Watching a documentary of Stalin on the History channel, and from what I comprehended, Stalin was as bad if not worse than Hitler.
Ideas? Comments?
Printable View
Watching a documentary of Stalin on the History channel, and from what I comprehended, Stalin was as bad if not worse than Hitler.
Ideas? Comments?
i watched the same one, YAY.
but honestly i already knew he was worse than hitler, hitler probably would have been worse but he did bnot have the population to sacrifice like stalin did. Stalin in his time had such a large population in russia where they could waste up to 50 russian soldiers to kill but 1 german one...and he did. thousands were killed for no reason except there race or religion or even there day to day demeanor, if anything. his forced labor camps in siberia were the reason that the USSR gained power but only at the expense of at least a few million people.
oh and then there is the incarceration of the jewish doctors.
A while ago I PM'd someone here who said pretty much the same thing...I'll quote my own message:
In the last years of his regime, Hitler seemed to have made killing an objective rather then a means.Quote:
Estimates of Hitler's death toll vary, I heard a generally accepted figure is 20 million but it comprises at least the 12 million thad died in concentration camps (6 million jews + 6 million others, like gypsies disabled communists etc). Hitler's dictatorial regime lasted from 1934-1945
Suppose we accept that Stalin murdered around 30 million (again a contested estimate among historians). Yet he ruled longer then Hitler, namely 1924-53, and he did so over a country of over 150 million.
Estimates on Maos death toll are so varied, let's say he took the cake and murdered around 60 million. He ruled from 1945–1976, longer then Stalin or Hitler, and did so over a country of 400 milion (!) people.
Hitler killed less, but only because he got to rule for only 11 years over a country that was far smaller then China or the SU. Hitler was a far more accomplished mass murderer then Stalin or Mao was.
master of puppets:
It was good wasn't it? You watch the History channel often? Have you seen the documentary on Stalingrad?
Is that Viasat History?
Hehe, it's funny to see the Polish, Serbian and Czech titles, but at least the commentary speaks in Hungarian.. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by BelgradeWar
To be summarized the topic shortly, Hitler was a bit moron, but Stalin was a neurotic idiot with too much power. But we cannot blame him for massacre of millions, he was infected by a mortal disease called communism...
Ah, but Ultras, communism has never really existed. Stalin imposed his own version, Stalinism on them. With him as a dictator, it is already obviously not communist (unless you think he was equal to the rest of the Russians).
Anyway, all of you are talking about World War II only. That isn't all he did: he almost destroyed his whole army before world war two: he killed most of the members of his Congress, I think it's called, killed all the old guard Bolsheviks, rivals, and most of the capable army and navy commanders. This is why he had to sacrifice so many Russians in WWII. You can't really blame him: it was them, or German occupation, German victory and a German Europe which would probably lose much of its population under Hitler. A hard choice to make, but necessary...
But of course, this was only because he weakened the USSR so much before the Second World War. Unwise move by Stalin.
To be honest it is very hard to accept by some that the 2nd WW was more or less a battle Nazism vs. Communism two inhuman regimes with some small and and limited involvement of western democratic states which liberated less than half of Europe ( a part of which already collaborated with Hitler) less states than were occupied by the Soviets.:shame:
1989 really finished 2nd WW.:2thumbsup:
Regards Cegorach :book:
Some are more equal than others, my friend ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Not really. There were always those upper class ones, and the peasants who were persecuted and dragged off to death camps for no reason. The rich factory owners could still make profits, and the poor factory workers had nothing to do except what they did: barely scratch out a living.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadesPanther
That's many different groups of 'equal' but as a whole it's not different from Tsarist Russia.
Hence Communism never has and never will exist: people would simply not work if however hard they did work they still earned the same.
30 millions with or without war casualties included?
I'd say the main difference is in the motivation of the two. Stalin's morbidly impressive death toll was a byproduct of his crude and mainly extremely brutal methods of securing and maintaining his power, plus sheer adminstrational incompetence (ditto for the Bolsheviks in general really; Mao was AFAIK mainly incompetent to an appalling degree and didn't actually mean to get all those people killed and starved...). Hitler's was very much an end in and by itself - true, honest-to-God genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Kinda the difference between criminal neglicence and premediated murder, although obviously for the victims the distinction is rather moot.
I think both of them genuinely belived in what they were doing, but of both Stalin inflicted the worst suffering on his own people, while Hitler reserved that for those he considered to be "lesser" or against him, so i think Stalin was more evil,
I dunno. He was mainly out for "number one" and Devil take the costs. That's a perfectly rational and understandable agenda, if not terribly nice or agreeable. Hitler had a Cause that involved killing off huge numbers of people for no other reason than accidents of birth, ie. ethnicity and nationality...
but didnt hitler eliminate all those people because he thought they weakened the state and took up land/resources that his "aryan" race could use...he also persecuted others in order to gain power (for himslef and nazi germany) so in many ways similar to stalin,
I dunno, seemed pretty "end unto itself" to me and a fairly central part of his ideology.
Put this way: Stalin was an equal-opportunity oppressor. If he thought you were trouble, he squashed you and everyone in the immediate vicinity just to be on the safe side. He wasn't too particular or ideological about it (I don't think he was a particularly fervent believer in the Cause anyway; a paranoid opportunist, more like).
Hitler was... more specific. Racist, bluntly put. He had you killed not because of what you did (or were thought to do in the future), but because of what you were.
There's also the detail that when it comes down to that Stalin's methods were by far cruder. The killing methods he employed never progressed beyond bloody handwork where someone was walked to the edge of a hole and simply shot. Nasty and ugly as that is, it's still somehow a... human way to do it. There's still the guy pulling the trigger, or the vicious and bored camp guard beating you to death, or the entirely dysfunctional management starving half the prison camp (I don't think even Stalin ever had genuine death camps, although many of the penal work camps were so bad they nearly amounted to the same thing; but they weren't *designed* to be that).
The Nazis got... industrial about their killing. Once they realized the amount of killing to be done was not really achievable by such primitive measures, they set about solving the problem like it was a question of cold logistics, capacity, machinery and organization. They went *scientific*.
And that's somehow far more disturbing. The Bolsheviks were merely crude and barbaric. The Nazis were civilization and sophistication gone wrong.
Or, put shortly, the Bolshevik approach to killing people 'merely' denied the value of human life. The Nazis categorically and selectively denied the very humanity, and hence right of existence, of entire populations.
See the difference ?
Ah but Stalin had his odd quotas for killings and deportation. There weren't always reason behind what happened in the Soviet Union under him.
When you demand quotas you know that you have gone past any reasonable claims of whatever could be used for reasoning for an execution.
And specific groups were treated far worse than others. Ukranians were for instance singled out pretty badly. So were some of the more marginal people. And the Balts certainly suffered badly.
Stalin didn't always act like the scythe, cutting all equally, but more like a sickle, cutting high here, low there, not there and uprooting another.
Divida et conquera. That's actually pretty standard power tactics - it helps keep the downtrodden underlings resenting each other rather than you, and the somewhat-more-fortunate harboring at least some nominal gratitude for being spared the worst.
And then sheer maximum-dispersion terror. When the Great Purge was at its peak the regional secret police offices had quotas of prisoners, and actually *competed* with each other in meeting them. Given such wonders as pre-printed confession papers it's pretty obvious the only purpose was to crush the will of the populace through the crude expedient of arbitrary, irrational, unpredictable terror that can strike anyone, anywhere, anytime, for no perceivable reason.
Worked too. Stalin eventually had to call it off when it was becoming obvious his maximum-coverage methods had begun eating away at the very core of the whole state, and made the terror machinery turn against itself...
How'd Uncle Joe's own ethnical reference group, the Georgians, incidentally fare anyway ? I actually don't know.
I'd say all that is still rather qualitatively different from condemning entire populations to assisted extinction purely for reasons of nutty racist ideology, though.
Another thing to add in the arguments, is that Stalin made it a personal issue to not only destroy an enemy, which he oftened viewed as everyone, not only in killing them outright, but completely destroying any evidence that they ever existed... we remember many people that were taken to the Nazi Death Camps by ledgers and such, we have no idea to a much larger proportion as to how many died in the Gulags or even who they were, nobody remembers because Stalin made it his personal mission to destroy a persons memory through relatives, pictures, and mass propaganda as well...I consider that pretty evil.
I watched it it was quite good all about the how the Russians clothing and guns were better than the Germans very good. In my opnion Stalin was worse than Hitler. If I remember right Stalin killed around 20 million people to I dont know how many Hitler killed. And you cant really say that Hitler worse cause he murdered 6 million Jews because Stalin murdered way more that Hitler. If I can think of anything else I'll post it. and I'm not quite sure on the numbers either but thats what I think it is.:book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
Stalin actually killed about 4.7 million people altogether. This includes the early purges, the late purges, the gulags, the army purges, the kulak purges and both great famines. If one does a bit of research in the USSR demographics, one would be surprised what an enormous pile of rubish the western propaganda about "20" or "30" or even "70" !!!! million victims is.
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.
Not very likely, wouldn't you say?
As for the question in hand... as personalities, Hitler and Stalin were both equally repulsive. The phrase psychopath homicidal maniacs is too mild to even begin describing them. But Hitler was the man that started a world war that had more than 60 million victims, while Stalin was the leader of the country that saved the world from Nazism.
So, it is rather idiotic to even compare them for the effect they had on humanity.
I have to agree that Hitler was worse. Stalin was a brute, but his brutality was basically about eliminating opposition to his rule. As such, it was probably no different from that of hundreds of brutal dictators in history, except perhaps in terms of scale.
Also, Stalin's brutality was at least nominally in the service of a noble ideal of the equality of all men, no matter how debased in practice it was.
Nazism, on the other hand, was a philosophy that openly embraced genocide, slavery and conquest as the natural right of a supposedly racially superior group. As such, it was by definition far more evil, and potentially destructive, which must at least in part explain why Churchill and the US, in spite of their utter abhorrence of Communism, ultimately sided with Stalin.
In terms of absolute numbers I think Hitler must also trump Stalin. Even if one takes the upper figure of 30 million dead that is sometimes given for Stalin's purges and famines, Hitler's war probably killed about the same number of Russians alone, to which one must add five million Jews, six million Poles, 6 million Germans and hundreds of thousands of others who perished as a result of his war.
Ont the list of the opposition were... stamp collectors - trully horribly dangerous :laugh4:
Anyway Stalin should be credited with at least a part of the victims of the 2nd WW because he STARTED THE WAR TOGETHER WITH HITLER signing the alliance and joining the war on 17th September 1939 which shortened the polish war of defense by at least 4-5 additional weeks. In addition at least the Polish losses actually include a number killed by Stalin's orders ( 100 000 Jews included). So it would be fair to give him a part of the victims adding to his little list - he tried so hard to get them and it is Hitler who is credited - poor, poor Joe :laugh4:
And the noble purpose - Hitler had his own the 'bright' future of his nation ( many people excluded), Stalin was aiming to reach a different 'bright' future and I can't see much difference in ideology in the end - even their banners were both red...
Regards Cegorach :2thumbsup:
Communism in theory has absolutely nothing to do with Nazism. It's the exact opposite of it, actually, and Hitler ideologicaly was much closer to the western "democracies" than to USSR. That is why he was so fixed on destroying USSR, that is why all his rhetoric was anti-communist propaganda, that is why communists were the third largest group in the concentration camps (about 600.000 communists died, in addition to the 1.5 million gypsies and the 6 million Jews and an unknown number of homosexuals) and this is precisely why Hitler was desperately trying to render USA-UK into his allies, so they can together "eliminate the communist threat".
Hitler's bright future was including only his own people. Jews were the first group of people, along with the Gypsies, systematically exterminated. The Slavs would follow (Hitler was very, very emphatic in his assertion that the Slavs were subhumans, good only as slaves of the ubermenschen) and given enough time most others would too (assuming the Nazis would have it their way).
Communism, OTOH, is very much the opposite and even in it's extremely twisted incarnation in USSR, no genocide was instigated by Stalin or any other "communist" in the Soviet-occupied lands.
Not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux
Both were centered around the 'common' man, the responseabilities of said man, his future in a revolutionary society of equality of all people (of the correct race of couse).
Nazism had a true ring in its real name National Socialism. Take note in Socialism as it was actually something the Nazis tried to work on.
How the two systems got there, and how they maintained themselves is the main difference, but in theory (as you brought up) they were not at all that different. But then again, neither Germany nore the Soviet Union lived up to the theory of either system. Neither society was equal and Hitler catered to the big industrial barons, while Stalin never really considered the common man.
The theories were not that different.
National Socialism came from Socialism (the NSDAP was actually a socialist party when Hitler joined it, only later did it change its name and some ofthe goals, and the old members remained), and Communism also came from Socialism.
They didn't come to a head because they were different, but because Hitler and many of the other early Nazis had a deeprooted hatred of what they percieved to have been he reason for the loss in WWI (the Communists and Socialists on the Home Front).
Sorry Kraxis, but I must completely disagree, Nazism and Communism had radically different philosophies which is why they were mortal enemies.
Communism proposes the fundamental equality and brotherhood of all men. Nazism proposes a world divided up into "ubermensch" and "untermensch" with the untermensch (subhumans) fit only for slavery or extermination. You couldn't get two more radically opposed ideologies if you tried.
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. That however was not its attitude when Hitler was actually in power. The Right at the time not only recognized Hitler but keenly embraced him as one of their own, celebrating his thuggery against communists and his union busting tactics, whilst pouring money into the nazi coffers. Both Hitler's financing and his critical political support came from big industrialists both in Germany and abroad, indeed it was the support of the German industrialists that ultimately got him appointed as Chancellor.
Nazism's adoption of the word "Socialist" was quite cynical, designed to appeal to the electorate at a time when socialism was a very popular ideology amongst the working class. But there was nothing about Hitler's ideology that was socialist, save his totalitarian outlook which inclined him toward government control of the economy (as well as everything else). In fact the Nazis never had a clear economic platform - they had no real interest in the subject, their proposed method of enriching Germany was not via economics but through military aggression.
I think you are basing your assumption solely on the pretext of the name, and that is fundamentally wrong. I think a basic knowledge of both ideologies, can prove that they are the exact opposite and have absolutely nothing to do with each other. In theory, as I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
How the two systems got there, and how they maintained themselves is the main difference, but in theory (as you brought up) they were not at all that different.
Basic nazi theory: there is a "chosen people" and that is the germanic "race". those chosen people have the destiny to rule the earth and they have to stomp on the other (lesser) people to do so. Those lesser, have only one destiny: to serve the Germanic ubermenschen. Every ubermensch has the right to live a comfortable life, but nobody shall be deprived off his/hers property, unless it is for the greater good of the Volk and Heimat. The ideal society of the future shall be a world full of blond Germans, served by the rest of the humanity. Social stability must be preserved at all costs. Nothing should disrupt the social structure.
Blood is the only defining factor: if one has "Aryan" blood, one is superior and has to rule over those who haven't.
The fuhrer's word is law. Nobody can question his authority, as the fuhrer is the superior human being and cannot be judged.
I could go on for ages with the ramblings of Adolf Hitler from his "Mein Kampf", but I think this is enough. How is this ideology anything close to internationalism, absolute equality, lack of even the slightest notion of racism and discrimination, constant social change, reshuffle of the social structure, "to everybody according their ability, to everybody according to their needs" of communism, is beyond my comprehension. Only someone who hasn't read a line of communist theory and likewise of nazi theory, can find similaritie based on the "socialist" euphemism in the Nazi title and the similarities between Hitler and Stalin.
Hitler's and Stalin's regimes had quite a number of things in common, but that was not because of their ideology. It was because Stalin was a ruthless dictator, just as Hitler was. And one of the greatest weaknesess of the Soviet-style socialism was that it allowed to people like old-Jo to rise to power.
Not quite. Nazis and commies are the extreme ends of the political spectrum and - as seen also by the above references - aim at completely different things. They had to collide sooner or later.Quote:
They didn't come to a head because they were different, but because Hitler and many of the other early Nazis had a deeprooted hatred of what they percieved to have been he reason for the loss in WWI (the Communists and Socialists on the Home Front).
Hitler was fixed on his anti-communism and so was the whole Nazi party. And a host of, for instance, American businesspeople (like the famous Ford) who aided Hitler and build lots of factories for him, did so in the premise that he would destroy the threat for their fortunes and well-beeing: Communism.
Hitler's bright future was including only his own people. Jews were the first group of people, along with the Gypsies, systematically exterminated. The Slavs would follow (Hitler was very, very emphatic in his assertion that the Slavs were subhumans, good only as slaves of the ubermenschen) and given enough time most others would too (assuming the Nazis would have it their way).
-----------> I would say that it would end as communism, which n its early phase was equally predatory and cruel.:book:
Communism, OTOH, is very much the opposite and even in it's extremely twisted incarnation in USSR, no genocide was instigated by Stalin or any other "communist" in the Soviet-occupied lands.[/QUOTE]
NO GENOCIDE...
Ok, so Chechens, Tatars, Poles, Khazaks, Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, Moldavians, Ukrainians, Jews ( yes, yes like Hitler), Belorussians and countless others groups doesn't count ????? :inquisitive:
Well... to me there is nodifference, especially from legal point of view - the definition of the genocide is fully useful for both Nazi and Communist crimes, or maybe should I say that only Nazi crimes are genocide and communst only errors with some regretable deaths. :no:
NONE of the peoples you list was targeted specifically for genocide. Mass deportion, probably (at least Tatars and to a point Khazaks) and the Ukrainians had the most victims in the two famines, but I think you got your definition of genocide quite wrong.
The Balts continued to thrive under Stalin - only the German cooperators were targeted (and, frankly, I would do the same to such people, too bad the Brits saved the cooperators in my own country, Greece). Poles? Bielorussians? Moldavians? Genocide? Yes, definitely you don't understand the term genocide.
Genocide is what the settlers did in the Americas
Genocide is what Chinghiz did to Hsi Hsia and parts of China
Genocide is what Timur Lenk did to parts of India and central Asia
Genocide is what the Turks did to the Armenians
Genocide is what Hitler did to the Jews and Gypsies
Genocide is what happened in Kambodia and Rwanda
An oppressive regime does not equal genocide, I fear.
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
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 Rosacrux redux
My point is that they both killed WILLINGLY.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by evil_maniac from mars
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
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.
Come on now... Have I ever been that shallow?Quote:
I think you are basing your assumption solely on the pretext of the name
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
Nobody said you were shallow… perhaps, defending a lost cause with no logical arguments? ;)Quote:
Come on now... Have I ever been that shallow?
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.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.
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
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:
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.
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:
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.
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".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.
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 :~)
Good man. I couldn't even read that long!:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Thanks for the respect, guys :inquisitive: should be certain you'll get the same respect from me in the future
OK, that was not well posted on my part, admitted. I'll get a fitting response to you in a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux
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.
From what I found on the net, the estimated data in 1939 spawns from 168 M to 182 M.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux
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.