Joseph Stalin killed more people than Hitler. My question is how does Hitler get all the publicity?

The answers you have so far are quite complete, in a nutshell: Stalin won – ergo – he musn’t have been that bad; as toddlers we were always taught that “good will prevail”. Uncle Joe was an ally - do we ally ourselves with “baddies” ? Stalin “saved Europe from the big bad wolf AH. Is that not a merit ? The fact that he was an even more brutal psychopath than his adversary (debatable – psycos rarely come in degrees), that he murdered and eliminated more of his own than his enemies, that he gave a “corporate blanket” to his troops to do as they please in German lands, that he very nearly succeeded in debasing all the East European countries, Poland above all, through his systematic elimination of the “ intelligencia”, is conveniently forgotten. He won. He saved the day.
In today’s short memoried masses (who remembers the “hero” Saddam, a staunch ally against the evil Mullahs of Iran anymore? He fell from grace and became the arch evil) we tend to hide behind the loudest "going opinion" (look at the miserly way Pope Benedikt XVI has just been treated by so called enlightened scientists - not 10% of the total - but very vociferous) we tend to lap up what the papers and “pocket” historians tell us. As a journalist I have a great many discussions with my Editor when I try to bring out “counter” elements to balance the clearly biased opinion we are “counselled” to follow in a particular debate. It’s not in. You are either one of us or write for another paper. Pal of mine did, he even moved from being a Communist, to a Socialist, from a left wing paper to a neutral one, he is now one of Berlusconi’s top senators and deputy chief Editor of one of his papers. He is a morally correct, unbiased journalist, who can still write what he thinks is correct. But he is an exception. In general “man is either good or bad” , no in betweens, and Stalin was the hero of a great many “good” stories, still in people’s minds. It’s true that “ the” War was won “also” thanks to the inhuman sacrifices imposed on the Russian people by a brutal dictator, but one tends to forget that, in the end it was won by US industry and organization and a "heroic few" in the RAF. One further factor is that, albeit dodderingly old, a great many people in Europe, who became influential thanks to and with Stalin are either still around or their pet pupils are. Now would you turn on your one time bread winner ? Hitler ? he was just a baddy, a crappy one too, he lost.
Mao ? Now he's a pal, his kids are our best friends.

Lots of reasons but the two which I think are most important are:

1. Stalin was on the winning side of WW2. European Propaganda portrayed him as Uncle Joe. The authorities worked hard to portray him and the USSR as 'on our side'. There was also the practical issue of being held to account. There was no court that would have tried Stalin even if they could. The Nazis were beaten and had no choice but to attend.

2. In Europe communism was seen as quite romantic and an important solution to the rampant nationalism that had ripped the continent apart. A lot of socialist politicians and journalists(even those active today) were part of the communist party or at least sympathisers. Negative reporting was written off as fascist propaganda. The intellectual left could not bring itself to admit that communism had failed as a result it got a much better press than it should of.

First, Charles' answer adresses valid points to why the Allied governments treated Stalin and Soviet brutality with a blind eye compared to Hitlers'.

The answer to your question lies more in developments after the war then occurences during. It is to be noted that the Holocaust for example was rarely mentioned, even by Jews, up until the mid 60's. The Soviets were the enemy now and would have taken the most brutal award back then had the West known exactly what was happening behind the Iron curtain ( Let alone what was going on in Mao's domain).

After the 67 Israeli war however, the perception of having Israel as an ally became entrenched in the Elite American circles ( Jew and non-Jew). It is at this point that suddenly, the Holocaust is a very practical tool to use politically to further support Israel. In the 50's, the World Zionist Congress would not beat down the Germans too much because it was important to have West Germany as a strong and important ally. Once it was back up ( And able to be financially exploited), and this new perception of Israel could be profitable, suddenly Hitler and the old Germany became the evil boggey man of all times.

Stalin's army raped 2 million women in East Prussia in a period of 6 months, raped another 45,000 women in Berlin in a 3 day period. These were only those incidents in the end of the war. This type of information, though true, was not profitable, but exploiting Germanys past suddenly became so.

Hitler gets the attention because it became more politically convenient and profitable. It would be also dificult to defend a Potsdam conference where the West gave up half of Europe to Soviet brutality if indeed that brutality was worse than Hitlers. That was sadly the case though...

The answer is pretty easy. Hitler lost the war, Stalin didn't.
Normally, the winner and their friends write history. Hitler falled and his regime was condemned by the whole world, archives were opened, research was possibile, winners were eager to know and so were the Germans..

On the contrary, the highly secretive methods in USSR, the fact that most of the victims were Russians and had therefore no foreign governments to keep track of them, the mere fact that Stalin ruled till he died and therefore managed to keep control over information, the Western infatuation with Communism, fuelled by the role of the Communist parties in the partisan anti-nazi struggle, the fact that the Communists themselves were victimized by Hitler, the impossibility of acceding archives in Russia and the lack of clear evidence during decades.
there are plenty of reason for that. first and foremost, there never was a Russian Nurnberg.

Two reasons:

The first is that jews are heavily involved in the media including the movie industry, places where we hear about events of history (real or imagined). They are going to promote their own interests using what tools they have aren't they.

The second is that socialists infiltrated the universities and universities are still very left wing today. The old school socialists supported communism and it became trendy to support communism, particularly as it pertained to leftist struggles against right wing dictators in Latin America and the populist movements in South East Asia and anti-colonialism in Africa.
A generation (now two generations) of educated people have passed through universities etc where communism has been promoted in a positive light. Even today when protestors carrying communist flags are more likely to commit acts of violence and vandalism while protesting, the communists are still seen as acceptable in a way that the far right are not.

Well, Stalin confined his killings, etc. to his own territory and his own citizens; Hitler invaded and conquered countries and killed targeted populations in those countries and Hitler would not have stopped. He wanted to invade and conquer England, also, but he just took on more than he could reasonably accomplish; fighting the British while invading Russia.

Eddie Izzard in one of his comedy routines made the point that Pol Pot killed many more people than Hitler, but no one did anything because he confined the killings, etc. to his own country and own citizens.

Even today most countries capable of invading other countries do not, at least not because the government is treating some of its citizens unfairly. There seems to be the feeling that if the people don't like it they should overthrow their government and America has certainly been in the business of supplying and fomenting revolutions many times over the years without actually participating.

One can't claim Iraq disproves this because we did not invade Iraq because Hussein was treating citizens badly and practicing genocide against some of those citizens; he had been doing that for decades.

We invaded Iraq because our government wanted to convince gullible Americans that we were taking some action following 9/11. Well, we were. It just didn't have anything to do with 9/11 or with capturing those responsible for that crime.

We always focus on Hitler and Stalin, but we miss the "plank in our own eye." Consider what Joshua did at the Lord's behest in the promised land according to the book of Joshua in the Old Testament - especially chapter 6 and 8-10.

40 So Joshua subdued the whole region . . . He left no
survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed,
just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded.
42 All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered,
because the LORD, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.

Was killing all of the women, children, babies and animals
in more than half a dozen cities in the land of Canaan OK?
Was everyone sinful - even the infants and the animals?
Suppose you were the mother of an infant in Jericho or the city of Ai? To me that was a different God ago.

That is why I focus on the new testament and dismiss the old as Jewish history.

None of this excuses Hitler or Stalin. Both were maniacs.
But even they did not kill "everything that breathes."

I can never understand or forgive killing little children.
How can that possibly be defended as moral and righteous?
Hitler did that more than Stalin (though starvation in the Ukraine undoubtedly killed children too) - - still, Joshua killed a higher number of infants and children considering relative populations.

Yet we teach our small children to rejoice when Joshua and his army make the walls of Jericho fall. Do we teach our Sunday school children what happened (according to the old testament) to the helpless children of Jericho after the walls came tumbling down?

Hitler was a mad guy and all the germans were poor after WW1! Hilter said that he would strong Germany again. All the germans believed him and all germans believed they are the best people in the world so they believed Hitler to killed many many people to build up a "Great Germany" in World War 2!

Joseph Stalin Killings

I think Stalin was involved in the killing of more people because of his irrregaurd for the saftey of his own troops. He knew he had way more soldiers and used them as expendable pawns to gain the upper hand on germany, if he could gain 100 feet with 10,000 men he would do it without question. A tactic that was very effective for gaining ground but had a real impact on the Russian population.