Hitler vs Stalin

[ShAA]

Originally Posted by Hypaspist

Alright alright. But you have to look at it from both ways: Ukraine was a special target of the Bolsheviks from the early days of the Civil War. That, combined with the bodycount don't suggest coincidence.

"Special Target"? Um, what?

I understand that there is a rationale behind the famine being the result of other factors. But to compared it to, say the Soviet and US media's exaggeration and over-reporting of war crimes in Vietnam; they aren't the same. Cold War propaganda in the west was almost exclusively about the dangers of nuclear war, not about the history of communism, which was confined to specialist studies.

Are you really trying to fool people with such easily verifiable "facts"?

[Emtos]

The Soviet Union did not win War II-the allies, of which the Soviet Union was a part-won War II.

He didn't said that USSR did it alone. His statement os perfectly correct.

I sincerely doubt if the Germans and the Russians/Soviets had to fight it out alone without the Russians/Soviets getting enormous aid from the allies, the Germans would have won.

Enormous ? In almost all domains the Soviet production and pre-war ressources greatly exceded the part provided by LL. If you consider that Germany and USSR were fighting alone each other, then need to withdraw the contribution of Germany's allies who made roughly 20% of Axis forces in the East. You also need to pull the help indirectly provided by USA to Germany.

[Hypaspist]

Originally Posted by ShAA

Are you really trying to fool people with such easily verifiable "facts"?

I don't see anything except for the Army's educational video that actually touches on the subject of the war crimes of communist countries, and that is not exactly mass publicized (as it probably should have been). Until the mid-90s, it was illegal to be in the military and to be a communist (or a homosexual, or a member of any Nazi group) and you could not join without swearing that you were not one of those groups. It is hardly surprising that we actually explained to our men who we fought in Korea, Vietnam, and Grenada. Any army in the world does the same.

The other (rather old) videos are succinct explanations of the dangers of ideology, but do not mention the Ukrainian genocide or its perpetrators or of the warcrimes that the North Koreans committed against their own people after we defeated their army. Rather, these are basically student's primers on the kinds of shady characters that would preach communism to them as they got older - and it's basically what happened anyways. Learn to not tie yourself to an ideology of any kind and you won't waste your time (at the least). That's the lesson I see there.

Unless the Soviet era is rosily remembered because it was a period of strength, I don't see any point in taking up for it. A lot of you seem to assume that it is chauvinistic to be critical of communism or by acknowledge the Ukrainian genocide and the war of revenge against the native people of those lands.

If we have to say 'which tyrant is worse' by the measure of who committed the most warcrimes - that is, using or planning to use their military or police to cause unnecessary suffering, then the list would be, starting with the worst: Trotsky, Hitler, Mao, and then Stalin. Is that what we need to do? Admit that Hitler was worse or lose credibility? No, it's a waste of time to try and avoid guilt by association by endlessly pleading. Not all Americans are wimps who grovel before anyone who says one word about the Indians or other supposedly immoral actions in their history. Also, not everyone is trying to trick you or to be condescending. You should be less defensive, especially about something you are not obliged to defend.

[Nickuru]

Trotsky seemed to be a very thoughtful historian, unlike his friend Josef Dzugashvili who had him killed in 1941, just before Operation Barbarossa. His works are to be found on the website:
www.marxists.org

[broderickwells]

Originally Posted by Hypaspist

I don't see anything except for the Army's educational video that actually touches on the subject of the war crimes of communist countries, and that is not exactly mass publicized (as it probably should have been). Until the mid-90s, it was illegal to be in the military and to be a communist (or a homosexual, or a member of any Nazi group) and you could not join without swearing that you were not one of those groups. It is hardly surprising that we actually explained to our men who we fought in Korea, Vietnam, and Grenada. Any army in the world does the same.

The other (rather old) videos are succinct explanations of the dangers of ideology, but do not mention the Ukrainian genocide or its perpetrators or of the warcrimes that the North Koreans committed against their own people after we defeated their army. Rather, these are basically student's primers on the kinds of shady characters that would preach communism to them as they got older - and it's basically what happened anyways. Learn to not tie yourself to an ideology of any kind and you won't waste your time (at the least). That's the lesson I see there.

Unless the Soviet era is rosily remembered because it was a period of strength, I don't see any point in taking up for it. A lot of you seem to assume that it is chauvinistic to be critical of communism or by acknowledge the Ukrainian genocide and the war of revenge against the native people of those lands.

If we have to say 'which tyrant is worse' by the measure of who committed the most warcrimes - that is, using or planning to use their military or police to cause unnecessary suffering, then the list would be, starting with the worst: Trotsky, Hitler, Mao, and then Stalin. Is that what we need to do? Admit that Hitler was worse or lose credibility? No, it's a waste of time to try and avoid guilt by association by endlessly pleading. Not all Americans are wimps who grovel before anyone who says one word about the Indians or other supposedly immoral actions in their history. Also, not everyone is trying to trick you or to be condescending. You should be less defensive, especially about something you are not obliged to defend.

Mentioning warcrimes/crimes against humanity and Ukrainians and leaving out the ones they committed against non-ethnic Ukrainians is to only paint half the picture. The OUM were as nasty as any ultra-nationalist organisation anywhere. Claiming the Holodomir was specifically targeted at Ukrainians ignores the crucial evidence that other areas of the USSR suffered as badly at the same time and for the same reason: collective mechanised farming was shoved down the Soviet peasants' throat during a drought year by people who had no real idea of the dynamics of Russian peasantry and their land tenure. To the peasants, a kulak wasn't a successful farmer, he was a money lender and usurer.

I would also remove Trotsky from the list for the simple reason he was never a dictator i.e in sole charge. Doesn't mean I want to have him around for dinner though. I would add Pol Pot and give dishonourable mention to Andrew Jackson.