians had at least similar numbers to Europe back then.

Hitler's had mainly problems with Jews, Gypsies and Russians. There is no direct proof he would killed other germanic ethnicities or slavic races. Russians were only to be exterminated because they resisted. Settlers didn't even care if Indians resist or not, they killed them anyway.

"You really compare fanatic patriot, to fanatic idiots?"

It's not me, as I didn't make the thread, it's the OP.

"Stalin killed up to 7, 500, 000 of his OWN people of hunger + millions in world war."

And that's why Hitler is worse, relatively speaking; Stalin limited himself to his own people.

I really hope that you wont become president ever. Putting in front a leader that cares more for his potential enemies than his own blood is one of the worst things in the world.

"I really hope that you wont become president ever. Putting in front a leader that cares more for his potential enemies than his own blood is one of the worst things in the world."

Hitler was killing his own people and potential enemies; and I don't think you will ever become any type of significant leader, as you're literally trying to make the preposterous case that Hitler somehow deserves more sympathy than the United States colonists and the United States, when that wasn't even the topic of the discussion.

Maybe, but not such scales. I would rather take casulties caused by Hitler than casulties caused by U.S, it would be still less bloodier.

"Hitler's had mainly problems with Jews, Gypsies and Russians. There is no direct proof he would killed other germanic ethnicities or slavic races. Russians were only to be exterminated because they resisted. Settlers didn't even care if Indians resist or not, they killed them anyway."

Again, you can't seem to get the point of my first post here, Hitler was stopped in the midst of his activities, while the other two examples and the example that you introduced into the discussion had time to fully implement their actions; he was operating in African, at points and he wasn't just in Africa because it was strategic for his military; want to guess why Hitler was operating in Africa? Generally speaking, the Indians were killed because they tried to resists, when the case was applicable (e.g. they mostly died because of the infectious organisms that the Europeans carried within their systems); the Jews and German minority groups were not resisting Hitler, they were just living their lives, when Hitler came into power and uprooted them, as an act of coronation for his power rise. Initially, the colonists did try to meet and exists with the Indians, but, politics came into play and everything went terribly wrong from there.

That straight up lie. If you havent noticed so far word Colonism means the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

Settlers wanted to stay there and spread, which was against Indians desires. That combined with the basic strategy british and french had common with spanish (work, slavery). Settlers only cooperate only if it was beneficial for them.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a853424245e3
#161 Posted by deactivated-5a853424245e3 (4168 posts) - - Show Bio

@erik_soong:

No Caption Provided

Solid debating. This made me lol:

Yeah, those damn SJW and their "facts". Their damn "evidence". Only idiots use that stuff. Smart people, like you, use the power of their imagination to understand history.

Avatar image for deactivated-5988def3424a7
#162 Posted by deactivated-5988def3424a7 (5386 posts) - - Show Bio

Saddam Hussein

Avatar image for eto
#163 Posted by Eto (5224 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for erik_soong
#164 Posted by Erik_Soong (1560 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for bluehope
#165 Edited by BlueHope (2681 posts) - - Show Bio

@erik_soong said:

So those few instances prove that every single Native American village and tribe was wiped out by smallpox blankets? Do you hear yourself?

No. But I am at least coming from a position of evidence. Given the high infection rate of smallpox, the incubation period, and the deliberate attempt to exterminate the Native Americans using smallpox on at least some documented occasions, there is not any reason at all to deny that it was likely entirely deliberate except to shield yourself from your own shame.

So you believe that all the infections were caused intentionally because some few cases were mentioned as intentional?

Avatar image for erik_soong
#166 Posted by Erik_Soong (1560 posts) - - Show Bio

@bluehope said:

So you believe that all the infections were caused intentionally because some few cases were mentioned as intentional?

How does this need to be constantly explained? Try reading the whole post and not just the parts that make you mad.

Avatar image for bluehope
#167 Edited by BlueHope (2681 posts) - - Show Bio

@bluehope said:

So you believe that all the infections were caused intentionally because some few cases were mentioned as intentional?

How does this need to be constantly explained? Try reading the whole post and not just the parts that make you mad.

Wow calm down dude. You don't need to make turn this into a heated debate.

Avatar image for erik_soong
#168 Posted by Erik_Soong (1560 posts) - - Show Bio

@bluehope said:

Wow calm down dude. You don't need to make turn this into a heated debate.

How many times do you need to repeat yourself on a topic before you dispense with the niceties?

Avatar image for bluehope
#169 Edited by BlueHope (2681 posts) - - Show Bio

@erik_soong said:
@bluehope said:

Wow calm down dude. You don't need to make turn this into a heated debate.

How many times do you need to repeat yourself on a topic before you dispense with the niceties?

I don't think that's a reason to start flamewars but whatever.

But about your example I don't see valid using few examples of intentional infections to reach to the conclusion that the whole thing was intentional, if there was a document by the goverments leaders talking about cleasing the entire state with biological warfare or most of those cases had a documention it would be a more valid example.

Avatar image for erik_soong
#170 Edited by Erik_Soong (1560 posts) - - Show Bio

@bluehope said:
@erik_soong said:
@bluehope said:

Wow calm down dude. You don't need to make turn this into a heated debate.

How many times do you need to repeat yourself on a topic before you dispense with the niceties?

I don't think that's a reason to start flamewars but whatever.

But about your example I don't see valid using few examples of intentional infections to reach to the conclusion that the whole thing was intentional, if there was a document by the goverments leaders talking about cleasing the entire state with biological warfare or most of those cases had a documention it would be a more valid example.

You're right, you were not the one that I have had to repeat myself to in this thread. I apologize.

The problem with your counterpoint is that these are deliberate infections from the military. British, French, and US military, as well as political leaders are documented to have openly attempted it, openly admitted to it, or have conveniently destroyed records during times when smallpox outbreaks occurred to the surrounding Native population. The last example is not direct evidence but it is highly suspicious and lends to what is direct evidence.

As for your desired evidence of government leaders talking about cleansing, say no more. @lunacyde provided exactly that evidence in his earlier posts.

This is a situation where we have a dead body, a smoking gun, culprit holding said smoking gun while standing over the dead body, and in some cases, written confession. To deny that smallpox was used as a biological weapon is ludicrous.

Avatar image for noone1996
#171 Posted by Noone1996 (11469 posts) - - Show Bio

@bluehope: You are just a genocide apologist, my friend. It's COMPLETELY OBVIOUS that every single village infected was intentionally infected from smallpox blankets (even though not all Native Americans died from that disease). A handful of examples say it all.

Avatar image for hankscorpio
#173 Posted by HankScorpio (120 posts) - - Show Bio

Stalin > Mao > Hitler although all three of them we're some of the most deplorable men in human history.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#174 Edited by dshipp17 (5436 posts) - - Show Bio

@anakon4 said:
@dshipp17 said:
@anakon4 said:

@dshipp17:

"Americans killed around 60,000,000 of native americans."

Honestly, you should check these numbers; the world population hadn't yet reach the 1 billion mark, and I think the world population than was like 360 million. The killing of Native Americans wasn't for killing them with the goal of exterminating them, as Hitler's goal represented; also, I was staying on topic, as much as possible, so it wasn't geared towards answering every atrocity that had ever occurred. Yes, Hitler is clearly worse than the Europeans that colonized the Americans, even though they were of the same mold back than; these Europeans were at least content with making minorities slaves while Hitler wanted to exterminate.

Just in the Europe were around one hundred million people. Considering that in the capital of Aztecs were more people than in any major city of the European countries back then and that Aztecs were just one of the main kingdoms its relatively safe to assume that Indians had at least similar numbers to Europe back then.

Hitler's had mainly problems with Jews, Gypsies and Russians. There is no direct proof he would killed other germanic ethnicities or slavic races. Russians were only to be exterminated because they resisted. Settlers didn't even care if Indians resist or not, they killed them anyway.

"You really compare fanatic patriot, to fanatic idiots?"

It's not me, as I didn't make the thread, it's the OP.

"Stalin killed up to 7, 500, 000 of his OWN people of hunger + millions in world war."

And that's why Hitler is worse, relatively speaking; Stalin limited himself to his own people.

I really hope that you wont become president ever. Putting in front a leader that cares more for his potential enemies than his own blood is one of the worst things in the world.

"I really hope that you wont become president ever. Putting in front a leader that cares more for his potential enemies than his own blood is one of the worst things in the world."

Hitler was killing his own people and potential enemies; and I don't think you will ever become any type of significant leader, as you're literally trying to make the preposterous case that Hitler somehow deserves more sympathy than the United States colonists and the United States, when that wasn't even the topic of the discussion.

Maybe, but not such scales. I would rather take casulties caused by Hitler than casulties caused by U.S, it would be still less bloodier.

"Hitler's had mainly problems with Jews, Gypsies and Russians. There is no direct proof he would killed other germanic ethnicities or slavic races. Russians were only to be exterminated because they resisted. Settlers didn't even care if Indians resist or not, they killed them anyway."

Again, you can't seem to get the point of my first post here, Hitler was stopped in the midst of his activities, while the other two examples and the example that you introduced into the discussion had time to fully implement their actions; he was operating in African, at points and he wasn't just in Africa because it was strategic for his military; want to guess why Hitler was operating in Africa? Generally speaking, the Indians were killed because they tried to resists, when the case was applicable (e.g. they mostly died because of the infectious organisms that the Europeans carried within their systems); the Jews and German minority groups were not resisting Hitler, they were just living their lives, when Hitler came into power and uprooted them, as an act of coronation for his power rise. Initially, the colonists did try to meet and exists with the Indians, but, politics came into play and everything went terribly wrong from there.

That straight up lie. If you havent noticed so far word Colonism means the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

Settlers wanted to stay there and spread, which was against Indians desires. That combined with the basic strategy british and french had common with spanish (work, slavery). Settlers only cooperate only if it was beneficial for them.

"Maybe, but not such scales. I would rather take casulties caused by Hitler than casulties caused by U.S, it would be still less bloodier."

How would taking foreign casualties be less bloody than taking domestic casualties? A military loss is a military loss despite the source of the loss.

"That straight up lie. If you havent noticed so far word Colonism means the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically."

The comment might have been an honest mistake, but not a lie; perhaps I should have used the term, pilgrim, as that is more what I meant; originally, the trip was just a voyage of exploration; I think Columbus was looking to see if the Earth was flat or if he would get back to familiar territory, when he undertook his voyage. Again, I said before politics took over and you skipped ahead to the politics part and came back at me with that; in other wards, out of context.

"Settlers wanted to stay there and spread, which was against Indians desires. That combined with the basic strategy british and french had common with spanish (work, slavery). Settlers only cooperate only if it was beneficial for them."

Was that the initial goal of Columbus, when he first undertook his voyage?

Avatar image for anakon4
#175 Posted by anakon4 (438 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@anakon4 said:
@dshipp17 said:
@anakon4 said:

@dshipp17:

"Americans killed around 60,000,000 of native americans."

Honestly, you should check these numbers; the world population hadn't yet reach the 1 billion mark, and I think the world population than was like 360 million. The killing of Native Americans wasn't for killing them with the goal of exterminating them, as Hitler's goal represented; also, I was staying on topic, as much as possible, so it wasn't geared towards answering every atrocity that had ever occurred. Yes, Hitler is clearly worse than the Europeans that colonized the Americans, even though they were of the same mold back than; these Europeans were at least content with making minorities slaves while Hitler wanted to exterminate.

Just in the Europe were around one hundred million people. Considering that in the capital of Aztecs were more people than in any major city of the European countries back then and that Aztecs were just one of the main kingdoms its relatively safe to assume that Indians had at least similar numbers to Europe back then.

Hitler's had mainly problems with Jews, Gypsies and Russians. There is no direct proof he would killed other germanic ethnicities or slavic races. Russians were only to be exterminated because they resisted. Settlers didn't even care if Indians resist or not, they killed them anyway.

"You really compare fanatic patriot, to fanatic idiots?"

It's not me, as I didn't make the thread, it's the OP.

"Stalin killed up to 7, 500, 000 of his OWN people of hunger + millions in world war."

And that's why Hitler is worse, relatively speaking; Stalin limited himself to his own people.

I really hope that you wont become president ever. Putting in front a leader that cares more for his potential enemies than his own blood is one of the worst things in the world.

"I really hope that you wont become president ever. Putting in front a leader that cares more for his potential enemies than his own blood is one of the worst things in the world."

Hitler was killing his own people and potential enemies; and I don't think you will ever become any type of significant leader, as you're literally trying to make the preposterous case that Hitler somehow deserves more sympathy than the United States colonists and the United States, when that wasn't even the topic of the discussion.

Maybe, but not such scales. I would rather take casulties caused by Hitler than casulties caused by U.S, it would be still less bloodier.

"Hitler's had mainly problems with Jews, Gypsies and Russians. There is no direct proof he would killed other germanic ethnicities or slavic races. Russians were only to be exterminated because they resisted. Settlers didn't even care if Indians resist or not, they killed them anyway."

Again, you can't seem to get the point of my first post here, Hitler was stopped in the midst of his activities, while the other two examples and the example that you introduced into the discussion had time to fully implement their actions; he was operating in African, at points and he wasn't just in Africa because it was strategic for his military; want to guess why Hitler was operating in Africa? Generally speaking, the Indians were killed because they tried to resists, when the case was applicable (e.g. they mostly died because of the infectious organisms that the Europeans carried within their systems); the Jews and German minority groups were not resisting Hitler, they were just living their lives, when Hitler came into power and uprooted them, as an act of coronation for his power rise. Initially, the colonists did try to meet and exists with the Indians, but, politics came into play and everything went terribly wrong from there.

That straight up lie. If you havent noticed so far word Colonism means the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

Settlers wanted to stay there and spread, which was against Indians desires. That combined with the basic strategy british and french had common with spanish (work, slavery). Settlers only cooperate only if it was beneficial for them.

"

How would taking foreign casualties be less bloody than taking domestic casualties? A military loss is a military loss despite the source of the loss.

I never said that. I just said you killed more people.

The comment might have been an honest mistake, but not a lie; perhaps I should have used the term, pilgrim, as that is more what I meant; originally, the trip was just a voyage of exploration; I think Columbus was looking to see if the Earth was flat or if he would get back to familiar territory, when he undertook his voyage. Again, I said before politics took over and you skipped ahead to the politics part and came back at me with that; in other wards, out of context.

That wont change the fact, that it doesn't matter how it starts, but how it continues.

"

Was that the initial goal of Columbus, when he first undertook his voyage?

Does it matter? He could easily predict what will happen, if the European countries found such a fat pretty sheeps to slaughter.

Avatar image for depinhom
#176 Posted by depinhom (13506 posts) - - Show Bio

Naturally, I would say Stalin, but if I think about it deeper, I am not sure. I usually give the reason of Stalin killing more people for why he is worse, but Hitler would have killed just as many, if not more, had he been given the chance. On top of that, Stalin at least helped the Allies, even if it was for his own selfish reasons.

I am going to vote Stalin just so I can see results. Definitely not Mao.

Avatar image for keenko
#177 Posted by Keenko (5186 posts) - - Show Bio

Stalin

Avatar image for keenko
#178 Posted by Keenko (5186 posts) - - Show Bio

@anakon4 said:

Stalin at least protected his folk

Loading Video...

Avatar image for dshipp17
#179 Edited by dshipp17 (5436 posts) - - Show Bio

@depinhom said:

Naturally, I would say Stalin, but if I think about it deeper, I am not sure. I usually give the reason of Stalin killing more people for why he is worse, but Hitler would have killed just as many, if not more, had he been given the chance. On top of that, Stalin at least helped the Allies, even if it was for his own selfish reasons.

I am going to vote Stalin just so I can see results. Definitely not Mao.

That's the way to look at it, Hitler surely would have caused more people to be killed, had he not been stopped; and, for one, if Stalingrad never happened, but, instead went for the Germans, I fear Russia would have been a very sad place (or series of events) in the history books now; without the Battle of Stalingrad, the Swastika might be every where right now; right now, we'd probably have a standoff in the Asian countries, with them the last holding out against Germany; the difference would be that the casualty numbers would be awful.

Avatar image for dirkgently90
#180 Posted by dirkgently90 (101 posts) - - Show Bio

Mao, Stalin, Hitler in that order, but I picked Stalin because Asians don't count.

Avatar image for llehdevil
#181 Edited by LlehDevil (7259 posts) - - Show Bio

Mao, he starved like 10 to 20 millions of his people at the time of his reign, and starvation is one of the worst ways to die. Also labor worker abuse was probably at an all time high along with starvation (at least if u were a working Jew under Hitler u would be fed before u were gassed to death).

Avatar image for anakon4
#183 Posted by anakon4 (438 posts) - - Show Bio

@keenko said:
@anakon4 said:

Stalin at least protected his folk

Loading Video...

My fault. But if you read the whole comment, you would realise i just miswrote the name. I ment Hitler.

Avatar image for keenko
#184 Posted by Keenko (5186 posts) - - Show Bio

@anakon4: Tbh I was just feeling like being a dick, it was nothing personal.

Avatar image for noone1996
#185 Edited by Noone1996 (11469 posts) - - Show Bio
Loading Video...

The "Smallpox Blanket" Myth

Ernest W. Adams

I frequently hear allegations that the United States of America intentionally wiped out native American tribes by giving smallpox-infested blankets to them. Let's clear this up.

First, there has never at any time been a formal policy of the United States government to entirely wipe out the native Americans by disease or any other manner. The original policy, left over from the colonial era, was "separation and sovereignty." The native American tribes were and remain sovereign nations, although the United States handles defense, international relations, and certain other affairs for them, rather as the United Kingdom does for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. They are now also dual nationals with the United States. Many native Americans proudly serve in the United States military and have compiled an exemplary record there.

Now, about these smallpox blankets.

During the Siege of Fort Pitt in 1763 -- 13 years before American independence -- Delaware and Shawnee Indians, aroused by Pontiac's Rebellion, attacked Fort Pitt, which was near modern day Pittsburgh. Shortly after the siege began, British General Jeffrey Amherst wrote to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who was preparing to lead a party of troops to relieve the siege, "Could it not be contrived to Send the Small Pox among those Disaffected Tribes of Indians? We must, on this occasion, Use Every Stratagem in our power to Reduce them." Bouquet agreed, but there is no evidence that he actually carried out the suggestion, and he indicated in a letter that he was afraid he could contract smallpox himself.

However, those besieged in the fort had already, of their own initiative, tried to infect the besiegers with smallpox and failed. During a parley, the fort's leader, Captain Simeon Ecuyer, gave blankets and a handkerchief from a smallpox ward to two of the native American delegates, Turtleheart and Mamaltee. The effort evidently failed, because they came back for further talks a month later with no signs of disease, and smallpox normally shows signs within two weeks. Furthermore Turtleheart was one of the signatories in the Treaty of Fort Stanwix five years later. Modern historians believe that the blankets had been unused for too long, and any virus present on the blankets would have already died. It is also possible that the Delaware Indians who were given the blankets were immune through prior contact. Smallpox kills 30-35% of those who get it; those who survive are immune from then on.

One thing that is certain is that many native Americans had already contracted smallpox in the ordinary way, unintentionally though contacts with infected whites. There is no example of an outbreak in the Fort Pitt region following the siege. There is a documented outbreak elsewhere in the region among a different people, the Lenape, who had attacked a white settlement where smallpox was present.

So, in conclusion:

  • Infecting people with smallpox was not US government policy or practice, and the only effort to do so occurred prior to US independence.
  • The Fort Pitt event was undertaken by Captain Simeon Ecuyer of the British army on his own initiative; it was neither official British policy or official army policy. In fact, King George III's Royal Proclamation of 1763banned colonial settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains because that territory belonged to the native Americans.
  • There is no evidence that it succeeded; there is some evidence that it failed, as the people given the blankets are known to have survived.

Citation: "The British, the Indians, and Smallpox: What Actually Happened at Fort Pitt in 1763?"

Philip Ranlet

Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies

Vol. 67, No. 3, Crime in Pennsylvania (Summer 2000), pp. 427-441

Avatar image for anakon4
#186 Posted by anakon4 (438 posts) - - Show Bio

@keenko said:

@anakon4: Tbh I was just feeling like being a dick, it was nothing personal.

Oh, its okay. Wanna go on some summer camp?

Avatar image for keenko
#187 Posted by Keenko (5186 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for anakon4
#188 Edited by anakon4 (438 posts) - - Show Bio

@keenko said:

@anakon4: yes pls

But you have to really really concentrate there.

Avatar image for removekebab
#189 Posted by removekebab (3789 posts) - - Show Bio

Mao literally means Demon King.

Avatar image for mrmonster
#190 Posted by mrmonster (14666 posts) - - Show Bio

Bump

Avatar image for stalin-is-steel
#191 Posted by Stalin-Is-Steel (3586 posts) - - Show Bio

It's Hitler boi, Stalin was the best outta all of them

Avatar image for icedemonking
#192 Posted by IceDemonKing (9982 posts) - - Show Bio

Me.

Avatar image for jagernutt
#193 Posted by jagernutt (16215 posts) - - Show Bio

They were all bad

Avatar image for removekebab
#194 Edited by removekebab (3789 posts) - - Show Bio

@removekebab said:

Stalin was an irredemable monster my dudes.

Correction, they all dindu nuffin wrong

Avatar image for batmanplusjay
#195 Posted by BatmanPlusJay (3888 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: Bruh... Is Hitler considered a villain since he literally tried to rule the world?

Avatar image for batmanplusjay
#196 Posted by BatmanPlusJay (3888 posts) - - Show Bio

@stalin-is-steel: You're a Stalin sympathizer gtfo mf

Avatar image for phillip33
#197 Posted by phillip33 (3924 posts) - - Show Bio

@noone1996: solid argument ender right there mate. Always nice to see an SJW confronted and refuted.

Avatar image for deactivated-5c07a0327fd39
#198 Edited by deactivated-5c07a0327fd39 (4596 posts) - - Show Bio

#Hitlerdidnothingwrong

Avatar image for fairtrade
#199 Posted by fairtrade (780 posts) - - Show Bio

Capitalist propaganda smh

Avatar image for fairtrade
#200 Posted by fairtrade (780 posts) - - Show Bio

@gear4god: Renchamp is going to shoah you now lmao