Who would you vote for? *Intellectuals only*

If:

-There would be NO purging/mass genocide/holocaust after either of these men are elected king/queen/president, etc... (where ever you may live).
-you are obliged to vote (you have to vote) for one of them.

Adolf Hitler
Benito Mussolini
Joseph Stalin

EDIT: Please vote and explain your reasoning. Do not let my vote influence your vote.
I will vote for Adolf Hitler. He was a very smart man and clearly knew how to run a country effectively. He was a charismatic speaker and helped to bring Germany out of the rut they were in. He also helped to stimulate Germany's economy for a short while and is a far better politician than Benito Mussolini.

 

That's impossible, but I chose Hitler.

He was an inspiring leader, though in a completely counter-productive way, and united most of Germany through hard times. He also was an amazing speaker. Some of his policies I believe where rather beneficial to Germany, however his stance on other matters, wasn't sane.

 

why would that be impossible?

 

I would have to say Stalin, purely for the fact that because of him, Russia became a major Industrial Power. Also i feel in small community's Communism would actually work as everyone would be equals and everything would be shared out equally.

 

Granted, all three of these leaders had their individual strengths.

To my knowledge, it is impossible to literally re-write history.
Since I act accordingly, based upon my knowledge in a particular situation, it is certainly impossible.
Lastly, the scenario you paint is a ridiculous one. I can't even begin to relate to it.

 

you are missing the entire point of the discussion.
You are entering a "hypothetical" discussion and claiming I am trying to re-write history. Not at all. Your argument is invalid and you are now in contrast with your self and are now deemed as insane by holding these two beliefs: Participating in a hypothetical thread while at the same time claiming it's purpose is to re-write history. This is hypothetica, yes? So why must I be bound to "history"? Why can I not say, "What if..."? I cannot fathom your argument for it stands invalid against a topic that is clearly far over your head.

 

Hitler, because he was extremely manipulative and convinced the people of Germany with a scapegoat to fight for his cause.

 

Both fascism and communism are hopeless and lead to complete failure, none of these candidates could enforce the type of political views they hold without the brute, murderous force they're known for. So, all would fail.

 

I would chose Adolf Hitler for a few Reasons, He started a political party from nothing, He understood the risk's of what he was doing, and always overlooked the future twice, unlike the politics of Today.

 

Hitler did not start the Nazi Party, and what to what risks, specifically, are you referring?

 

They're all bad choices, but I suppose Hitler, although if I had the choice I would abstain.

 

I'd abstain. Mussolini is the worst yet safest leader, so if I had to vote for one (like didnt even have the choice to die and not vote) I'd definitely vote for him.

He was such a good risk manager he declared war on the most dangerous power to his state (USSR) out of little more than pure arrogance.

 

Hitler for the fact that he was actually a great leader in his prime.

 

This is easy, Mussolini is easily the worst of the three. Hitler and Stalin come close both rose two countries to prime and power. In the end I believe that Stalin is the greater of the two. Because when it came down to Stalin vs Hitler, Stalin came out victorious.

When Hitler had Stalin on his side, they where doing great and making progress. But the moment he back stabbed him Hitler started falling.

 

you are basing who makes a better leader upon the fact that the USSR defeated Nazi Germany?

 

Hitler, he changed the world in many ways... be they good, be they sad.

 

Not entirely. Both of them brought countries to their glories. Why Im choosing Stalin is partly because of them defeating Nazi Germany. IF Hitler was the greater leader Nazi Germany would have survived longer, they would have become on the super powers but they didn't. Stalin and the USSR did.

When it comes down too it. Nazi Germany was doing good while under the Non-Aggression Pact with the soviet union. When 1941 rolls around and they undermine this pact they start going down. I know the soviets didn't win the whole war but they did win a majority of it and who brought up this power of a country? Stalin.

Really if the Allies had stepped in sooner Hitlers reign would've been shorter lived. For Stalin his empire lasted till 1991.(of course he didn't have power the whole time but he did build up the majority of it.)

 

I think that a lot of people would vote for Adolf Hitler simply because he was inspiring. Although he was clearly evil by the end of it, he did bring Germany out of the Depression that they were in - Which is what he promised to do and more.

 

Hitler.

He could run the people, and did things for the people.
I don't want to upset anybody by saying this, but I believe what he did was right, FOR HIM.

I believe that he did only what he saw right. I don't agree with what he did, but I think he was only doing what he saw best for his country. He pulled the country together in a time of need, and motivated many to join his cause.

 

You think him orchestrating killings of millions of innocent people was the "right" thing to do?