No better than them

however, pointing out that this piece of diplomacy didn't create a stable peace is NOT a justification for the "unfairness" of what Germany did to its neighbors in the ensuing war.

I don't think it excuses the crimes or is even in any kind of way a good reason for what happened, but it was the original small factor of discontent, add to this factors like the wall street crash, hitlers charisma and ability to gain support...

What i am doing is simply exploring the reasons for what happened, investigating what lead up to the eventual evil of the nazis does not excuse it, but simply explores the mistakes and little factors that contributed to a big mess...

Well, if I were an evil person I would now said that France learned that taking revenge is not always the best option...oops, I just said it, didn't I?

I wonder if a french person might point out that avenging the revenge doesn't work out to well either :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“I propose that the word evil may be enacted as an apt description of what you proposed” Er, what did I propose?

The fact is, as Meneldi accurately point out, Germany as a country and its population were very mildly treated for what happened during WW2. No massive retaliation at the exception of the industrial tools and all industries taken by the Russian as war compensation. It could have been worst and it up to the honour of the Allies to have kept the retaliation as low they could.
It was more than what the Germans were waiting for.
:

---

Er, Brenus, you suggested that Germany should have been utterly destroyed...
Quite insane IMHO.
But hey, I'm a pro-German.

No massive retaliation? What on earth do you think we are discussing? A slap on the hand?
The Allies could have absatined from agreeing to it, they could have perhaps stopped the Czechs, perhaps.

Now, I hardly think Napoleon was a great moderniser, a great general and Tyrant no doubt, but he was no good man.

Er, Brenus, you suggested that Germany should have been utterly destroyed... " When and where?

"No massive retaliation? What on earth do you think we are discussing?" Well, a thing like the Germans did: Massive killing of poeple on industrial basis as example... Or building Extermination camps for the family of the Nazi Resistance the Werewolves…
Or coming in a village chosen at random and slaughtering every body by machine guns when they try to escape from a flaming church could be an other one...

Nope. Even if Nuremberg wasn't perfect, the Allies tried to understand responsibilities in the Nazi Killing Machine and to sentence the one whom were the guiltiest... We so far from the Nazi attitude that I share Louis indignation when some body just dare to compare the Allies and the Nazi.

In fact I found in a new book published by a French officer, the Colonel Benoit Royal in "L'éthique du soldat Français".
He wrote: "The maximum preservation of humanity is the only value able to united enemies whatever the reasons why they were at war". The "certitude of Humanity", the fact that your enemy is a human, that war is inhuman but done by humans.
That is exactly what the Nazi denied, the humanity of their enemy. That is their specificity. Stalin didn't. Mao didn't. Hitler, Himmler, Goering did.
They said that the other humans were not humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

I wonder if a french person might point out that avenging the revenge doesn't work out to well either :wink:

---

Had you read my next sentence you would have noticed that I already did that myself. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Er, Brenus, you suggested that Germany should have been utterly destroyed... " When and where?

"No massive retaliation? What on earth do you think we are discussing?" Well, a thing like the Germans did: Massive killing of poeple on industrial basis as example... Or building Extermination camps for the family of the Nazi Resistance the Werewolves…
Or coming in a village chosen at random and slaughtering every body by machine guns when they try to escape from a flaming church could be an other one...

---

Having a spot of selective memory are we?
Oh well.

Yes Brenus, we are discussing the Nazis, but we are also discussing the Czechs aren't we?:yes:

This guy seems to know what he's talking about...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0XwsjPkHqw

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Having a spot of selective memory are we?
Oh well.

Yes Brenus, we are discussing the Nazis, but we are also discussing the Czechs aren't we?:yes:

---

I never implied or justified any mass destruction of the German people .... even if a few here have done that, a complete dismissal of an argument of the lack of moral equivalency between the Axis and Allies is still a bit revisionist IMHO. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I never implied or justified any mass destruction of the German people .... even if a few here have done that, a complete dismissal of an argument of the lack of moral equivalency between the Axis and Allies is still a bit revisionist IMHO. :)

---

No no, I was not refering to you, I know you would never desire to destroy an entire nation. But Brenus on the other hand was showing a desire to rewrite history and destroy the German nation, how un-Nazi of him.

Again, tell me where the Allies were being moral and just in the case of the Czechs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

In fact I found in a new book published by a French officer, the Colonel Benoit Royal in "L'éthique du soldat Français".
He wrote: "The maximum preservation of humanity is the only value able to united enemies whatever the reasons why they were at war". The "certitude of Humanity", the fact that your enemy is a human, that war is inhuman but done by humans.
That is exactly what the Nazi denied, the humanity of their enemy. That is their specificity. Stalin didn't. Mao didn't. Hitler, Himmler, Goering did.
They said that the other humans were not humans.

---

Uumm, ok, well...
I really don't know how to respond to that, you have done it!
Of coarse Stalin was better than Hitler, he accepted the millions he killed were human! But did it anyway! :beam:

Stalin's treatment of entire nations proved that he thought them lacking in the requirements of human dignity, he slaughtered, deported and destroyed entire peoples for his own personal reasons. But hey, at least he sent them off to die with the knowledge that they were human, but that that was no excuse not to die.

Quote:

---

This guy seems to know what he's talking about...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0XwsjPkHqw

---

Yeo he does, but this is not something I would contest, in fact its not what I was discussing at all.

But thank you for the post, it is one of themost powerfull pieces of acting I have ever had the pleasure of watching:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Uumm, ok, well...
I really don't know how to respond to that

---

Uhm, how about with respect for Brenus' imposingly learned opinion and with respect for a man who witnessed the horrors of war firsthand himself and who shares his insights with us in a thread about...the horrors of war?

'Dehumanisation' is an important concept in theories of totalitarianism. Starting with, I think, Hannah Arendt's 'Origin of Totalitarianism', where dehumanisation is the third and final stage of total domination ('totalitarianism'), and continuing to this day to the book by Benoît Royal that Brenus quoted, subtitled 'la conviction d'humanité' (which surprisingly translates as 'the conviction of humanity').


Brenus, my old coco, I would love to debate with you (and Royal? ~:confused:) about whether or not Stalin's Russia didn't dehumanise its subjects as well. But I won't. Not in this godforsaken thread.



I just popped by to thank InsaneApache for that clip. I had never heard of that movie, it looks interesting.



*quickly leaves thread again* :slomo:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Uhm, how about with respect for Brenus' imposingly learned opinion and with respect for a man who witnessed the horrors of war firsthand himself and who shares his insights with us in a thread about...the horrors of war?

'Dehumanisation' is an important concept in theories of totalitarianism. Starting with, I think, Hannah Arendt's 'Origin of Totalitarianism', where dehumanisation is the third and final stage of total domination ('totalitarianism'), and continuing to this day to the book by Benoît Royal that Brenus quoted, subtitled 'la conviction d'humanité' (which surprisingly translates as 'the conviction of humanity').


Brenus, my old coco, I would love to debate with you (and Royal? ~:confused:) about whether or not Stalin's Russia didn't dehumanise its subjects as well. But I won't. Not in this godforsaken thread.



I just popped by to thank InsaneApache for that clip. I had never heard of that movie, it looks interesting.



*quickly leaves thread again* :slomo:

---

Brenus' position is "the german people were bad, worse than anyone else, they were lucky not to have been destroyed outright, thats what I would have done"

I don't think much needs to be said of that, as I said, a child is a child, but in Brenus' case a German child after WWII was not, niether was any civilian a civilian, they were all fair game.

If dehumanisation is an important concept of totalitarianism, then surely Brenus is wrong and Stalin did dehumanise a vast number of people, what we do know is that he did not treat them as such. Big diff? No, not really and so it is a null point.

“Having a spot of selective memory are we?” Me? I just ask when and where I said that all Germans and Germany should be destroyed. You will have hard time to find it.
“But Brenus on the other hand was showing a desire to rewrite history and destroy the German nation, how un-Nazi of him.” Again when and where?
Re-write History? How. History is what it is. Germany attacked in two wars others countries. Because the hard conditions imposed after the first defeat, some find reasons for the Second aggression. But it didn’t stop in re-tacking territories from neighbours, no, it went in the EXTERMINATION of some populations because what ever reasons…
I am not the one who “forgets” 1871 peace treaty; I am not the one who “forgets” the Brest Litowsk Treaty…
I am not the one who try to manipulate figures and compare a systemic and designed campaign of extermination with the post war consequence of the Nazi barbaric plan…

“we are also discussing the Czechs aren't we”: Yes we do. You are saying that what happened to them is the same thing that what happen to the Jews and Gypsies who ended in Treblinka, Sobibor or other Death Camps…

I am not a communist. For few reason and one is my father fought against Vietminh/communist in Indochina war, and I am one of the rare to know relatively well how a communist brain work when at war, Execution Committee, “Re-education” camp and rate of survival in Camp No1 (very close to Nazi camps…).
However, my Grand-father and Mother were communist and Francs Tireurs Partisans Français.
I was raised by my Grand-mother for several reasons, and when doing my home work, she was telling the stories about the war. And BECAUSE she was communist, she never mixed up Nazi and Germany. That is the difference. That is what means to recognise the humanity in the enemy.

Oh yes Stalin was a monster, but not the ideal of the Communist. Hitler was a monster and the ideal, Nazism, based on racism and extermination, was a monster.
In one hand you’ve got a monster using an ideology and all the means to terrorise all populations, in other you have one which doctrine aims and finality are war, terror and extermination.
If you can’t understand the difference between the two, sorry, nothing I can do.:dizzy2:

“Stalin's treatment of entire nations proved that he thought them lacking in the requirements of human dignity, he slaughtered, deported and destroyed entire peoples for his own personal reasons. But hey, at least he sent them off to die with the knowledge that they were human, but that that was no excuse not to die.” Yes it did prove that Stalin was a monster. No it is not a “reason” or excuse. But that made the difference with Nazism. Again, if you don’t want to see it what can I do.
I will try again: If under Stalin you succeeded to be inoffensive you had some chance to live.
Under Hitler, whatever you tried, if you were a Jew, a Gypsy, you were dead. No escape, no negotiations, just dead.
But I supposed you will carry on pretending I said things I didn’t.:yes:

“about whether or not Stalin's Russia didn't dehumanise its subjects” He did. I interviewed a Former French Prisoner in Vietnam, and yes all the process of dehumanisation is there. But that is when people are in the camps. Not before.
The Brainwash process started wit stripping off all personal and individual conscience, “l’esprit bourgeois”, from the prisoners…
Again, the so-called counter-revolutionaries elements were badly treated, killed and so. But it wasn’t targeted against specific minorities. It was universal terror, and a political one.

“Brenus' position is "the german people were bad, worse than anyone else, they were lucky not to have been destroyed outright, thats what I would have done": You put brackets in this sentence as this were my words. They are not.:furious3:
Again I never ever said such thing.
Yes, the German politic was the worst invented in the world.
However, yes Germany got it mild comparing the atrocities and the crimes. After the war, I mean, not during.

“but in Brenus' case a German child after WWII was not, niether was any civilian a civilian, they were all fair game.”
Er, that was the German/Nazi policy for the rest of the non-German populations…
Again you implicated I said that but again I never did.:smash::wall:

Come on. I didn’t intervene so much so it will be easy to find where I wrote all the sentences and said all these opinions…:whip:

Why do you bother, Brenus? Don't you see that common sense left this thread long ago?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Oh yes Stalin was a monster, but not the ideal of the Communist. Hitler was a monster and the ideal, Nazism, based on racism and extermination, was a monster.

---

I disagree with this. I'd say that Stalinism wasn't the ideal of communism in the same way that Nazism wasn't the ideal of fascism. Both were completely horrific.

Fascism and communism themselves do not have clean records when it comes to the mass extermination of innocents, but if I have read your post correctly - which I hope I have misinterpreted - it seems as though you are trying to defend communism.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For the record, I am an anti-communist and an anti-fascist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I disagree with this. I'd say that Stalinism wasn't the ideal of communism in the same way that Nazism wasn't the ideal of fascism. Both were completely horrific.

Fascism and communism themselves do not have clean records when it comes to the mass extermination of innocents, but if I have read your post correctly - which I hope I have misinterpreted - it seems as though you are trying to defend communism.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For the record, I am an anti-communist and an anti-fascist.

---

Communism as an ideal is all nice and fine. The problem is that it is impossible to apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Communism as an ideal is all nice and fine. The problem is that it is impossible to apply.

---

I'd say.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I think that their estimate for the Soviet Union is also far too low.

“Nazism wasn't the ideal of fascism”: Fascism isn’t Nazism. Fascism is not based on Racism and Extermination. Fascism can be compare to Communism in political spectrum, just opposite… Even Franco's fascism, as bloody and repressive it was, didn’t built extermination camps.

“I have read your post correctly - which I hope I have misinterpreted - it seems as though you are trying to defend communism.” You misinterpreted. The USSR communism, and the Chinese, and the Cambodian, all finished in slaughtering masses of people. So decisively something is wrong in it.
However in this thread, some definitively tried to defend Nazism in comparing Allies and Germans attitude towards populations and crimes…

“Why do you bother, Brenus?” Pure anger…:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Communism as an ideal is all nice and fine. The problem is that it is impossible to apply.

---

That's why we invented social democracy when we saw that leninism would be doomed.

And social democracy works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

Post-revolutionary France produced a lot of good things, but to use them to glorify a military dictator whose reign happens to coincide with it...:shrug:

---

Hmmmm.... Just how is a "military dictator" any worse than the "royal dictators" he fought...? We usually glorify our Kings, don't we? I can't honestly see what Napoleon did which made him worse. Oh wait, now I remember, he lost in the end, and lost the chance to write the history himself ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

'Dehumanisation' is an important concept in theories of totalitarianism. Starting with, I think, Hannah Arendt's 'Origin of Totalitarianism', where dehumanisation is the third and final stage of total domination ('totalitarianism'), and continuing to this day to the book by Benoît Royal that Brenus quoted, subtitled 'la conviction d'humanité' (which surprisingly translates as 'the conviction of humanity').

---

However ironic it may be, people should be forced to read books about authoritarianism(1984 for example) before they form an opinion about such matters. Gah. And particularly for anyone thinking about voting for any political party wanting stricter police regimes.




and for those who didn't get it, the irony was about forcing someone to learn about how to avoid forcing people.... :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I'd say.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I think that their estimate for the Soviet Union is also far too low.

---

That's not ideal Communism. For ideal Communism, I'd suggest you read Thomas More book "Utopia", dated of 1516 (Wierd they had invented Communism as an ideal way back then)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hore Tore

That's why we invented social democracy when we saw that leninism would be doomed.

And social democracy works.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

That's not ideal Communism. For ideal Communism, I'd suggest you read Thomas More book "Utopia", dated of 1516 (Wierd they had invented Communism as an ideal way back then)

---

I'm aware. I think you may have misinterpreted my point. You said that the ideal of communism was impossible to correctly apply, and I simply agreed with you by citing a massive death toll.

About the book Utopia, I seem to recall that there may have been some debate about parts of the work being satirical in nature. Feel free to correct me if I am incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Nazism wasn't the ideal of fascism”: Fascism isn’t Nazism. Fascism is not based on Racism and Extermination. Fascism can be compare to Communism in political spectrum, just opposite… Even Franco's fascism, as bloody and repressive it was, didn’t built extermination camps.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Fascism

Quote:

---

You misinterpreted.

---

Good.

Brenus.

:embarassed:

You are in fact correct and I am in fact an idiot, it was not you who expressed regret that the Germans and their country had not been destroyed:shame:. That was actually another poster and a fellow Frenchman.
I would buy you a beer if possible but alas...

However my apology does nopt dispell my initial belief that the Czech government was as vile as the Nazi government of Germany, as it sought to ethnically "purify" its nation by the use of the Czech army.

I also still hold the Allies responsible for having given these acts legal status in their wartime treaties and talks and their lack of condemnation after these acts had been carried out. I also hold that the Western Allies were just as capable of mass murder or genocide as the Nazi's were. I use the progress of the 20th century as evidence that France, The U.K and the U.S were quite willing to put "morality" on the backburner when expedient.

But that is perhaps a discussion for another thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

I also still hold the Allies responsible for having given these acts legal status in their wartime treaties and talks and their lack of condemnation after these acts had been carried out.

---

Most summaries I have read regarding the Tehran, Yalta, & Potsdam summit meetings suggest that the Soviet "puppet" governments of Eastern/Central Europe were more or less a fait accompli. Short of an ultimatum to Stalin backed by the threat of force he wasn't likely to budge. In fact, both FDR and Churchill thought him fully capable of "stalling" his offense and allowing the US/UK forces to do most of the bleeding while the CCCP waited and swooped in for a big land grab at the finish. Their decisions were made with this in mind and in hopes of minimizing their own casualties. Was Patton correct? Should we have paused, re-organized the Wehrmacht under U.S/U.K. leadership and gone right after the Russians to kick them back to the 9/1/39 border? A bloody task for which the Western nations were not psychologically ready. Protests of Soviet action (and the action of the Czech and other regimes under Soviet influence) were pretty scarce prior to 1956, I agree, but I believe you seriously mis-caculate the position of the US and the UK as the war drew to its close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

I also hold that the Western Allies were just as capable of mass murder or genocide as the Nazi's were. I use the progress of the 20th century as evidence that France, The U.K and the U.S were quite willing to put "morality" on the backburner when expedient.

---

If you mean in the general sense that ANY group, under a series of pressure events and with a leadership cadre devoid of any sense of morality, might be led astray then I think you speak to certain inherent weaknesses in the human condition.

The 20th century shows all of the states you mention balancing national interest against moral absolutes. Nevertheless I would disagree that morality was put on the "backburner" as a normal course. Were poor choices made in pursuit of some larger goal? Yes. Were some selfish interests pursued, sometimes at other's expense? Yes. Were these elements the dominant component of the policies of the nations you mention? No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I'm aware. I think you may have misinterpreted my point. You said that the ideal of communism was impossible to correctly apply, and I simply agreed with you by citing a massive death toll.

About the book Utopia, I seem to recall that there may have been some debate about parts of the work being satirical in nature. Feel free to correct me if I am incorrect.

---

Yeah, I did misinterpret it. About the satiricism, I've read some years ago, but I don't recall catching any such thing, but it's probable. But then I don't have the culture that was on England's XVI's century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Hmmmm.... Just how is a "military dictator" any worse than the "royal dictators" he fought...? We usually glorify our Kings, don't we? I can't honestly see what Napoleon did which made him worse. Oh wait, now I remember, he lost in the end, and lost the chance to write the history himself ~;)

---

I'm not particulary fond of "my" Royal family, and most of us are just happy that they've done a relatively decent job keeping their dirty laundry indoors for the last 2 decades and not giving the rest of us reason to feel embarassed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Yeah, I did misinterpret it. About the satiricism, I've read some years ago, but I don't recall catching any such thing, but it's probable. But then I don't have the culture that was on England's XVI's century.

---

:bow:

“You are in fact correct and I am in fact an idiot”: You are not. You are a person who believe something and reacted with anger. A little bit like the post war reactions after WW2. Did you ever read books about the “Epuration – in French in the text-” in France?

“Czech government was as vile as the Nazi government of Germany” That is not possible. \if you mean that some actions were unjust, unfair and somehow inhuman yes. But Nazism is the degree zero, the metre-stallion of evil.
It is often compare with communism in figures and methods.
Don’t get me wrong. To be awake at 4 in the morning by the Gestapo and to end in Wilhem-Strasse was as bad as to be awake by the KGB/GEPEOU and to end in the Lubyanka (is it the same root than Serbian, Ljubav, (Love) or not?).
However, if you are a truly real believer in the communist faith, you do good things.
If you are a truly real believer in the Nazi faith you do Evil things.
It is all about what the BOOKS say.
As for Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition is not what Christ preached, the thinkers of communism are not responsible what political leaders using their work did on their names.
But Hitler, creator of the Nazism did preach hatered, extramination, violence, domination and racism. It is in the book.

“Was Patton correct? Should we have paused, re-organized the Wehrmacht under U.S/U.K. leadership and gone right after the Russians to kick them back to the 9/1/39 border?” In succeeding where the Nazi Germany has failed? Shermans against JS 2...? I doubt it.
Then we would have to fight the Communist Guerrilla in Italy and France, most probably, battle hardened for this kind of actions and fully equipped…
Can you imagine the French soldiers fighting alongside the SS?
And what happened about the Extermination Camps? We just closed them, oops mistake...?
No, unfortunately the Nazism forbade this possibility. What ever the Communists did evil, it was not enough to forget and forgive Treblinka, Nacht and Neble:

“La mort face à face - chaque jour, à chaque instant. La faux du crachin, de la pluie, du brouillard - les ténèbres du brouillard et de la nuit - les nuits blanches de la nuit concentrationnaire - la nuit blessée, tranchée par les réflecteurs des miradors - la nuit glauque des réveils tonitruants pour aller décharger un train de briques arrivé pendant votre sommeil - la nuit soudain embrassée par les flambées, les coups de feu des fours crématoires. Les fumées - les volutes de fumée rabattues nuit et jour sur les baraquements - l'âcre odeur de chair roussie... La nuit des sentinelles, des cerbères et des molosses. La nuit crépitante - "bruit de pas et bruit des armes" - les hurlements des bergers allemands - les vociférations des SS - le claquement des fusils qu'on recharge. La peur toujours présente - l'oppression permanente! L'abîme, la fosse, où chacun se sent précipité à jamaiscette oubliette qui rappelait à l'un de mes camarades ces vers de Baudelaire :
J'implore ta pitié, Toi, l'unique que j'aime,
Du fond du gouffre obscur où mon coeur est tombé. "

Death face to face - each day, at every moment. The scythe of the drizzle, the rain, the fog - darkness of the fog and the night - sleepless nights of the concentration night - the wounded night, sliced by the reflectors of the watchtowers - the gloomy night of the thundering awaking to go to unload a train from bricks arrived during your sleep - the night suddenly embraced by the blazes, the shots of the crematoriums. Fume - volutes of smoke folded back night and day on the hutments - bitter odour of turned russet flesh… The night of the sentinels, the Cerbere and dark dogs. The crackling night - “noise of step and noise of the weapons” - howls of the German shepherds - uproar of the SS - the slapping of rifles which one reloads. Fear always present - permanent oppression! The abyss, the pit, where each one feels precipitated forever which recalled to the one my comrades these verses of Baudelaire:

I beseech your pity,
You, the single one that I love,
Of the bottom of the obscure pit where my heart fell”

By Haïm Vidal Sephiha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

(is it the same root than Serbian, Ljubav, (Love) or not?).

---

Could be, but I doubt it. Anyway, the building got its name for the fact the it's in the Lubyanka square in Moscow, and the name of the square dates back to the middle ages, so there's no connection to the KGB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

However, if you are a truly real believer in the communist faith, you do good things.

---

I'm sorry, but I must disagree. True Marxism, if you wish to call that the "communist faith," advocates the revolution of the proletariat - in essence, violent class conflict, or in other words, the ends justifying the means. Communism is just as disgusting an ideology as fascism, and Stalinism or Leninism are just as, or very close to, as disgusting as Nazism.

Meaning well does not absolve you of crime. :book:

I don't think you can equate advocating revolution with nazism.... in a democratic system revolution would not be nessecary anyway, and in a non democratic system revolution is perhaps even better than staying as they are...

I would rate stalinism at a similar level, probably give it a few less points on the evil scoreboard... but stalinism was truely terrible... but the ideaology's (communism and facism) are seperate from this evilness, in essence they are just idea's which don't propose harm to anyone (im not as sure about facism here...) they may result in harm (if you think they both inevitably lead to totalitarianism) but the ideas themselves aren't paticularly bad* (again less sure on facism)

*bad as in evil rather than workable....