Leauki pointed out that the animosity between Stalin and Hitler (besides the Germans on his front door step) was that Hitler was a NATIONAL Socialist - which means he did not care a whit for what other countries did.  However Stalin was an International Socialist - looking to impose his brand of socialism throughout the world.

That was a nice explanation of their differences, but as you point out, they were both (and the rest of your list) socialists,  As is Obama.

As far as Bush, I can think of better people to use as examples of Capitalists.

Much better ones. Even I get disgusted when I hear his name, good or bad reasons.

In China if you are sick and have no money the hospital kicks you out. This includes life threatening diseases. I've seen it first hand. I was recently looking in the AARP forums (not a member, or ever will be, so I can't post there) and actually saw an anti-capitalist liberal promoting the virtues of China and how we should be more like them.  The problem as I see it B2 is that stupid people (or at the very least, the uninformed) vote too. Sadly the media promotes it. Hate to say it but I can fully understand why in the past only landowners were allowed to vote. They took all the risks and had everything to lose. Now, many have nothing to lose but much to gain... on the backs of others.

If capitalism is failing, it's only because of the increasing socialist policies being injected into it. How many examples of Socialism do we need to realize it doesn't work? Greece being a recent example. Seems some are not satisfied until they dismantle the Capitalist society that has made us the envy of the world for over 200 years. Is it ingrained in the human psyche to destroy its balance every so often? History would say yes. On the other hand why are we the only animals on the planet that don't follow the laws of survival of the fittest? I'm not talking about putting granny in the woods on her own, I mean collectively. There has always been charity and compassion. I'm speaking of the need to tinker with what works well, by trying over and over again what has failed, in the hope that it will somehow work now.

A little off the OP's topic, but it should make one think. Especially if they are asking for a sharp left turn.

Doc, was there some other reason why he attacked all of Europe since he was not interested in what other countries did? Just a thought, not an invitation for a thesis.

The ONLY reason I used Bush is that is where this type of language has been used the most in the past  several years. POOR example, no doubt.

Nitro, I wish I had your writing skills ... but I could not have said it any better.

Thank .... everyone understood I was just making a point!!!

Well - a short thesis - Power!  Stalin wanted one system all over the world (not necessarily run by him - hence why he loved Mao so much).  Hitler did not care what system you had, as long as it was run by him.

I have to concede on that one because I cannot remember and do not care to look (moot point). But I thought Stalin was internally centered (state communism). The same for Hitler in his own version of the State, I suppose. But the end results if either were to dominate would have had similar results. My WAG here is that if Hitler liked the type of government he could work with, he would which would indicate that he was indeed interested in other governments. Seems like semantics though and I suspect this will just lead us in a circle. I just don't have any more to add is all.

I do not know what was in the head of these animals. The road to domination (don’t know what order) concerns POWER – MONEY – CONTROL. At the top, I suspect these are one in the same.