The Instigator
WorldWar2Debator
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Jifpop09
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Would a Nazified or Bolshevik world be better?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Jifpop09
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 566 times Debate No: 48666
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

WorldWar2Debator

Pro

Stalin is more oppressed than Hitler: Stalin thought nothing of butchering retreaters. He hated anything un-Russian, and he was cruel. He signed death warrent after death warrent without looking at the names, and let his son did in prison. Hitler liberated Germany from debt and bankrupt. He built a new empire for her. And he died for her. His killing of Jews is probably the only reason he is considered evil in the first place.
Jifpop09

Con

I accept. I will argue that nazism is a very bad philosophy, and boshlevik under Lenin would of been the better alternative. I will not argue Stalin, as many agree he was not 100% boshlevik.
Debate Round No. 1
WorldWar2Debator

Pro

Let's consider Bolshevism: born in 1917 under a revolution, raised under what is looked back as a tyrant of a leader and then seen as uncivilised. A mirror of Nazism. But Nazism is so much better is so many ways: it looked after Germany during it's post WW1 years (Germany's poorest in history) and it grew her militarily. Yes, the Nazis did "inhumane" things, but when you consider the Katyn forest, the NKVD and the prospect of being shot by your own commander for retreat, Nazism looks and seems like heaven. And when Roosevelt died in 1945, surprise surprise, a certain Joseph Stalin built himself a big army and using half of Europe, created the Cold War, lasting nearly half a century, as opposed to WW2's 7 years.
Jifpop09

Con

ARYAN SUPERIORITY
-----------------------------------------
THE NAZI BELIEVE IN RACIAL SUPERIORITY OUTWEIGHS ALL OTHER ARGUMENTS. IF ANY COUNTRY WERE TO ADOPT NAZISM AT ITS CORE, THEY WOULD BE PROMOTING RACIAL SUPERIORITY.

FACISM
-----------------------------------------

NAZISM WAS CLASSIFIED AS A FORM OF FACISM, WHICH PROMOTES EXTREME NATIONALISM, AND A DANGEROUS AMOUNT OF MILITARY CONTROL.

Those are all the arguments I can make for now, as I am busy, so forgive me.
Debate Round No. 2
WorldWar2Debator

Pro

I would like to remind Con that racism (let's just admit it) is a part of people that no one is brave enough to admit. I believe that Hitler himself was Jewish, and so he was possibly killing his own kind without knowing it. Mind you, going back to the NKVD, they used to gather THEIR OWN PEOPLE and shoot them. On top of that, Russian soldiers were known to rape German women, which is totally barbaric. Communism isn't great: during the Battle of Stalingrad, thousands of cold and hungry Soviet women were worked to treaty to provide for their soldiers. So the Soviet Union was probably lucky to even exist without those poor women. This just proves that Communists are cruel to their own people. Imagine how they would be to the entire world. All the Soviet leaders ever did was threaten with missiles. Mind you, if it weren't for the Nazis, you wouldn't have the designs for those missiles: Soviet missiles were basically upgrades for the V1's and V2's. Had one of your leaders simply pushed a button, he could've nuked the whole of North America!

I'd like to thank Con for this debate and wish him luck in this and future debates. Vote Pro!
Jifpop09

Con

I will remind my opponent, this debate is not about Nazi Germany vs Soviet Union, but Boshlevikism or Nazism. I will also remind him I will not argue boshlevikism under Stalin,as hecreated his own philosophy known as Stalinism.

Argument 1: Reinforcement of Nazi Aryanism

As I said earlier, Supremacism outweighs all other factors. The very fact that a race is deemed impure, because of the way they are born is ridiculous.


http://www.ushmm.org...

Argument 2: Reinforcment of Facism

Once again, the Nazis practiced a superb amount of Facism. Either you shared complete ant utter obedience to the state, or you would be disposed of. While boshleviksm under Lenin was not nearly on the same level of facism.

http://remember.org...


Argument 3: Nazism was Totalitarian

One big difference between Nazi Germany and Lenins Boshlevikism, is that one was totalitarian and the other authoritarian. Totalitarian is an extreme form of total economic dominance, and while it works for short periods of time, eventually the system will always backfire. Citizens would be subjected to complete government dominance. A system now used in the DPRK and Republic of Cuba.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by saxman 3 years ago
saxman
In theory, neither are amazing. really, naziism is an offshoot of socialism and fascism. The Bolsheviks were communist. and Fascism is better than communism. But capitalism is best.
Posted by Tulbakra 3 years ago
Tulbakra
Interesting debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
WorldWar2DebatorJifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro looked at the ways in which Stalin and the Soviet Union was bad, not how Bolshevism was bad. He talked about the Soviet crimes and how you could be shot for retreating in the Red Army. I felt that Con showed how Nazism was much worse since it believed in being born supreme and having a supreme race. Pro really needs to work on putting sources into his debates. I have read several of his debates and none of them have any sources.