<<Hitler did not find any more helpers from England and the US than Stalin did , what is the diffrence?>>
The difference is that Hitler was helped by Westerners who were in the ruling class and often influenced governmental and institutional actions, such as the Bank of England's freezing the reserves of the Spanish Republic during the Spanish Civil War. The help that wealthy industrialists such as Henry Ford and others provided was instrumental in helping him to power and consolidating his rule. It is just coming out now, for example, that IBM was instrumental in the Holocaust through the provision of state-of-the-art punch-card computers, complete with trainers and technicians, that enabled Hitler to keep track of all the Jews in German-controlled territory.
Stalin had some Western support, but it came from the rebels and outsiders of the West, not its ruling class or industrialists and the support he received was mostly moral.
Bottom line is that the industrialized Western nations gave Hitler material support that helped him in his struggle to power, and to Stalin, they gave with one hand subversion and armed intervention and with the other hand, from the rebels and outcasts of their own society, moral support.
Once again plane, you demonstrate to me a really bizarre lack of common sense and proportionality. As in, "they gassed the Jews but we bombed Dresden" or here "Stalin had his admirers, Hitler had his admirers," as if the one balanced out the other when in reality there is no comparison. Everything in life doesn't reduce down to neat little balances, there IS such a thing as proportionality and only a complete lack of common sense or a dyed-in-the-wool bias could keep you from recognizing it.
