User blog comment:Scrawland Scribblescratch/Robespierre to Hitler: Really Forceful Dictatorships/@comment-1738490-20120923184546

Oh, dictatorships... Well, Robespierre had strong ideals, I think he was nothing but a child irritated for having oppositors. He wanted democracy, but in his way, without all the complications of real democracy. He saw the oportunity to take the power he always envied to the kings. I think he could have organized a proper republic, but he wanted it in his way, with his party and such...

Stalin was less idealistic. He just wanted power and used the tool he got closer (communism) to rise. If Russia had been capitalsit at the time, he would have grown rich and win elections. If Russia had been still a monarchy, he would have learnt magic and become the doctor of the tsar's son.

Hitler, I think I try to hate him, but I just can't hate him as much as the two above. We have to recognise this: Robespierre wanted a democracy but was to childly to it. Stalin jsut wanted power.

Hitler was an idealist. He thought all he was doing was for the welfare of his people. I don't denfend him, but I would prefer a Hitler than a Stalin or a Robespierre.

Basicly, dictators born for three main causes:

1. Seeking for the legitimacy a monarch could have. Stalin.

2. Too childly to acomplish their ideas, so it's best to silance the oppsoitors than listen them. Robespierre.

3. Real ideals, though those ideals are too fascist, or well are normal ideals, but come to practice in fundamentalism.