Stalin, worse than Hitler?

Yes, I definetely don't know because:

Genocide is defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) article 2 "as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:" Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:"
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


Somehow Stalin's crimes (and other communist regimes) fit both definitions.

About the rest

Batls thrived under Stalins reign and only collaborators were targeted - you mean for example at least 150 000 Lithuanians including those killed before 1941 - so they were collaborators as well ?

And the famine in Ukraine - it was enforced famine so it does count as genocide.

Poles and polish Jews were the subject of genocide as well ( from the Nazis as well - which you forgot regarding the Poles) - it cannot count as repressions because the mere fact that you were better educated, collecting stamps, knew esperanto, were a member of illegal organisation ( illegal in S.U so EVERY organisation because EVERY was illegal from Soviet point of view as created in a different country which Poland was/ is) or fullfilled one of many other frames it all meant you were eaither killed like the POWs in Katyń or deported to die in Syberia.

Moldavians were killed because they spoke Romanian - because THEY WERE ROMANIANS before June 1940 - they were supposed to forget it so it was a repression for another form of 'illegal' resistence.

M8 people were killed because they were fighting the Nazi ( like Polish underground fighters), helping Jews or doing something else communists seen as not fair - in fact they died because they were not communists themselves, or not dedicated enough or too dedicated or anything else - the resons changed from time to time and noone was safe.

Sorry but it was GENOCIDE and people are and were judged for the same or similar crimes and it was and is called genocide ! :wall:

regards Cegorach

It's probably true that in practice there wasn't much to choose between Hitler and Stalin, however, let's not forget that the Allies ultimately chose to fight on Stalin's side so that says something about which party they regarded as the greater evil.

The same can be said for the Russians themselves. They could have thrown their lot in with Hitler but most of them chose to fight for Stalin against the invader, in spite of the loathing that many had for the communists.

I don't know if you're Polish, I get the impression you are and if so I can understand your dislike of the Soviets. However the fact remains that at least the Soviets allowed Poland to continue to exist as a nation after the war. Hitler had no such intention and his intentions toward the Polish people themselves was much more sinister. Bad as the Soviets might have been, I think you should probably still be thankful that it was Stalin and not Hitler who prevailed in that conflict.

cegorach

I can see where you are coming from and I respect that. But, as screwtype points out, you have to take into account what Hitler's plans were had he prevailed: Poland, along with Ukraine, parts of Belorus and Russia, would be rendered into "lebensraum" for Hitler's "ubermenschen". Meaning, the whole population would be either exterminated, rendered into slaves or deported. We are talking about areas with more than 100 million inhabitants in that time, and like 70% of those would be feeding the crematoria at Buchenwald, Dachau, Auschwitz etc. etc. after the end of the war.

That was Hitler's plan for the future of your country. And as much as I am inclined to accept that Poland was royally screwed by the ungrateful allies in Yalta (as Poland was counted in "Stalin's share" despite what your people did for the cause and how much they have suffered) I am sure that today there is a Polish nation, thriving, with plenty of Poles consisting it and Poland is, once again, a part of "the free world". If Hitler won WW2, there would be no Poles and no Poland. Likewise, the Moldavians are here, they have even a country now. The Romanians, the Latvians, Lithuanians, Esthonians, Hungarians, Czech, Slovakians, Bulgarians, Chechnians, Khazaks... you name it, they are all here, they have a country, a language, a national consciousness. None of them was "genocided" (Sic!).

There was no genocide in any eastern european country conducted by Stalin. You may be anti-communist to the bone, but that doesn't change reality. And reality does not support your view. Stalin was fairly light on the eastern europeans, even those who have cooperated with the Nazis (Hungarians, Romanians, Balts etc. - possible exeption are the Tatars and Khazaks, but even they were not subjected to genocide, just deported). The post-war sufferings of your people, have absolutely nothing to do with the term genocide. Absolutely nothing. As I said before, an oppressive totalitarian regime does not constitute a genocide, get your facts straight and stop drawing numbers off your belly, like the 150.000 Lithuanians... and that's the worst you could find? Wehrmacht has killed 1.2 million people, directly or by depriving them from the means to survive - food, that is - in Greece only. More than 1.8 million were killed in Yugoslavia, either by the Nazis or their Ustaca lapdogs. 26.6 millions at the very least is the estimation for the dead in USSR. 80% of them civilians.

That's some genocide if you want to do a comparison. How does those acts compare with whatever Stalin did to your country? Of course he'd kill the insurgents, every dictator does that. But... genocide? Ferchristsake, NO!

Thank you that you pointed out that I am Polish and it can affect my judgement - really great answer, but you really shouldn't inform me about the planned fate for Poland and other nations planned by Hitler, the question is what about Stalin, what didn't he plan ?

Maybe I should add something - about 6 months ago I have read how much Stalin hated Poles - it was so stron like Hitler's anti-semitism or Hitler's hatred towards the... Czechs ( !!) for example who always watched one opera where a Russian peasant leads some Polish soldiers to their doom and just after the moment they freeze to death he was leaving his thist for Polish 'blood' stopped for a moment.

He definetely was more anti-Polish than Hitler who wanted Poland as the ally against Russia ( he proposed it several times), but the Poles refused so he wanted them to die in a kind of revenge. When in 1939 the Nazis asked Stalin if he accepts an idea of Polish buffor state he refused and continued with a campaign of terror and annihilation of the Polish population in the territory he had taken. The officail policy of the SU before 1941 was 'there is no Poland, there never will, or even there never WAS - ( Orwell was really right) similar to the policy of the Russian regime in 1797 and after 1864.
The problem was that after 1941 he had to change the policy to some degree because Poland was among the Allies he wanted to cooperate with and whom help he needed. Besides it is not easy to eliminate 30 000 000 people.

See Hitler didn't eliminate the Czechs either even if he despised them from his earliest days in Vienna, Stalin didn't eliminate the Poles whom he hated so much, still bothe nations to greater ( Poles) or smaller degree were the subject of extermiantion.

Another thing Stalin hated Jews as well - although it was more based on religion than race and definetely more than 100 000 Polish Jews alone were killed by the Soviets. I can bet that if there was no Nazi Holocaust there would be a different on Red one, this time.

Another thing - some nations survived, in fact ALL of them survived genocidal policy during the 2nd WW and in fact Jews have their own state don't they ?
So I really shouldn't answer the argument that so many nations survived Soviet genocidal campaigns like Chechens or Tatars who were completely moved to die in central Asia, but thanks to some changes ( weakening of the S.U) they survived.
And Rosacrux redux I did mention Lithuanians as the example - you can add several million ( at least 7) of Ukrainians, at least 250 000 Belorussians, around 200 000 of Latvians and Estonians, 1 100 000 or more Polish citizens ( includes Jews, Ukrainnians and others) and many other people, the problem is that Stalin's genocidal policy didn't last for long ( e.g. in Poland and the Baltics for 1-2 years only) and after and during the 2nd WW he had to adjust it considering weaker power he had, disastrous consequences of the 2nd WW and simply the fact he had to consolidate his new conquests and his power in the SU alone, still the bloodtide was rising again - at least 200 000 Poes were taken after the 2nd WW and mostly never came back.

Even if Stalin was responsible for only 20 000 deaths it would be genocide if it fitted the legal definition and it DID.

I definetely shouldn't be greateful to Stalin or Hitler, I can only be greateful that they fought each other so quickly and that their cooperation ( including Gestapo and NKVD helping each other) lasted for only 2 years...

BTW First 2 years of occupation in Poland ( to 1941) were more bloody on the Soviet side of the border between both homicidal regimes, even much MORE bloody only later it was different partly because there was no Soviet zone at all.

One more thing - Baltic people, some Ukrainians and some other groups seen the Nazi as possible allies, not because they loved Hitler so much, but because they seen Stalin and communists as bloody regime, more dangerous than the Nazis, there were only few dedicated fanatics there ( not like in the Netherlands, Norway etc) among the troops wh fought the Soviets, it is unfair to judge them as the bloody maniacs from Charlemagne division or other deranged enthusiasts of black uniforms.
The problem with those eastern europeans was that they had to choose between fighting both regimes ( as Poles did) - what they couldn't do at all - or choosing one to help them - trully tragic fate, they were damned any option they could choose.
See how easily they could change side if there were Allies to help them !

And finally - Soviet deportation is not like it is understood in the western europe or civilised states at all - it is moving people like the Jews were transported, but for much longer ( long distances) and then either send them to open fields in the middle of winter to build their own camps with little food or tools and enforce the survivors to work in horrible conditions to die or if very lucky to survive the deat of Stalin or a change in foreign or internal policy. Of course educated people were the primary target exactly like with Poles under Nazi reign, but the destination was the same - death.

I am afraid your pov is severely distorted by yout anti-soviet sentiments and no matter how many appeals to your sense of reason I use, it won't do a thing to take the edge of the most serious misconceptions you are throwing around. The fact that you reproduce some popular myths and urban legends (about ...personal hate of Stalin and Hitler and whatnot) speaks volumes. I have a friend who's a quite nice person overall, but he hates - without a reason, just hates with a passion - the Japanese. Well, he didn't go out to slaughter the Japanese tourists in the streets... at least up until now. I hate gerbils, I don't go out slaughtering gerbils. So, please, let's keep this serious and not go into anecdotal ground, shall we?
Or let's just agree to disagree on this, huh?

Care to provide a serious source about the numbers you are throwing around? I think they are completely irelevant and have nothing to do with reality, but I may be wrong. Serious means no nationalist, right-wing fanatic or CIA-sponsored sources. I positively know for instance that the Ukrainian famines had less than 2.5 mi. victims total. How do you come to the 7 mi. number?

So if you are branding me as right wing anti-communist fanatic, thank you very much !
Especially I like term urban legend - concerning what polish buffor state, deportations to Gulag or what ?
If my judgement is clouded so it is yours m8 - but with hatered of right-wing regimes and friendly feelings of ideologies spreading 'equality', so better stop answering my posts on the ground that I am Polish so definetely I am not serious, because I am not going to say anything about Greece I would regret.

I dare say, that genocide was commited by Stalin and Hitler alike - according to the legal definition of the word something you must contradict first, if i am correct.
So what about legal part ? Shall we discuss it or is it a product of right wing zealots too ?

Besides if you are saying that Wehrmacht commited genocide in Greece - I even didn't considered the Red Army activities in eastern europe at all, besides what about POWs - Polish, Japanese, German - was it a genocide or what than.

Regards Cegorach :book:

Both Stalin and Hitler were paranoid, psychotic genocidal maniacs.

Debating who's worse is pontless. They are both more-or-less equally bad.

Oh, and BTW, NKVD troops have been known to wipe out entire villages dressed as German paratroopers ... so any statistics can be screwed, because we can't for certain know which side did which deeds.

According to Korol - 'The Price of Victory: Myths and Realities' (1996), Soviet civilian casualties amount to approx. 24,000,000, military 8,668,400 ... and I'm only talking about the dead on the Soviet side.

EDIT: The numbers are for the period 1941-1945

The Soviets were in the pleasant habit of not bothering to evacuate their civilians from combat zones, which goes a long way to explain the appalling collateral damage. That the Germans - even perfectly average line troops - had an unpleasant tendency to view Slavs as sub-human helots that could be treated as they felt like didn't help one bit.

ceg, where your argumentation falls short is that you fail to provide even circumstantial proof of Stalin's intent to actually entirely wipe out the populaces that suffered the most under his rule merely due to their race/ethnicity/whatever, as opposed to "merely" killing them in large numbers as means of collective punishement for whatever dubious reason (such as "guilt by association", ie. assumptions of 'treachery' merely for being a member of a troublesome community). What Stalin did was to bloodily crush all opposition to his rule, real or imagined (and he was definitely paranoid), with extreme prejudice and insanely wide coverage with a definite flair for collective punishement; but once he determined this was achieved, the survivors were allowed to live on.

This is oppression, and extremely brutal and bloody at that. But it's not genocide. Genocide is the singular attempt to wipe out an entire population.

There's a difference, athough as far as death tolls go it's often pretty marginal.

Aside from that, Rosa and screwtype are spot on in their assessement of the polar ideological opposition between Nazism (or Fascism in general) and Communism. A good definition I've seen is that Communism, whatever it in practice ended up as, was nonetheless ideologically a developement of the emancipatory and liberal ideas of the Enlightement, albeit taken to extremes (which goes a long way to explain why it bombed; taking even good things to extremes rarely results in anything good). Somewhat perversely one of the most enlightened constitutions in history was passed in the USSR in the early Thirties (which also goes to show how little connection stated principles may have with the practice...), and although the institutions had absolutely no meaning or consequence by themselves the Soviets persisted in maintaining the facades of free democratic elections, constitutional divisions of power and suchlike. Fascism by contrast was at its core singularly the rejection of all such "modern" ideas; the reductio ad absurdum of chauvinism, particularism and reactionarism. It has even been suggested that the reason the assorted Western democracies, also tracing descent from the ideas of the Enlightement, were when the push came to shove willing to ally with the deeply loathed Soviets partly in recognition of this relationship; of two loathsome systems they rather chose the one that wasn't from the ground up built as the rejection of their core ideals.

I'd say about the same. It dosen't matter how MANY they killed, it was the fact that they TRIED to kill as many as possible. The mental goals were the same.

I'll contest that. Stalin tried to kill off all he thought were a threat to his continued power, and as many as were thought necessary to secure that power (ie. so the rest were too scared to try anything). Hitler tried to kill off specific groups of people for ideological reasons.

Churchill, the most fanatically anti-Communist figure in the world before WWII, thought that the Soviets were infinitely preferable to the Nazis. That clinches it for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by screwtype

It's probably true that in practice there wasn't much to choose between Hitler and Stalin, however, let's not forget that the Allies ultimately chose to fight on Stalin's side so that says something about which party they regarded as the greater evil.

The same can be said for the Russians themselves. They could have thrown their lot in with Hitler but most of them chose to fight for Stalin against the invader, in spite of the loathing that many had for the communists.

I don't know if you're Polish, I get the impression you are and if so I can understand your dislike of the Soviets. However the fact remains that at least the Soviets allowed Poland to continue to exist as a nation after the war. Hitler had no such intention and his intentions toward the Polish people themselves was much more sinister. Bad as the Soviets might have been, I think you should probably still be thankful that it was Stalin and not Hitler who prevailed in that conflict.

---

Nope, not Polish in the least bit, but I just saw the show on the history channel, and it seemed Stalin was as bad or worse than Hitler...

An advice by my history teacher in highschool I still cherish (24 years after):
Never, by any means, take as historical fact anything you see in the soapbox.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux

An advice by my history teacher in highschool I still cherish (24 years after):
Never, by any means, take as historical fact anything you see in the soapbox.

---

I was going to say that ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I'll contest that. Stalin tried to kill off all he thought were a threat to his continued power, and as many as were thought necessary to secure that power (ie. so the rest were too scared to try anything). Hitler tried to kill off specific groups of people for ideological reasons.

---

My point is that they both killed WILLINGLY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evil_maniac from mars

My point is that they both killed WILLINGLY.

---

Usually, that's the way killing is conducted anyway. And if we take out the scope from our argument and just say "since they both killed intentionally they are equally bad", then we have to include every mass murderer in history at the same level. Not really every mass murderer only, every dictator is guilty for killing intentionally a large number of people. So, Hitler was no worst than Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, Pol Pot, Papadoc, Batista, Franko, Sadham, Talaat Pasha, Papadopoulos, Kemal and countless other dictators and "dictators", right?

Not to mention that we should include every military leader as well, right? And every revolution leader too. And we might even include some serial killers, for good measure, huh?

Not quite, what we need is Scope and Context. Otherwise we are missing the whole point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by screwtype

And this idea that Nazism was "socialist" in origin is nothing more than pure invention by the US Right, which today is keen to distance itself from any association with the movement.

---

Don't know anything of that actually... It simply doesn't apply to me, I'm Danish. We had a party here which looked up to the Nazis in the 30s (shirts, marching, beating up opponents and flagwaving stuff), but they have since come clean. The fact that I have voted for them makes no point.
I never try to make political point towards history, one of the few thing I pride myself on.

I think you and Rosa are going a little too hard at this. I thought you guys knew me.

Quote:

---

I think you are basing your assumption solely on the pretext of the name

---

Come on now... Have I ever been that shallow?
No, I do not base it on the name as in fact it was a move to gain votes. But just because it was that doesn't mean it didn't have a historical background.
Where Communism sought to spread it's influence to the entire world and potentially all of mankind equally, Nazism had a sort of "our socialism", that few could get close to. Within the construct of Nazism there were many socialist ideas. They took the socialist ideas and developed on them until it fitted their worldview, but many of the ideas remained for the previledged class (and some that weren't, will get to that later).
Call it a perversion of socialism, and I would agree. But to come with the classical kneejerk comment that there was no connection... Well I just think that is wrong, and I think it is equally political as to the mentioned US right changing it to Socialist.

Let me say it this way: I do not think Nazism was/is Socialism or even has political connection to it. What I say it that it was based on that, that the social ideas were to a great extent derived from it. The theory contained many similarities for the previledged.

As to them, in Nazism they were the Aryans. In Socialism (the hard one) it was the workers. They were the groups that would benefit the most. But the while the Nazis dealed in Übermenchen and Untermenchen, there were also many in between, even in Germany. People like the French, Italians ect. But such people were included into the system and enjoyed many of the same benefits. They weren't persecuted, instead they were included into the 'closed' social construct.
Where it was the Untermenchen that were persecuted under Nazism it was the landowners that were persecuted under the hard Socialism. The theory even goes so far as to say it would have to be so. It is also interesting to note how the Nazis used Jewish wealth as an argument... not too far from the 'evil landowner'.

If the positions on the spectrum forced any war, then it is surprising that no war was initiated because one side was capitalistic and the other Socialist. Even Korea and Vietnam were not wars of ideology, they were wars because of bad settlements. In both cases the North made was because they wanted the South, for economical and nationalistic reasons. They used ideology to keep the soldiers going, of course, why not?
So I don't buy into the political spectrum as a reason for war.
As I have said, Hitler had a deepseated hatred for communism after WWI, because of what he percieved to be the reason for the loss in that war. I hope nobody denies his 'backstab' legend as being a great part of his legacy and reasons for war.
I do however agree that it wouldn't have been important if the Soviet Union was communist or not, he would still have attacked.

I charge both of you to find a speech made by Hitler in 1919 in the socialist party he had joined. When I heard it there was no doubt who it was, the words were different however. And personally I think he was being serious about what he said, and that only later did he form the more Nazi ideas.
It is this point Ithink that is important. His political growth was formed here, and where you start out will alsmost always have an impact on the future. In this case I think he retained some of the earlier beliefs and carried them over to his new destiny.
Btw, Hitler wasn't even memeber #1 in NSDAP, those were the older members of the socialist party.

Please... do not think me some kind of political animal that wan't to send the ball onto the other field. I don't even know that kind of game. Nor am I revisionist. I'm just sitting here and looking at it, making conclusions.

Kraxis

Quote:

---

Come on now... Have I ever been that shallow?

---

Nobody said you were shallow… perhaps, defending a lost cause with no logical arguments? ;)

Quote:

---

No, I do not base it on the name as in fact it was a move to gain votes. But just because it was that doesn't mean it didn't have a historical background.

---

The name was not there just to fish votes from the worker classes. There is a seed of truth somewhere in those claiming a joint legacy for the two movements, but it's only a mere seed and a barren at that. The Nazionalsocialistisches Partei was a primarily Nationalist movement. The fact that it took an appealing name (Socialist) as part of it's title, can be explained in a number of ways and also has some historical analogy: In Italy, the Fascists have also a similar connection to the left.

But let us be more methodical, a mere point-to-point reply won't do any good to the discussion. Let me put forth my arguments, and you can see what I am trying to say.

Let us see what is the take of both ideologies regarding several important concepts and issues:

- Socialism
Communism: The mean to go to Communism. A society in which classes still exist, but great care is being taken to ensure equality among all members of the society. The society has precedence over any individual.
Nazism: All Aryans of blood, who are not weak, handicapped, corrupted or decadent, have the right to live a good life. No mentioning of any alteration of the social classes (Nazis did not believe in social classes anyway, workers and Industrialists are merely "part of the Deutsches Volk", not groups with colliding interests). Individuals can have precedence over the society, but not over "the Volk".

- Equality
Communism: The aim of the communist ideology. To create a world where everybody will be equal to each other, irregardless of race, colour, physical characteristics or features. No man should have more than any other or more than he needs. Everybody should be entitled to every luxury the society can produce. Communism is for everybody, for all the people on earth. The communists are depriving the rich from their fortunes (and more importantly from the means of production and their capital) in order to incorporate them into the body of the society as a whole. The working class is not a group of people with a specific background, education, blood or whatnot, it is the whole society in the communist universe.
Nazism: There is no such word in the Nazi vocabulary. The Nazis fundamentally believe that people are not (and cannot be) equal. They are born unequal. Blood is the defining factor, family, personal ability and others are accepted. Powerholders not only are allowed to keep the power the got, but also are becoming even more powerful by cooperating with the Nazi party. The social structure remains unscathed, there is no social movement - a good society is a society that is frozen and does not allow the distortion of the social structure.

- Imperialism
Communists: The communist ideology loathes imperialism and generally imposing the will of one nation over the other. The "revolution" can be exported (according to Lenin's writings, at least) but not by war. Stalin was the first to implement aggressive expansionism as a state policy, but even then it was not "imperialism": USSR gave much, much more to the countries it controlled, than it was given back. Sure, US government did the same, but USSR didn't have the bourgeois class to take advantage of the "allies" and exploit them like the Yank businesspeople did. No financial imperialism. But loads of political imperialism. Again, though, this is not something inherent in the communist ideology, but just a malpractice by Jo S. and gang.
Nazis: Imperialism is the only way to achieve something. Aggressive, expansionist imperialism, including the exploitation of other countries and their resources, the enslaving of their population, the evacuation of their population to create more space for the ubermenschen and a load of others. War for Nazism is not the means, it's the goal, the aim.

- Economy
Communism: Society-owned (state-owned in the Socialist interim) means of production. Equal spread of wealth, according to everyone's need. No paid labour (exploitation of one human by another).
Nazis: A typical protectionist ultra-capitalist economy. Nothing more, nothing less.


Regarding this

Quote:

---

the theory contained many similarities for the previledged.

As to them, in Nazism they were the Aryans. In Socialism (the hard one) it was the workers. They were the groups that would benefit the most.

---

As I mentioned above, the "workers" are not a fixed group of people. And they would not be "the privileged ones" anyway. What do you mean "privilege"? As "having more than the other guy"? Well, sorry, that's just wrong. Equality is the chimera of the Communists.

Quote:

---

If the positions on the spectrum forced any war, then it is surprising that no war was initiated because one side was capitalistic and the other Socialist. Even Korea and Vietnam were not wars of ideology, they were wars because of bad settlements. In both cases the North made was because they wanted the South, for economical and nationalistic reasons. They used ideology to keep the soldiers going, of course, why not?
So I don't buy into the political spectrum as a reason for war.

---

Uh… Kraxis, my old man, you've completely lost it here. If you haven't noticed, in 1989 a 44year old "war" was terminated. It was called "Cold War" and about two dozens of "hot" wars were fought in its context. If that wasn't a clash of ideologies, I don't know what is. Ideology is just a theoretical construct to support the interests of people/classes/nations etc. Communism is (was, whatever) the ideology of the working class, while capitalism is (and shall remain) the ideology of those who have the wealth in their hands.

Quote:

---

As I have said, Hitler had a deepseated hatred for communism after WWI, because of what he percieved to be the reason for the loss in that war. I hope nobody denies his 'backstab' legend as being a great part of his legacy and reasons for war.
I do however agree that it wouldn't have been important if the Soviet Union was communist or not, he would still have attacked.

---

Explain please all his efforts to render "racial (and ideological) kinsmen" Brits and Americans, into his allies to fight together communism. Explain why the Nazis didn't consider moving in western Europe for "lebensraum" but considered only "communist" USSR. Explain why a host of great industrialists from all over the world cooperated with the Nazi regime. Explain why he targeted communists as the #3 state enemy (and the only ideological, the #1 and #2 were racial). Explain Dunkirk. Explain the half-cooked attempt at "Seelowe".

I don't think those are explainable by your line of thought…

Very well... I give up.

you really cant argue with that many words :~)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Very well... I give up.

---

Good man. I couldn't even read that long!:laugh4:

Thanks for the respect, guys :inquisitive: should be certain you'll get the same respect from me in the future

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux

Usually, that's the way killing is conducted anyway. And if we take out the scope from our argument and just say "since they both killed intentionally they are equally bad", then we have to include every mass murderer in history at the same level. Not really every mass murderer only, every dictator is guilty for killing intentionally a large number of people. So, Hitler was no worst than Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, Pol Pot, Papadoc, Batista, Franko, Sadham, Talaat Pasha, Papadopoulos, Kemal and countless other dictators and "dictators", right?

Not to mention that we should include every military leader as well, right? And every revolution leader too. And we might even include some serial killers, for good measure, huh?

Not quite, what we need is Scope and Context. Otherwise we are missing the whole point.

---

OK, that was not well posted on my part, admitted. I'll get a fitting response to you in a bit.

What Fascism and Communism have as an uniting feature is populism - both are at their core essentially milleniarian "Heaven On Earth" movements that promise their followers to fix what is wrong in the world and give the deserving what is due to them (it obviously going without saying that the adherents are either the or amongst the deserving).

Which, naturally enough, led to some competition over the support base of unhappy populace. This was apparently particularly pronounced in Weimar Germany where the Nazis and the local Communist party competed over the essentially same pool of disgruntled lower class (and hated the local Social Democrat party even more than each other...) - the unhappy petite bourgeoise types being probably more predisposed towards the Nazis from the start (since they opposed the Communists, the bogeymen of the bourgeoise).

And once the Nazis came out on top, the disgruntled deserted the Communists en masse to such a degree the Nazi party adminstration actually got rather worried about all these former card-carrying Commies joining their ranks...

Hitler was incidentally quick to purge folks who took the "socialist" part of National Socialist too seriously, by what I've read. Small wonder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux

I have in the past posted a rather huge and detailed account on Stalin's victims and the USSR demographics. So, I'll just remind you all that USSR in 1929 (according to official census data) had 152 million people. In 1945, after a war that costed the country at least 26.6 million victims, USSR had 170.5 million inhabitants.

To achieve such growth had stalin killed 10 million people, the Russkies should reproduce at an extraordinary rate (double their normal, which was already way higher than the European average at the time). If we are to believe the more ludicrus numbers (like that 30 millions that seems a convenient point for those who are serving the anti-communist cause even today) the Soviets should've reproduced like rabits on viagra. And even during wartime.

---

From what I found on the net, the estimated data in 1939 spawns from 168 M to 182 M.
Add to that the fact USSR annexed lands where were living about 20 M of people at the end of the war, and the estimations of 15 M to 20 M people killed by Stalin don't sound that unbelievable.

The same thing could be said of post-Revolutionnary France. Despite civil war, Revolutionnary wars, the Terror (fairly similar to Stalin's purge, though on a lower scale) and Napoleonic wars, France's population was far higher in 1816 than in 1789.

Rosacrux, plus d'un million des roumains ont disparu de Moldavie entre 1940-1947.
More than a million romanians died in gulags and during their deportation to Syberia. Deportation to Syberia or Tatra was the closest thing to Auschwitz and Bierkenau in the soviet perception.Than the lands ware colonized with Slavs and that's how Bucovina and Bugeac now have a slav majority. It's just like nazism only that we have different idea with the same results, ethnic clensing on a industrial scale. Hittler's methods of killing ware slightly more humane than Stalin's. While the gas chamber killed, it did so slower than starvation or "beating to death". Hittler only focused on two ethnic groups " Gypsies and Jews" while Stalin's choice was much larger (Kazaks, Poles, Jews, Romanians, Germans, Cechens and many more. Ironicaly Hittler through his actions saved more than 8 million russians from the gulag system, by starting Operation Barbarossa.
Communism is a threat to the free human, while nazism is more a threat for specific human categories. The worst dictator combining all this traits is Pol Pot ( he exterminated the vietnamease in Cambogia, he killed millions of his own citizens and plunged his country into such a crisis that even Stalin couldn't match him.
If Hittler's killing methods would have been more subtile, westerners might have respected him today.

I give up guys. Everybody is entitled to his opinion, no matter how far from historical reality it is. I am just apaled by the effect the demonization propaganda had in both "east" and "west". Nothing more.