Hitler Bad, Stalin Good

Couple of interesting thoughts brought up while talking over a beer with a buddy of mine after quizzo last night. I told him that I had watched Hitler: Tyrant of Terror on the History Channel earlier in the day. First of all, he said, “What if Hitler has a relative who ever comes forward to claim royalties off of all the Hitler shows they air? They’re not going to be able to sustain the station. They’re gonna owe this guy a lot of money.” Then the topic turned to one I’ve had numerous times before. Why is it that Hitler, who killed 6 million of his fellow countrymen in death camps, is held up to be the most evil man of the 20th century, while Stalin, who killed 20 million of his own countrymen in death camps, not considered the most evil? Is it because we realize that victory in the European theatre would not have been possible without Stalin’s help, and we were fighting Hitler in that war? Is it because, at the time, the concept of a bunch of dead Russians wasn’t all that bad of a thought? Or is it because Stalin looked like our sweet old grandpa, while Hitler looked like some sort of backwoods sheep solicitor? Is it worse to kill one particular group of people than to kill any random person who pisses you off?

Now, before you get your panties in a bunch, don’t read this as a freaking endorsement of Hitler. He was a sick, twisted bastard, and he deserves all the villification he gets. I’m just wondering why Stalin doesn’t get the same treatment .
RELATED: Who was worse, Hitler or Stalin?
RELATED: 16 dictators battle it out to find out who was the most evil.