Medium "Debunks the Communism killed more than Nazism claim"

[NatSoc420]

I've found this article https://discomfiting.medium.com/debunking-communism-killed-more-people-than-naziism-7a9880696f67 which claims "National Socialism killed more people than Communism". The points they give to "debunk" the death toll under Communism are:

1. The Black Book of Communism cites the deaths of 10 different Communist nations.

2. The Black Book of Communism put in "Nazi" deaths from WW2.

3. The Russian famine of 1921 which was caused "naturally".

The points they give to prove "National Socialism killed more than Communism" are:

1. The Holocaust (their estimate is "12 Million").

2. The Third Reich "starting WW2" and causing civilian deaths that estimate to "50-55 Million".

3. "Fascist" Ukrainian Government and the Azov killing civilians through grad rockets.

4. Neo-Nazi movements, "inspired regimes", and Anders Behring Breivik shooting in Norway.

[Hektor]

It sounds quite desperate, what they are trying to do there.
Mind you, the alleged "Fascist Atrocities" have been hyped for decades by all kinds of interest groups. It has become a thought-terminating cliche for many, especially in supposedly intellectual fields.

Meanwhile Communist Atrocities have been given a pass, they have been ignored by those otherwise so up in arms about "Human Rights". And they are downplayed and justified by many that believe that while "Communism wasn't democratic and violent" it was still for a "good cause".... Did any ideology including National Socialism, ever claim otherwise?

Maoist, Western intellectuals did have their problems with acknowledging what happened in Cambodia, which had a regime, which took Marxism to its final consequences:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbaHCV-nYZo

[Hannover]

Given that full spectrum Communism is again rearing it's ugly head, it is not surprising that it's advocates are trying to downplay what actually happens when it has control.

The Holocaust (their estimate is "12 Million").

Which makes the lack of claimed, but not found human remains, stand out even more. That 12M is larger than the population of London, England

- Hannover

[Lamprecht]

What about "Communism actually never killed anyone because real communism was never actually tried?"


https://pic8.co/EZYTBb.jpe//g

OP:

The points they give to prove "National Socialism killed more than Communism" are:

1. The Holocaust (their estimate is "12 Million").

Well, they need to fix that, the top exterminationists don't even maintain this ridiculous lie. The "Official" number is actually claimed to be about half that, including non-Jews (whose number was inflated allegedly by 10x).. See:

5 million gentiles / 11 million total victims - "a number without any scholarly basis" invented by Simon Wiesenthal
viewtopic.php?t=12403

2. The Third Reich "starting WW2" and causing civilian deaths that estimate to "50-55 Million".

Except it was Britain and France who declared war on Germany. But that's a subject for another thread/forum; see:

Why did Hitler invade so many 'neutral' European countries?
viewtopic.php?t=12421

'Why Germany Invaded Poland', by John Wear / 'peaceful Poland' debunked
viewtopic.php?t=12331

[Video] A Last Appeal To Reason - Hitler's various peace offers
viewtopic.php?t=12662

3. "Fascist" Ukrainian Government and the Azov killing civilians through grad rockets.

So we can just call whatever we want to "Nazism"-- even though Fascism and National Socialism are different concepts. Yeah, but "Communism has never been tried"?

4. Neo-Nazi movements, "inspired regimes", and Anders Behring Breivik shooting in Norway.

Breivik killed 77 and he wasn't even a "neo-Nazi."
How many people are killed by White American "neo-Nazis" + Europeans + the rest of the Anglosphere?



Seems to me like those in the USA consistently voting for communist policies are the ones doing most of the illegal killing...

I also recommend:

The Ideological shift in the USA (and West) after WWII and why it happened + Yuri Bezmenov
viewtopic.php?t=13209

Poland under Communism / Jewish domination of Polish Communism
viewtopic.php?t=12693

[Lamprecht]

Given that full spectrum Communism is again rearing it's ugly head, it is not surprising that it's advocates are trying to downplay what actually happens when it has control.

The Holocaust (their estimate is "12 Million").

Which makes the lack of claimed, but not found human remains, stand out even more. That 12M is larger than the population of London, England

- Hannover

12M is also larger than the population of Belgium, Greece, Czech Republic, Sweden, Portugal, or Denmark+Norway combined...

12M cremated bodies is a lot. If the average weight was 130 lbs (59kg) this would result in 902,772 cubic feet (25,564 cubic meters) for the burnt remains of 12 million people (assuming 1 cubic inch per pound of body weight).

[Otium]

This article is arbitrary and hypocritical.

The points they give to "debunk" the death toll under Communism are:

1. The Black Book of Communism cites the deaths of 10 different Communist nations.

You cannot 'debunk' the death toll of Communism by simply ignoring Communist atrocities from regimes around the world on the one hand, then on the other conflate the deaths of people killed by Azov in Ukraine and terrorists like Brevik in Norway and attribute it to Fascism (Brevik was no fan of Hitler by the way). If you were to do that and broaden the scope of deaths attributable to these two ideologies, then it wouldn't be a stagnant tally, but one that's constantly running to see who has killed the most. This would mean you'd have to include terror attacks committed by leftists, and I'd say, crime committed by immigrants, and other non-whites who've been admitted into European countries under the policies of various leftist/conservative administrations since WW2 around the world.

Needless to say, conventional political ideologies like those supported by your average voter are influenced by Cultural Marxism (or Cultural Bolshevism as the National Socialists called it), that is to say, the sociological, anthropological, and cultural machinations of those people who since WW2 were largely Jewish (with ample gentile support), and affiliated with one of the various sects of Marxism who have thus changed the morality of the Western World over time to accord to their twisted beliefs in equality and 'progress'. Not only in an economic sense, despite what Marxist apologists would claim to defend their ideology. Pretending that 'Marxism' isn't an apt description of the common thread you observe being weaved throughout institutions in the west because it's purely an 'economic' doctrine is a thin veil that doesn't disguise the reality of the situation. Which is that Marxism is very much in tandem with current leftist ideologies goals.

It isn't a coincidence that the only type of 'radical' you're allowed to be, is a 'radical leftist'. Which usually translates into some type of Communist. Go to any University or social media website and you'll find many such people.

The Holocaust (their estimate is "12 Million").

Obviously moronic, as Lamprecht pointed out the 12 million number isn't really taken seriously by the establishment anymore, and of course, the 6 million isn't substantiated and actually varies from anywhere between 4.1-6 million depending on what historian you cite. Of course the number isn't even close to being that high anyway.

The Third Reich "starting WW2" and causing civilian deaths that estimate to "50-55 Million".

This is probably the most audacious claim due to the fact that these are including deaths in theatres of the Second World War in which the Germans didn't even fight and thus left no impression whatsoever. Not even any serious establishment historians would accept such nonsense anyway:

There has always been something missing in this Hitler-centric view of World War II, which rings hollower the further east one travels from Berlin to Beijing. In Eastern Europe, German aggression left behind much less of a trace than the Stalinist variety, which outlasted it by decades. East of the Volga, it left virtually no trace at all. In Asia, where Hitler's Germany was not even an active belligerent, the Soviet legacy of the war lives on in the Communist governments of China, North Korea, and Vietnam. countries on which Hitler's short-lived Reich left not even a shadow. Nor did Hitler play a part in the Pearl Harbour attack in December 1941 that brought the United States into the war - even if Hitler made it easier for the Roosevelt administration to choose a "Germany first" strategy when he foolishly declared war on the United States after Pearl Harbour in solidarity with Japan. [..] Viewed from Beijing, Pyongyang, Hanoi, Moscow, Budapest, or Bucharest, the conflict we call World War II was not Hitler's war at all. It did not begin in September 1939 and end in Mat 1945, with victory parades and flowers and kisses for the victors. In Eastern Europe, the war lasted until 1989, in the form of Soviet military occupation. On the Korean peninsula, in China and Taiwan, question arising from the conflict remain unresolved.

It has always been a stretch to lump together all the wars on the globe between the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in September 1931 and Japan's final capitulation in September 1945, as many historians are now conceding. Victor Davis Hanson's recent general history The Second World Wars illustrates the point, as does Antony Beevor when he opens his own history, The Second World War, by conceding that it was "an amalgamation of conflicts." It is even more of a stretch to blame them all on one man - a man who was not even in power in Germany when the Manchurian conflict erupted, and who had been dead for four months when Japan surrendered.

Sean McMeekin, Stalin's War (Allen Lane, 2021), Pp. 1-2.

If anyone is to blame for starting World War Two, and for the resulting world catastrophe it would be Stalin and the Soviet Union:

Still, if we do wish to find a common thread linking the on-and-off global wars lasting from 1931 to 1945, it would make far more sense to choose someone who was alive and in power during the whole thing, whose armies fought in both Asia and Europe on a regular (if not uninterrupted) basis for the entire period, whose empire spanned the Eurasian continent that furnished the theater for most of the fighting and nearly all of the casualties, whose territory was coveted by the two main Axis aggressors, and who succeeded in defeating them both and massively enlarging his empire in the process - emerging, by any objective evaluation, as the victor inheriting the soils of war, if at a price in Soviet lives (nearly thirty million) so high as to be unfathomable today. In all these ways, it was not Hitler's, but Stalins, war. . .

Ibid., p. 2-3.

As McMeekin shows, the Soviet Union from its inception had as it's goal, expressed by both Lenin and Stalin, to engineer another global war by pitting the 'capitalist powers' against each other. It was Stalin who came up with the idea to partition Poland (McMeekin, Stalin's War, p. 3.), and it was Stalin who wanted to drive Hitler into a war with the West by getting Germany to sign a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, because Stalin knew that if Hitler did not secure his rear from the East, it was unlikely he would've taken the risk to attack Poland:

Far from wishing to forestall a European war between Germany and the Western powers, Stalin's aim was to ensure that it would break out. According to a controversial transcript of Stalin's remarks on this very day, first published in translation in 1939 and later discovered in the Russian archives, the Vozhd told Molotov that, if he cut a deal with England and France, "Germany will back off and seek a modus vivendi with the Western Powers." by contrast, if Molotov "accept[ed] Germany's proposal and conclude[d] a nonaggression pact with her," Stalin predicted that Germany "will certainly attack Poland, and the intervention of England and France is then unavoidable." From the Communist perspective, the latter scenario - a bloody war in which the capitalist power blocs sought to destroy each other - was much better than peace. It was, Stalin explained, "in the interests of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc."

Ibid., p. 83-84. Also see: Joachim Hoffman, Stalin's War of Extermination 1941-1945 (Castle Hill Publishers, 2015), Pp. 28-30.

And of course the article ignores the fact that Poland was much less willing to accept any German demands which had always been asking for the absolute minimum Germany deserved, while Poland demanded to keep what didn't belong to her.

Poland, as is known, was obstinate and incorrectly thought that the British guarantee of March 31st 1939, and the mutual assistance treaty which ratified the guarantee on August 25th was a blank cheque that would ensure British intervention in a war with Germany (Polish obstinacy in: McMeekin, Stalin's War, p. 71, 92; incorrect interpretation of Mutual Assistance Treaty see, p. 90.). Hitler was forced to risk a war with the Western powers that he didn't want, simply to regain territory that had been robbed of Germany after WW1 (McMeekin, Stalin's War, p. 3-4, 90, 93.), which to reiterate, he only did because of support from the Soviet Union. It was Stalin, not Hitler, that truly desired a war to break-out.

The Poles of course just thought that they'd win in a fight against Germany and so they mobilised their armed forces (multiple times) and proclaimed that they'd "march on to Berlin" (Ibid., p. 92, 93.). To put the war onto Hitler is patently ridiculous, as anyone who isn't disingenuous can clearly see. You would have to pretend that Germany was the only country in the world who had any sort of personal ambition, which is obviously false.

Hitler only allied with Japan and declared war on the United States in order to make peace and end the war, not exacerbate it:

Hitler was initially opposed to a formal alliance with Japan. However, he changed his mind in the light of Britain’s rejection of his peace offer and the threat of the United States entering the war, and in August came out in favour of such an alliance. The aim was to force the United States to focus on the Pacific region, putting Britain under greater pressure to accede to Germany’s ‘desire for peace’.

Peter Longerich, Hitler: A Life (Oxford University Press, 2019), Pp. 705.

Even in planning for Barbarossa Hitler was thinking about how peace could be made. Hitler simply didn't expect the war to start as it did, or to go on for as long as it did. His desire was a small war with Poland, not the massive world war which resulted due to many other parties and factors quite independent of himself and Germanys interests.

[Lamprecht]

HMS quotes McMeekin above:

"Viewed from Beijing, Pyongyang, Hanoi, Moscow, Budapest, or Bucharest, the conflict we call World War II was not Hitler's war at all. It did not begin in September 1939 and end in Mat 1945, with victory parades and flowers and kisses for the victors. In Eastern Europe, the war lasted until 1989, in the form of Soviet military occupation. On the Korean peninsula, in China and Taiwan, question arising from the conflict remain unresolved..."

The Soviets did not only attack their enemies with bombs and bullets. They engaged in psychological warfare operations, brainwashing, "active measures" [активные мероприятия] against the west.

The Ideological shift in the USA (and West) after WWII and why it happened + Yuri Bezmenov
viewtopic.php?t=13209

Just as American president Wilson was elected after promising to keep the USA out of the First World War, Franklin D Roosevelt was elected after promising to keep Americans out of the European war. However, once elected, both of these politicians began plotting and scheming to get the United States into these foreign wars.

Communism was seen as a threat to the United States before the American military crossed the English Channel to invade Europe. Despite knowing about the Soviet GULAGs, the massacres at Katyn and elsewhere, the Holodomor, the United States fought side-by-side with the communists to dismantle the Third Reich. And that goal was achieved as Germany was invaded, and is still occupied to this day.

How exactly did that benefit the West? Our "Gallant Soviet ally" just turned into enemy #1 in the Cold War. Nearly half of Europe was delivered to the USSR at the end of the Second World War.



The British empire was destroyed as well. Throughout the world, European powers began abdicating their rule, withdrawing, groveling, apologizing, etc. There was a complete moral collapse. It wasn't simply the Germans and Austrians and Italians that lost WWII, it was all White gentiles, both in Europe and elsewhere.

European Jews were not only spared from being expelled completely from Europe by Hitler, but they also were given their own country. The WWII labor and internment camps also gave the racist Jewish supremacists the perfect basis for their lucrative "Holocaust" story, which is still used as a tool to shame others into bending over backward for them.

The real-world effects of the Soviets' psychological warfare operations have not been quantified here. The Third Reich never had such a policy.

[Otium]

This quote is taken out of context, kind of. If you were to have just seen this quote, it seems like a statement, which it wasn't. But the sentiment is pretty much the same. Patton was talking about how the U.S. Army shouldn't be demobilised:

On May 7, 1945, just before Germany surrendered, Patton had a conference in Austria with Robert Patterson, who would become the Secretary of War on September 27, was a special advisor to Secretary of War, Henry Stimson. Patton was gravely concerned over the Soviet’s failure to respect the demarcation lines separating the Soviet and U.S. occupation zones. Additionally, he opposed the planned immediate partial demobilization of the U.S. Army. Patterson, when questioned by the FBI, vouched for the reputation and trustworthiness of Nathan Silvermaster, a known Soviet spy.

Patton told Patterson, “Let’s keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to the Red Army. This is the only language they understand and respect.” He replied, “Oh, George, you have been so close to this thing so long, you have lost sight of the big picture.” Patton understood perfectly, he said, regarding the Soviets, “. . . if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived off the land coming down. There is insufficient (food) left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let’s not give them time to build up their supplies. If we do, then… we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!”

Deanna Spingola, The Ruling Elite: Death, Destruction, and Domination (Trafford Publishing, 2014), Pp. 655; Martin Blumenson, The Patton Papers, 1940-1945 (Da Capo Press, 1974), Pp. 697, 698.

Patton didn't appear remorseful about what the Allies had done to Germany, though he portrayed a certain kind of honesty about the situation that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone admit today:

There is nothing democratic about war. It’s a straight dictatorship. The use of force to attain the end desired. We the Armed Forces of the U.S.A. have put our government in the position to dictate the peace. We did not come over here to acquire jurisdiction over either the people or their countries. We came to give them back the right to govern themselves. We must either finish the job now – while we are here and ready – or later under less favorable circumstances.

Martin Blumenson, The Patton Papers, 1940-1945 (Da Capo Press, 1974), Pp. 698.

Patton is wrong of course, the Allies did acquire jurisdiction over the German people and the Poles, not to mention the other Eastern European states, were forced under the dominion of the dictatorial Soviet Union, and weren't given the opportunity to govern themselves, despite the 'nice sounding' rhetoric.

By Patton's reasoning, it wasn't for the sake of Poland in which the war was fought (a poor excuse especially considering Poland was also a dictatorship), but because the Allies arbitrarily gave themselves the role of the world's policemen, to tell other countries what kind of governments they could and couldn't have. After all, the Germans had chosen to follow Hitler and needed to be 'de-nazified' at the end of the war, after which of course, National Socialism was outlawed as a political option. Similarly in Italy, Fascism was outlawed. So much for 'giving them (the people) back the right to govern themselves'. The entire conflict arouse because the Allies simply didn't like how other peoples were governing themselves in the first place. In this twisted way, the Allies could justify hypocritically using dictatorial measures they allegedly loathed (when the Germans used them) but also using 'dictatorship' as a casus belli to justify toppling foreign governments. The irony is palpable.

In May 1945 when Americans and Britons celebrated their victory over Germany, it was the people who were never under any threat who were cheering and celebrating. Meanwhile, those poor souls in the East who were truly those under threat, remained cowed under the boot of Communism for 50 years. A hollow "victory" if there ever was one, celebrated by hypocrites and warmongers.

[Hektor]

.....
Patton didn't appear remorseful about what the Allies had done to Germany, though he portrayed a certain kind of honesty about the situation that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone admit today:

There is nothing democratic about war. It’s a straight dictatorship. The use of force to attain the end desired. We the Armed Forces of the U.S.A. have put our government in the position to dictate the peace. We did not come over here to acquire jurisdiction over either the people or their countries. We came to give them back the right to govern themselves. We must either finish the job now – while we are here and ready – or later under less favorable circumstances.

Martin Blumenson, The Patton Papers, 1940-1945 (Da Capo Press, 1974), Pp. 698.

Patton is wrong of course, the Allies did acquire jurisdiction over the German people and the Poles, not to mention the other Eastern European states, were forced under the dominion of the dictatorial Soviet Union, and weren't given the opportunity to govern themselves, despite the 'nice sounding' rhetoric.

I think he tries to say that the soldiers (as well as the American civilian population in the war effort) were recruited and motivated by the pretence that they "were fighting for democracy and freedom", while that notion is actually absurd. War is fought as Clausewitz very soberly stipulated: as "an act of violence to compel the enemy to fulfil our will". Military forces are always lead with a system of "command and obedience", hence hierarchical superiors do enforce their will on the inferior.

The "right to govern themselves" was already incorporated into Wilson's 14 points. But of course in practice it was hypocritical. An effort to weaken Germany, especially it's industrial power on which also it's intellectual power did rely. You only can afford academics, when your industrial production is high.

.....
By Patton's reasoning, it wasn't for the sake of Poland in which the war was fought (a poor excuse especially considering Poland was also a dictatorship), but because the Allies arbitrarily gave themselves the role of the world's policemen, to tell other countries what kind of governments they could and couldn't have. After all, the Germans had chosen to follow Hitler and needed to be 'de-nazified' at the end of the war, after which of course, National Socialism was outlawed as a political option. Similarly in Italy, Fascism was outlawed. So much for 'giving them (the people) back the right to govern themselves'. The entire conflict arouse because the Allies simply didn't like how other peoples were governing themselves in the first place. In this twisted way, the Allies could justify hypocritically using dictatorial measures they allegedly loathed (when the Germans used them) but also using 'dictatorship' as a casus belli to justify toppling foreign governments. The irony is palpable.

Poland was also a rather aggressive country during the interbellum period towards its neighbours, but also internally against the large groups of minorities.

In election the NSDAP did get one third of the votes at its peak. The empowerment act was however voted in with a supermajority in the Reichstag. After that no multi-party elections took place. There was the notion that after the transformation being done, Germany should get a corporate parliament, meaning representatives from all occupational groups would be in a sort of parliament.

There is however no doubt that the Hitler and NSDAP had an overall approval rating of about 80% before the war, with the remaining 20% having no real argument against the ruling party. What could they say? The NSDAP delivered on their election promises. People had work, income, social services (often via NGO's). The only arguments would be in the line of "This is not democratic" or "You are too harsh on the Jews". Most Germans would however remember how the "Weimar Democracy" had worked and the educated ones would know how the Jews behaved during this period. So no strong moral arguments there.

The argument of "I don't like how your country is governed" is a blanc cheque that in practice can justify any war. Because in reality one could always find issues one doesn't like. And if not, create them or enhance existing ones.

.....
In May 1945 when Americans and Britons celebrated their victory over Germany, it was the people who were never under any threat who were cheering and celebrating. Meanwhile, those poor souls in the East who were truly those under threat, remained cowed under the boot of Communism for 50 years. A hollow "victory" if there ever was one, celebrated by hypocrites and warmongers.

Well, it was also a relief for many. Knowing your relatives overseas would be returning. But it was also something with a bad taste. As for the British:
* Why did they engage in war in the first place? Oh yeah, Poland. But isn't this now a satellite of the USSR?
* There were no net gains, just losses in lives and economic means, which were pretty exhausted.

As for Americans, well they could justify it with Pearl Harbour, but in reality this wasn't exactly unprovoked. But why the war in Europe, well Hitler had declared War on the US, because he was allied with Japan. But that wasn't really an issue, since the Atlantic Ocean separated them. So it doesn't come as a surprise that a lot of "reasons" were made up, which are caricature at best. After all, that's why they needed a "Nuremberg Trial" placing the German government and other figures into the bench of the accused. And well, that's why they needed the Holocaust - the gas chambers in concentration camps that killed "Millions of Jews". They could not afford an internal debate on the merits of the War, after all why did hundreds of thousand of young men have to die?

The result for Britain was that it steadily lost its empire piece by piece. The US became the dominant economic power had even a boom in the 1950s. The propaganda against the Axis/Germany did however backfire on them, starting with the civil rights movement, which is when terms like "racist" found their entrance into common usage in academia and media. They were absent from publications before. Usually more sophisticatedly sounding words like "prejudice" were used. Additionally they had hosted proponents of the Frankfurt School since the 1930s and those Freudo-Marxians influenced progressives in the social sciences in the US, ultimately giving their ideas hegemony in social questions.
Although the social sciences have an inclination to be "progressive" meaning "state expanding". What makes the field grow is a demand for social engineering via social workers, sociologist for the state bureaucracy, etc. This seems to be the real reason that academics lean to the left. It's for sure not that healthy intellect and intelligence do that. It's all about their interest as a class and this is that they gain more students for the courses they offer, so more professors will be employed.

I cringe, when people think that ideas must be good, because a lot of academics (who must be intelligent, right?) utter them.
Them being leftists from Pol Pot to Olof Palme does however explain, why Communist atrocities have gotten so few attention since the second world war. After all it's the universities that produce the bulk of journalists, teachers, historians, book authors, etc. And of course the profs and lecturers that train those mentioned again. They also have an interest in a sick society, how otherwise could they create demand for their services.