Who had a greater impact on history: Lenin or Hitler?

Who had the greater Impact?

  • Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin)

    Votes: 74 66.1%
  • Adolf Shickelgruber (Hitler)

    Votes: 38 33.9%

  • Total voters
    112
  • Poll closed .
Lenin by a head and a half. There are no more fascist gummints left, and there are still Communist gummints left. And Communism covered more turf. And it killed more people, as noted above.

You know, Communism's NO DICTATORSHIP. If it'd been just another dictatorship, it would never've outlasted Stalin at the farthest, like Fascism. Instead, it's something else as ugly - a repressive oligarchy, not all that unlike classical Sparta in spirit (see Sparta's tude on property) - a handful of powerful men who have to work together to get things done. The oligarchy's chosen from an aristocracy of Communists instead of Spartiates or other old-style aristocracies. And, no, Stalin never totally hacked it - there're plenty of quotes in Churchill about Stalin regularly having to convince others of things or face consequences, something a dictator has no need for.

Yeah, Hitler had his effect, but less' than's being said on the thread - he invented neither dictatorship, nor nationalism, nor racism - those are all ancient or at latest classical inventions.

Lenin was probably the most extreme of the talented Russian Communists. Communists could easily have won in Russia, but without Lenin, you'd have a pretty different implementation of Communism - possibly even democratic, as Trotsky called for, in which case it would've lost elections to more moderate parties as soon as the commies stopped being able to feed the people.
 
Lenin by a head and a half. There are no more fascist gummints left, and there are still Communist gummints left. And Communism covered more turf. And it killed more people, as noted above.

I don't think those are terribly useful frames of reference. They don't show us how much of our modern world would be differant without Hitler or Lenin, and I don't think taht can be helpfully compared.

You know, Communism's NO DICTATORSHIP. If it'd been just another dictatorship, it would never've outlasted Stalin at the farthest, like Fascism. Instead, it's something else as ugly - a repressive oligarchy, not all that unlike classical Sparta in spirit (see Sparta's tude on property) - a handful of powerful men who have to work together to get things done. The oligarchy's chosen from an aristocracy of Communists instead of Spartiates or other old-style aristocracies. And, no, Stalin never totally hacked it - there're plenty of quotes in Churchill about Stalin regularly having to convince others of things or face consequences, something a dictator has no need for.

If Stalinist Russia wasn't a dictatorship, nothing has ever been in the history of mankind. In every dictatorship, there is a favoured elite from which the people who run things are drawn, and every elite becomes powerful and influential in its own right. Tsarist Russia, despite having autocracy on the operating instructions, had an enormously influential nobility. And of course the German Junkers tried to off Hitler...

Yeah, Hitler had his effect, but less' than's being said on the thread - he invented neither dictatorship, nor nationalism, nor racism - those are all ancient or at latest classical inventions.

Who said he invented any of these? Who said that was relevant? While I believe that the circmstances and people they arise in shape them decisively, things like racism, dictatorship, and nationalism would all emerge whatever happened, really. We're talking about the enormous effect Hitler had on the physical world.

Lenin was probably the most extreme of the talented Russian Communists. Communists could easily have won in Russia, but without Lenin, you'd have a pretty different implementation of Communism - possibly even democratic, as Trotsky called for, in which case it would've lost elections to more moderate parties as soon as the commies stopped being able to feed the people.

Whiel I agree that Lenin was a particularly "decisive shaper", I find it questionable that any Communist government would allow multi-party democracy. In any case I think Lenin was the main impetus behind the coup.
 
I'm going to take up the "Lenin" side on this. My focus is on WWII. If I can either remove Lenin or Hitler from OTL, but not both, and not anyone else, then I think I have a much better chance of avoiding WWII if I remove Lenin.

Timing is important in achieving WWII, it is not similar to itself if it is separated into several smaller regional conflicts separated in time from each other.

I take as fact the following two propositions:

A) Hitler comes to power primarily because the German people fear the Bolshevik state during the 1930s. Lots of German individuals and organizations that would have resisted and perhaps prevented the Nazis held back due to fear of the Bolsheviks.

B) The Bolshevik state exists in the 1930's primarily because of actions taken by V. Lenin. Without Lenin, the other revolutionaries of the European Communist Congress might easily have chosen a different, more industrialized state for their target revolution, or failed to attempt a 1917 revolution altogether. The eventual occurrence of Marxist influenced states seems inevitable, but that it must be Russia and must be in 1917 are happenstances.

Saying "Lenin is an earlier butterfly" or something similar doesn't fairly illustrate how dependent the Nazi ascension is on the perception of Soviet aggression.

Remove Lenin, and a different Russia will face a different Germany, possibly allying in some later European war. The Japanese will make their own fate in Asia. Smaller sequential wars mean less economic mobilization in the U.S.

If, as I'm arguing, the absence of Lenin makes a bigger difference than the absence of Hitler (the loss of the first prevents the second), then Lenin's influence does indeed include Hitler and all his works.
 
I think his point was that Nazi Germany's racism was so extreme that racism started becoming unrespectable after the war. I think he is correct there, I have argued that myself.

Ok, I understand. I can agree with that. If anything, the average man started to step away from racism while the already radicals just became more radical.
 
At first, I was going to vote Hitler. But as I started to read the posts on here, I now think its Lenin.

Because of Lenin, I don't think a Communist State would've arose in Russia. That would cause so many butterflies that it isn't funny.

Without Hitler, I think that Lenin's influence would still be strengthen here because the Soviet Union would still be there AND Germany would've became Communist as well.

So, without Lenin, Hitler would be weaker.

Without Hitler, Lenin's legacy is strengthen.
 
Well, it's hard to say. I wasn't able to vote for some reason, it wouldn't let me vote despite my being logged in, but if I were able to vote, I'd have to vote Lenin. In the First World War, when the Tsar's Russia was fighting unsuccessfully against Imperial Germany, though they were not winning, they were simply what some would call a distraction. The Germans still had to send forces over to Russia to fight them, and a lot of forces as well. If Russia had not been fighting Germany, these German forces would probably have been sent to fight on the Western Front, and could have won WWI. Lenin, in some ways, caused Russian involvement in WWI, because of the many Communists in the Russian Army who believed in fighting for Russia, despite its Tsarism. Russian involvement brought on the German defeat, and this was what gave Hitler his momentum in his ascendance to power and fighting WWII. I agree with an earlier statement that said that Lenin's impact brought on Hitler's impact, so without Lenin, we would have no impact whatsoever! That is my argument.
 
Without Hitler, I think that Lenin's influence would still be strengthen here because the Soviet Union would still be there AND Germany would've became Communist as well..

No, it wouldn't. What's with this? The options were apparently Nazis, Commies, and if you're lucky the Junkers. Do we have something against the Germans? Does seeing them live under a liberal democracy make us twitch and scowl?
 
Lenin, in some ways, caused Russian involvement in WWI, because of the many Communists in the Russian Army who believed in fighting for Russia, despite its Tsarism.

What?

Lenin had nothing to do with causing WW1. The only argument I can make out there is something to the tune of "Lenin's Russian nationalism meant that he allowed the Russian ary to function rather than crippling it with mass mutiny". That's frankly bollocks.

Lenin was no Russian nationalist. The Bolsheviks in the army entered as agitators to spread radicalism among the soldiers, and they by no means "many" in Russian army terms, given that the Bolshes were a minority of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party who were a minority of the Russian radical left.
 
No, it wouldn't. What's with this? The options were apparently Nazis, Commies, and if you're lucky the Junkers. Do we have something against the Germans? Does seeing them live under a liberal democracy make us twitch and scowl?

True, it could have been almost anything without Lenin. I think the Allies made it harder for democracy to survive by demanding too much from Germany after the war. To some extent the Allies contributed to the decline of the Weimer Republic by the overly harsh terms of the treaty.
 
This is interesting. I first thought Lenin was the obvious choice, but after thinking about it more I went for Hitler. Not because National Socialism was a more important or influential totalitarian movement than communism (it wasn't) or Nazi Germany lasted longer and was more powerful than the USSR (it didn't), or even because Nazis have cooler uniforms and a slam bang swastika flag (they did).

No, Hitlerism's influence lay in the reactions it caused, which still continue to shape the world today. Without Hitlerism there would not have been a grand alliance uniting capitalists and communists in a global war. No precedents would have been set for international war crimes tribunals and the general consensus which led to the UN Charter. Racial discrimination would not have been so thoroughly discredited in the mainstream cultures of the US and Europe. There would probably be no Israel as the west would not feel such a strong moral strong obligation to survining European jews whose plight they largely ignored 1933-45. Imagine how that would affect developments in the Middle East! Anything less than total German defeat in 1945 (made completely essential because of the existence of National Socialism) would probably not have set the stage for the wholesale re-education of a generation of Germans and the transformation of Germany into a stable and peaceful democacy. Without such a Germany, an EU would have been unlikely - or if created, it would be far less influential.

Other than kill a lot of people, pollute a lot of streams, build a lot of hydroelectic dams, and scare the west into a Cold War, McCarthyism, and gobs of hot brushfire wars around the world, what really did Leninism-Stalinism (and Maoism) achieve? Soviet-style communism has been largely discredited - or is really just laughed at. China has prospered in spite of Mao. Sure, there are still a lot of monuments to Lenin around, and calling one's self a "Lenninist" won't get you thrown out of cocktail parties, but is that lasting influence?

Nope, against all rational logic and all the stirring songs sung by the Red Army Chorus, the insane vegetarian anti-semitic Austrian Wagner fan and wannabe artist wins this one hands down!
 
This is interesting. I first thought Lenin was the obvious choice, but after thinking about it more I went for Hitler. Not because National Socialism was a more important or influential totalitarian movement than communism (it wasn't) or Nazi Germany lasted longer and was more powerful than the USSR (it didn't), or even because Nazis have cooler uniforms and a slam bang swastika flag (they did).

I repeat again: I think iut's a silly question and I only respond to these to attack any fallacies I see in them.

No, Hitlerism's influence lay in the reactions it caused, which still continue to shape the world today. Without Hitlerism there would not have been a grand alliance uniting capitalists and communists in a global war. No precedents would have been set for international war crimes tribunals and the general consensus which led to the UN Charter. Racial discrimination would not have been so thoroughly discredited in the mainstream cultures of the US and Europe. There would probably be no Israel as the west would not feel such a strong moral strong obligation to survining European jews whose plight they largely ignored 1933-45. Imagine how that would affect developments in the Middle East![/quote]

All good so far.

Anything less than total German defeat in 1945 (made completely essential because of the existence of National Socialism) would probably not have set the stage for the wholesale re-education of a generation of Germans and the transformation of Germany into a stable and peaceful democacy. Without such a Germany, an EU would have been unlikely - or if created, it would be far less influential.

What the hell?

That's some pretty serious flamebait. "Before spending a few years under civilised Allied rule, the Germans were incapable of being a stable and peaceful democracy!"

Other than kill a lot of people, pollute a lot of streams, build a lot of hydroelectic dams, and scare the west into a Cold War, McCarthyism, and gobs of hot brushfire wars around the world, what really did Leninism-Stalinism (and Maoism) achieve? Soviet-style communism has been largely discredited - or is really just laughed at. China has prospered in spite of Mao. Sure, there are still a lot of monuments to Lenin around, and calling one's self a "Lenninist" won't get you thrown out of cocktail parties, but is that lasting influence?

The revolution in Russia has had an enormous, an incalculably enormous effect on history up to the present day. It established just as many precedents.
 
Lenin. Let's throw some logic at this.


Without Lenin, there would have been no communist Russia. With No communist Russia, Hitler doesn't take power in Germany.

Therefore impact of Lenin includes ( but is not limted to ) impact of Hitler.

QED.

You are just getting around the question posed.
This isnt a POD where either one disappears, it is about their personal impact.

I think Hitler had a greater impact on history, at least on Europe.
Because of him Europe has become a stable region with all countries working together for the first time in their history.
You can think or say what you want, I believe Hitler was a bigger attributer to this then Lenin.
 
Seriously, Lenin?!?!? Are you kidding? China went communist despite Stalin and the USSR. Mao and his forces attained dominance due to abandoned Japanese materiel, not because of the Soviets. Likewise, Lenin's goals achieved nothing. All he did was pave the way for Stalin to rise. Now, seriously, Stalin was the greater presence. Without Stalin I highly doubt the Soviets could have survived Hitler. Stalin forced through massive industrialization. Stalin aided the USSR by keeping it together in the dark days of WWII. All Lenin did was usher in a civil war and barely put forward a cohesive economic plan before perishing.

Hitler and his reign destroyed the British Empire, the French Empire, ushered in the era of American hegemony, negated eugenics, crafted a stronger Christian political party in Germany, set the stage for Israel (which has greatly effected Middle East politics), and paved the way for the EU.

Lenin set the stage for Stalin. Hitler set the stage for the Cold War to be fought between capitalism and communism. Hitler by a mile.
 
Seriously, Lenin?!?!? Are you kidding? China went communist despite Stalin and the USSR. Mao and his forces attained dominance due to abandoned Japanese materiel, not because of the Soviets. Likewise, Lenin's goals achieved nothing. All he did was pave the way for Stalin to rise. Now, seriously, Stalin was the greater presence. Without Stalin I highly doubt the Soviets could have survived Hitler. Stalin forced through massive industrialization. Stalin aided the USSR by keeping it together in the dark days of WWII. All Lenin did was usher in a civil war and barely put forward a cohesive economic plan before perishing.

Hitler and his reign destroyed the British Empire, the French Empire, ushered in the era of American hegemony, negated eugenics, crafted a stronger Christian political party in Germany, set the stage for Israel (which has greatly effected Middle East politics), and paved the way for the EU.

Lenin set the stage for Stalin. Hitler set the stage for the Cold War to be fought between capitalism and communism. Hitler by a mile.

This seems a glass hald empty and a glass half full. Hitler had a huge inlluence, ti is true, on everythig after him, but given how he was dead he wasn't a round to see it. Lenin, though, you dismiss as merely "paving the way for Stalin", whereas Lenin created Bolshevik Russia and everything after it, including Stalin, is his work even if he wasn't around to see it. And then, of course, some would argue that Hitler was Lenin's work... I wouldn't not really, but nevertheless.

It's quite shocking what a simple name change can do. I doubt anyone would've shouted ''Heil Shickelgruber''.:p

Which reminds me:

Opening Post! His name! Was! Hitler!

It was Hitler's father who change dthe name. Adolf was a Hitler from the cradle.
 
Last edited:
All the things that allowed Hitler to come to power are rooted in Germany, Lenin was of secondary importance as communism was already strongly rooted in Germany with or wihout Lenin. With no Lenin it would have perhaps taken a different form.

German anger over lost land, anti-semitism, the economic crisis, extreme nationalism, militarism, the illegitimacy of Weimar in the eyes of most Germans. All these things that made a Hitler possable are still there, with or without Lenin whose influence of German affairs was secondary at best and has been grossly overstated in this thread.

The roots of Hitler's rise lie in German defeat in WW1. The possablty of WW2 even without Hitler is still strong as is the rise of a dictatorship.
 
Top