I've seen too much of this. No, the nazis and the Soviets were not equivalent.

Do. Better.

    • CyborgMarx [any, any]
      ·
      1 year ago

      lmao hey look it's that 1.6 million number that includes German POW deaths

      I see someone stumbled across Applebaum

        • booty [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          No we can't, because Wikipedia is controlled by ideologically motivated liberal dorks who accept only a very narrow range of liberal sources as "legitimate."

        • Rom [he/him]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          So you believe anyone can change the number yet you still consider it a credible source?

    • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
      hexagon
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The Soviets lost over 26 million people to the nazis, why aren't you counting those?

      Also politically cleansing monarchists and fascists isn't equivalent to murdering Jewish and gay people.

    • UlyssesT
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      deleted by creator

    • Awoo [she/her]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      How are these comparable?

      1. Mass genocide

      2. A civil war

      3. Famine in a region prone to regular famines for centuries (the last famine the region ever had I might add)

      If we're comparing large numbers of deaths here we should throw the British Empire's record and the US Empire's record alongside them. The British Empire probably has both beat with the India famine alone, the US genocide of native americans is estimated at over 100million. We're accepting those as products of their time though? Why? Why are we comparing only the soviets to the nazis and not them?

      Nobody is going to disagree that those happened here. But the framing you're doing is fucked.

      • DoubleShot [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        (Just a clarification comrade - and I could be wrong, I’m doing this from memory - but I think the 100 million number is genocide across all of the western hemisphere from 1492. The figure I’ve seen for just what was contained the present USA is around 10 million. Doesn’t make it any less evil of course, death to America, but just wanted to clarify that for posterity)

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          100 million is the number including diseases brought over and spreading mostly on their own.

    • aaro [they/them, she/her]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      who's the 1.6 million? And does the 3.5 - 5.0 million figure account for naturally occurring drought, needless deaths brought on by embargo, and farm owners intentionally and preemptively destroying their grain and slaughtering their livestock (cited by Wikipedia, see [17]) to prevent peasants from getting any of it?

      I'd love to engage in good faith with you on this, what are your thoughts?

      To be clear, I do believe that central mismanagement played a role in the death toll, but I also believe (and precedent suggests) that a capitalist state in charge of the same situation would see far, far more deaths and suffering

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        ·
        1 year ago

        We have droughts in other places without it leading to famines.

        It’s like the question of why New Orleans got flooded in 2005. Did New Orleans get flooded because there was a category 5 hurricane, or because government corruption led to being poorly prepared for the category 5 hurricane?

        The way I personally see it is that government ineptitude led to New Orleans being flooded by a predictable event.

        In the same way I think the disenfranchisement of the kulaks in Ukraine led to the famine. And it’s not some fringe theory. Many respectable bodies consider the Holodomor to be a genocide.

        And the basic fact stands that many countries have experienced a drought without it resulting in mass starvation.

        Another analogy would be a person driving without their seatbelt on. You could say that it was the head-on collision with the tree that killed the driver, or you could say it was the decision not to wear a seatbelt that killed the driver.

        I think the Soviet government destroyed any chance of a skilled response to that drought, by killing or imprisoning all the skilled farmers in that region, because they chose to equate financial success with unfair exploitation rather than skill. They ignored the fact that success can be evidence of competence, and in doing so doomed the society to famine by punishing all the successful people.

        • booty [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          the disenfranchisement of the kulaks in Ukraine led to the famine

          i wish any of the groups liberals think have been oppressed by communists actually were

    • CommieAVGN [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Alright, comrades, put on your thinking caps, because we're diving into the cesspool of historical oversimplification, and it smells like capitalist pig slop! Let’s break down this capitalist propaganda down piece by piece:

      1. Nazi Extermination: No bones about it – the Nazis were grade-A shitheads. Their systematic and conscious decision to wipe out around 12 million people in the name of ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. Period. It's the darkest level in the game of human history, and they played it with sadistic glee.

      2. Soviet Extermination for Political Reasons: 1.6 million? That's a hefty (and grossly inaccurate) number, comrade, but let's add a little context, shall we? No one's saying the Soviet regime was always all rainbows and kittens. But you've got to understand the political climate and the paranoia of the times. I ain’t condoning it, but I sure as hell am not going to let you oversimplify it into a neat little bullet point for your anti-communist agenda. Many of those deaths were during the Civil War and the turbulent times that followed.

      3. Starvation Numbers: Ah, the classic "Stalin starved millions" narrative. While there's truth to the great famine, pinning it all on "gross ineptitude" is like blaming a game's poor graphics entirely on one pixel. Factors like weather conditions, and yes, mismanagement, played a role. But to toss out numbers like 3.5 - 5.0 million as if it's just another score on a leaderboard? Classy.

      Alright, now let's delve into the issue of "intentionality" even deeper. While you're busy playing the "Evil Olympics", let's not forget some important nuances:

      The big ol' narrative floating around is that both the Nazis and the Soviets had these grand plans to exterminate people like it's some fucked up DLC they both decided to download. But here's where you’re more twisted than a pretzel in a tornado: while the Nazis clearly and explicitly had extermination policies (hello, Final Solution), the Soviets were a different beast. The Soviet government never launched a campaign with the explicit aim of exterminating entire ethnic or political groups. Sure, there were purges, relocations, and episodes of repression. The likes of the Holodomor, where millions died due to a famine in Ukraine in the early 1930s, is a tragic event in Soviet history. But labeling it as a deliberate attempt at extermination? That’s like trying to speedrun a game without knowing the controls.

      Now, did the Soviet regime have policies that inadvertently or through neglect may have led to death? Yes. Did they, like the Nazis, have a master plan for the systematic extermination of entire groups? No. The two are not the same, no matter how much some armchair historians want to mash them together. See, history ain't a black and white pixel art game. It's a complex, 4K, multi-layered RPG. And trying to simplify it with broad brushstrokes does a disservice to everyone who lived, suffered, and died during those times. So, next time you want to drop "facts", make sure you’ve got the full game manual, not just the cheat codes.

      • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Black Book of Communism is ASS.

        What were they thinking?

        Okay imagine your a little kid and you pick this book up at the library on Friday. You're like, "Communism! Right on!" and its the Black Book so ot should be rad, like the Black Album, but its not, its just fascist propaganda. And there goes your whole weekend! What a shitload of fuck.

      • aaro [they/them, she/her]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It's technically not holocaust denial, they got their ethnic cleansing death toll pretty reasonable. Double genocide works by dragging down the Holocaust and dragging up the USSR's deaths, they're only doing the latter. Obviously none of us agree with their take on the USSR's situatuon but I wanna give them a minute to say their piece so we can talk about it

        • Rom [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          "Holocaust trivialization" is a term I learned today after researching what the double genocide theory is, that I think applies here.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            ·
            1 year ago

            How exactly did I trivialize the Holocaust here? It’s not okay in any way to deliberately kill 12 million people.

            • Rom [he/him]
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              By highly exaggerating or completely fabricating a whole bunch of numbers, you assert that the Soviets killed 100 million people, and thus you are trivializing the 12 million killed by the Nazis. As others have already explained to you, the "communism killed 100 million" figure has been widely debunked by actual historians, and the deaths that the Soviet Union really were responsible for were caused by famines and mismanagement, and not deliberate attempts at genocide. Arguing "the Soviets were worse, actually" trivializes the deliberate genocide conducted by the Nazi regime, and overlooks the fact that no credible evidence has ever been presented to demonstrate genocidal intent by the Soviets.

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          I've spoken with that user before and they're a piece of shit, but you can do as you please

        • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Genocide and ethnic cleansing are not interchangeable. Genocide is destruction of a group of people, ethnic cleansing is physical expulsion or exclusion of a group of people from an area.

          Trying to downplay genocide as ethnic cleansing is arguably a type of Holocaust denial, but most people don't understand the nuances.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m sorry I didn’t understand those terms clearly.

            I was trying to emphasize that the Nazis’ categorical decisions were based on race, sexuality, and political affiliation.

            The Soviets’ selection process was mainly based on politics and economic class.

    • BelieveRevolt [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Even if we accepted those numbers at face value, which we obviously shouldn't, you're still admitting the Nazis were far worse even by your own made up standards.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        ·
        1 year ago

        It sounds like you deny the numbers I cited. Do you have any evidence that these millions of deaths either (a) didn’t happen or (b) happened for some other reason?

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      ethnic cleansing

      Ethnic cleansing is the explosion of an ethnic group from a geographical area. The Nazis did not attempt to ethnically cleanse Europe of Jewish, Romani, Slavic, etc people.

      Genocide is the act of destroying an ethnic group via destruction of individuals of that group. The Nazis did attempt to commit genocide against Jewish, Romani, Slavic, etc people.

        • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, bad phrasing on my part. The Nazis attempted to carry out the complete annihilation of those groups, but only succeeded in partially annihilating those groups.

          However, the definition of genocide covers attempted destruction in part of a group. For example, killing all the X people in Y city is still genocide.

        • booty [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          technically one, but i am only the spokesman of an unimaginably vast hivemind of communist antmen from within the hollow earth.

          • CascadeOfLight [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            It's true, I was going about my day as usual when I suddenly detected a pheromone in the air, causing me to instinctively rush home and post on hex bear dot net.