Are Allied "Crimes" really equal to the Holocaust?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Benoit Douville
Financial supporter
Posts: 3184
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 01:13
Location: Montréal

Post by Benoit Douville » 25 Nov 2003 01:46

Wildboar & Manstein,

I agree wit you both. Both regime were mass-murders regime. Let's hope that 50 years from now, the brutal regime of Stalin will be recognized as equal and maybe even worst than the Nazi. Here is a thread about the Volga Germans:


http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=32980


Regards

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003 06:25
Location: US

Post by Penn44 » 25 Nov 2003 08:16

wildboar wrote: Benoit Douville,
I agree with you completely.
Infact according to dissident indian communist intellectual
Stalinism & Hitlerism are two sides of same coin the greatest common factor being mass-murders commited by each regime
Manstein wrote:What about the massive deportations of Volga Germans to gulags during World War II? You could make a comparison with the American internment camps for Americans of Japanese descent, however, there was never a systematic extermination for them and they never starved, while the Volga Germans who didn't flee the USSR were worked and starved to death. It's a different method of genocide than gassing or shooting, but it is just as bad.
Benoit Douville wrote:Wildboar & Manstein,
I agree wit you both. Both regime were mass-murders regime. Let's hope that 50 years from now, the brutal regime of Stalin will be recognized as equal and maybe even worst than the Nazi. Here is a thread about the Volga Germans:
Well, the bottom-line is this - both regimes were horrible. But one thing we don't see much of here in TRF are apologists for the Stalinist Regime. On the other hand, as a fact of everyday occurrence here at TRF, we do see apologists for the Nazi Reich.

And for all you slavish Third Reich worshippers out there, and you all know who you are, just think about it, in the end, the nation that produced Goethe, Schiller, Beethoven, Herder, etc., etc., was on the same level as the very Untermenschen that they wanted to enslave and rule.

Ironic, isn't it?


.

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 25 Nov 2003 09:03

Penn44 wrote:Well, the bottom-line is this - both regimes were horrible. But one thing we don't see much of here in TRF are apologists for the Stalinist Regime. On the other hand, as a fact of everyday occurrence here at TRF, we do see apologists for the Nazi Reich.
This brings to mind a few more good points:

1] Why is it that strident apologists for Nazism like Scott Smith last for months (if not years) on this forum, while Stalinists like Southpower are banned (purged?) immediately?

2] While once I was a godless communist — never did I deny the high cost of the Stalinist regime! Never did I say that the gulags were due to "wartime conditions," never did I deny the reality of the Ukrainian famine, never did I pretend that Lenin and Stalin were saints. I admitted to all the excesses, mistakes, and atrocities of my faction — unlike the crypto-fascists one often finds on the Third Reich Forum!

3] Whatever the extent of the Soviet excesses, they never approached Genocide. Even the Ukrainian famine was certainly not a Genocide. There was no intention to exterminate the Ukrainians as an ethnic entity. This tragedy could possibly fall under the category of Democide and poor planning at the same time. To put it simply nobody cared about the Ukrainian peasantry. The career considerations of the Party bosses plus political considerations of possible ideological gains is what played a deadly role here. Contrast this, if you will, to the blood-thirsty aim of eradicating whole peoples that the Nazis advocated. At least Soviet aims were humanistic!

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 13:18
Location: Australia

Post by Peter H » 25 Nov 2003 10:39

Rummel estimates 62 million victims of Soviet rule but including Soviet Pow deaths etc as attributable to Stalin might be stretching things:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

User avatar
John W
Financial supporter
Posts: 9088
Joined: 03 Jan 2003 07:12
Location: United States of America

Post by John W » 25 Nov 2003 10:47

R.M. Schultz wrote:unlike the crypto-fascists one often finds on the Third Reich Forum!
Herr Schultz

I know you like clarity and definition so I wish to ask something:

Crypto Nazis? Or Crypto Fascists?

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 25 Nov 2003 20:08

John W wrote:
R.M. Schultz wrote:unlike the crypto-fascists one often finds on the Third Reich Forum!
Herr Schultz: I know you like clarity and definition so I wish to ask something: Crypto Nazis? Or Crypto Fascists?
By "Nazi" and "Fascist" (capitalised) we are referring specifically to those historical movements.

By "fascist" we are using Dimitrov's definition: “Fascism is the unconcealed terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, chauvinistic, and imperialistic elements of financial capital.”

Thus "crypto-fascists" are the concealed reactionary, chauvinistic, and imperialistic elements of financial capital.
Moulded wrote:Rummel estimates 62 million victims of Soviet rule but including Soviet Pow deaths etc as attributable to Stalin might be stretching things:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM
I didn't know who this Rummel was, so I checked out his web site and found this little piece of fluff:
Rummel wrote:It is true that democratic freedom is an engine of national and individual wealth and prosperity. Hardly known, however, is that freedom also saves millions of lives from famine, disease, war, collective violence, and democide (genocide and mass murder). That is, the more freedom, the greater the human security and the less the violence. Conversely, the more power governments have, the more human insecurity and violence. In short: to our realization that power impoverishes we must also add that power kills.
Notice how the "power" that is so evil is only governmental power, not private power? Without a strong government, what is to act as a counterbalance to private power? If the Weimar regime were a strong healthy government, could Hitler have forced his way into power through terror, propaganda, and subverting the law? Could the private power of Thyssen and the Ruhr steel barons have bought the Chancellorship for Hitler? I don't think so! Only where governmental power acts as a countervailing force to private power can people be truly free.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 13:18
Location: Australia

Post by Peter H » 25 Nov 2003 23:27

I think Rummel is not decrying 'big' government but only where it is unrepresentative,totalitarian,and all controlling:
In theory and fact, democracies do not (or virtually never) make war on each other; the more democratic two regimes, the less likely violence between them; the more democratic a regime, the less its overall foreign violence; and the more democratic a regime, the less its genocide and mass murder (which in this century has killed about four times the battle dead of all its foreign and domestic wars).

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 26 Nov 2003 03:02

Moulded wrote:I think Rummel is not decrying 'big' government but only where it is unrepresentative,totalitarian,and all controlling …
Still, I wonder about his biases. Often all of this harping about "democracy" is just so much window-dressing for plutocracy, and I have to wonder about any figures for Soviet excesses that come from such a source. I also find it difficult to make such sweeping generalisations about "democracy" and good government. Cuba is certainly not a democracy, yet it has the best health care system outside of the developed world, while Zimbabwe is a democracy and this has just translated into mob rule and economic disaster. Italy has had democratic bad government for years, while Spain had steady economic growth and reasonably good government under Franco. I find that good government is usually a result of a culture of civic responsibility more than anything else. For example, while the North of Italy was broken into small city states and duchies and thus developed a civic pride and experience of self-government, Naples and Sicily were governed by despots, and to this day the North has had good government while the South has been riven with graft and corruption.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8909
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 26 Nov 2003 11:19

R M Schultz wrote:
Still, I wonder about his biases. Often all of this harping about "democracy" is just so much window-dressing for plutocracy, and I have to wonder about any figures for Soviet excesses that come from such a source. I also find it difficult to make such sweeping generalisations about "democracy" and good government.
Hurrah! At last RM has written something totally sensible! Obviously his stint as a godless Communist did not nullify his critical faculties.

Yes, Rummel is a typical American opponent of "big government", and uses his ridiculously inflated statistics to prove the "democidal" nature of governments, in particular non-democratic ones.

RM is right not to trust Rummel's figures for Soviet excesses. If he is looking for more reliable estimates, he would be well-advised to consult the works of revisionist historians like J Arch Getty and Alec Nove, who have shown up the gross exaggerations of Cold War-era ideologues like Robert Conquest.

In a recent book (The Road to Terror), Getty has likened the traditional historiography of the Stalin period to a fairy tale in which Stalin has the role of the wicked sorcerer. He calls for a more balanced view.

I agree. And I also think that the traditional history of Hitler Germany is like a fairy tale in which Hitler plays the role of the wicked sorcerer. A more balanced view is called for here also.
Last edited by michael mills on 26 Nov 2003 23:31, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 26 Nov 2003 22:38

michael mills wrote:In a recent book (The Road to Terror), Getty has likened the traditional historiography of the Stalin period to a fairy tale in which Stalin has the role of the wicked sorcerer. He calls for a more balanced view.

I agree. And I also think that the traditional history of Hitler Germany is like a fairy tale in which Hitler plays the role of the wicked sorcerer. A more balanced view is called for here also.
I think anyone who has actually read both men's primary theoretical works, "The Foundations of Leninism" by J.V. Stalin and "Mein Kampf" by A. Hitler, would readily agree that the first is a rather ordinary (if pedantic) work of Marxist thought, while the second are the ravings of a racist loony. This makes the immage of Hitler as "wicked sorcerer" all too believable.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8909
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 26 Nov 2003 23:29

To me, Stalin's actions in targeting the entire population and destroying almost anyone at random, even those closest to him, and doing so not on one or two occasions when there was a genuine threat to him but repeatedly and against persons who were abjectly loyal, seem more irrational than Hitler's actions in targeting one or two groups while leaving the rest of the population alone, and in only striking out against those who were genuinely plotting against him.

Thus Hitler never struck out against his military commanders until they had tried to kill him, whereas Stalin purged his for no discernible reason that would have warranted such drastic action.

The issue is to determine what motivated these two men to do what they did, and to what extent their actions were rational or irrational.

For example, Stalin's destruction of millions of peasants, though brutal, had a purpose, since there were simply far too many of them, and their elimination enabled the modernisation of Soviet agriculture, albeit rather inefficiently.

In the case of Stalin, historians like J Arch Getty have tried to determine the motivations of Stalin, without resorting to fairytales. The same rational analysis needs to be done of Hitler and his system, and to some extent a start has been made by German Leftist historians such as Gerlach and Aly, although only hesitatingly.

Krasnaya Zvezda
Financial supporter
Posts: 1157
Joined: 27 Dec 2002 17:45
Location: Moscow

Post by Krasnaya Zvezda » 27 Nov 2003 05:53

michael mills wrote:To me, Stalin's actions in targeting the entire population and destroying almost anyone at random, even those closest to him, and doing so not on one or two occasions when there was a genuine threat to him but repeatedly and against persons who were abjectly loyal, seem more irrational than Hitler's actions in targeting one or two groups while leaving the rest of the population alone, and in only striking out against those who were genuinely plotting against him.

Thus Hitler never struck out against his military commanders until they had tried to kill him, whereas Stalin purged his for no discernible reason that would have warranted such drastic action.

The issue is to determine what motivated these two men to do what they did, and to what extent their actions were rational or irrational.

For example, Stalin's destruction of millions of peasants, though brutal, had a purpose, since there were simply far too many of them, and their elimination enabled the modernisation of Soviet agriculture, albeit rather inefficiently.

In the case of Stalin, historians like J Arch Getty have tried to determine the motivations of Stalin, without resorting to fairytales. The same rational analysis needs to be done of Hitler and his system, and to some extent a start has been made by German Leftist historians such as Gerlach and Aly, although only hesitatingly.
To me this is not a mistery. Stalin acted like he did cause he could. Keep in mind that the motives of these two man where different. Stalin wanted to preserve his dictatorship, never really had any ideas to use the Red Army to cross into Germany, exterminate the German people and take anything that they own, and push them behind La Manche.

Hitelrs only goal was to take Russia, expand on east, so he needed the people for this , obviousely he had to treat them well and motivate them for this. But whomever he thought an enemy to this goal of his, just like the same with Stalin whoever he thought is the enemy of his goal (in Stalins case that was to preserve the chair he was sitting on) , that enemy was dealt in a same manner in Russia and Germany. So even when Hitler saw that his people are disobeying his orderes (in not offereing the resistance to the Red Army he deemed appropriate) he ordered destruction of his people and their possesions, just like Stalin did.

They are totally the same as far as ruthlesness goes, yet their goals were totally different.

Rob - wssob2
Member
Posts: 2387
Joined: 15 Apr 2002 20:29
Location: MA, USA

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 27 Nov 2003 14:40

The same rational analysis needs to be done of Hitler and his system
Ah yes let us "revise" our opinion of Hitler and the Third Reich ...they weren't so bad after all! :roll:

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 28 Nov 2003 02:46

michael mills wrote:To me, Stalin's actions … seem more irrational …
How irrational could they have been if they led him to control of the Soviet Union within four years of Lenin's death, allowed him to significantly expand that state, and hold power without challenge until he died. Contrast that, if you will, to the wild gambles that Hitler took.
michael mills wrote:Thus Hitler never struck out against his military commanders until they had tried to kill him …
Do you have that first hand from Blomberg and Fritsch?
michael mills wrote: …whereas Stalin purged his for no discernible reason that would have warranted such drastic action.
Unlike Hitler who operated out of pure racism and had a complaisant military behind him, Stalin had an actual ideology and, however flawed this may have been, this meant that he expected his military to conform to this ideology. It makes a certain kind of sense in light of the internecine party conflicts of the late 1920's and we should keep in mind that there was no military plot against Stalin!
michael mills wrote: … The same rational analysis needs to be done of Hitler and his system, and to some extent a start has been made by German Leftist historians such as Gerlach and Aly, although only hesitatingly.
Who are these guys? (I really want to know.)

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8909
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 28 Nov 2003 03:47

R M Schultz wrote:
Do you have that first hand from Blomberg and Fritsch?
RM, you are missing the point. Hitler wanted to replace Blomberg and Fritsch, but he merely forced them to resign, after which they lived comfortably on their pensions. He did not have them arrested and beaten in Gestapo cellars until they confessed to a conspiracy against him, then have them condemned to death by a tribunal of other military officers (who were then arrested in their turn) - which is what Stalin did in 1937 and the next years.

The only time Hitler had military officers arrested, tortured and executed was when they had actually tried to kill him - a totally rational response, if extremely brutal.
Unlike Hitler who operated out of pure racism and had a complaisant military behind him, Stalin had an actual ideology and, however flawed this may have been, this meant that he expected his military to conform to this ideology. It makes a certain kind of sense in light of the internecine party conflicts of the late 1920's and we should keep in mind that there was no military plot against Stalin!
If there was no military plot against Stalin, what rational cause was there for him to purge the officer corps so brutally, and to slaughter the top commanders? Is there any reliable indication that the officer corps did not conform to Stalin's ideology?

If Stalin brutally purged the officer corps of the Red Army, in the absence of any military plot against him, and in the absence of any sign of real ideological opposition, then that is a clear sign of his irrationality.

RM, if you cannot see the irrational nature of Stalin's purge of the military, then your stint as a "godless Communist" must have addled your critical faculties to a greater extent than I had at first thought.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”