The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewEric Margolis Archive
The Greatest Murderer in History
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“When I’ve finished occupying the Soviet Union,” quipped a relaxed Adolf Hitler at dinner one night in 1941, “I’ll put that man Stalin back in charge. He’s the only person who knows how to deal with Russians.”

Stalin was the biggest murderer of modern history – and maybe in of all mankind’s past. His number of victims was only rivaled by Genghis Khan and, in our era, Mao Zedong.

Which bring me to the current observations of the 71st anniversary of the liberation of the concentration camp Auschwitz. Our media is full of stories about the persecution and mass killings of Europe’s Jews in the 1930’s and 1940’s.

And rightly so. This major historic crime must be vividly remembered and never allowed to slip into oblivion. But neither should it be used and reused to justify or excuse today’s repression of 5 million Palestinians.

While the world remembers the Jewish Holocaust, it has almost totally forgotten the other Holocausts. Amid all the references to Nazi death camps, like Auschwitz, Sobibor, and Treblinka, there was not a mention of Magadan, Vorkuta Norilsk, or Perm, all infamous ‘islands’ of the Soviet system of industrial murder, known as “the Gulag.”

Or of the Ukrainian Holodomor.

From 1918 to the late 1950’s (Stalin died in 1953), an estimated 20 million or more Soviet citizens were worked to death, shot or starved in the 500 camps that made up the Gulag. The most infamous and lethal were in the Arctic Circle and eastern Siberia.

The greatest number of deaths occurred in the 1930’s when Stalin’s reign of terror was at its apogee. By the end of the 1930’s, the Gulag held close to 2 million inmates, about half political prisoners convicted on false charges. Millions of other Soviet citizens were starved in local prisons, shot in execution grounds or forests, and worked to death buildings canals and rail lines or forced to mine with heir bare hands.

During 1932-33, Stalin sent chief henchman Lazar Kaganovitch to break resistance by Ukrainian independent small farmers to collectivization by starving them to death. In only a few years, some 6-7 million Ukrainians perished in what they call the Holodomor. No one was ever punished for this historic crime. Stalin told Churchill, “Kaganovitch is my Himmler.”

The Soviet Baltic states saw particularly ferocious repression. So did Poland which was divvied up by both Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union. Six million Poles died, half of them Jews. At least 2 million Muslims of the Soviet Union were murdered, either by shooting or, like the Chechen, packed into cattle cars and dumped on the ground in frigid Kazakhstan.

Stalin was given the sobriquet, “Destroyer of Nations.”

No one knows the exact figure of deaths in the Soviet Union. But it far exceeded in numbers and scope Hitler’s killings. Yet these epic Soviet crimes have all but vanished from our collective memories. No should have a monopoly on suffering.


Almost equally disturbing, the US, Canada and Britain have never squarely faced the ugly fact that their close wartime ally, Stalin, was a far worse mass murderer than enemy Adolf Hitler. Or that Stalin’s biggest crime occurred in the 1930’s while Hitler’s were not fully understood until after World War II. Stalin’s terrible crimes were well known to Washington, Ottawa and London well before they got into bed with “Uncle Joe” Stalin. We allied with a great devil to fight a lesser one. This fact is rarely understood because our sense of World War II history remains heavily clouded by the propaganda of he victors.

Ever since, Hitler has been relentlessly demonized while Stalin has faded from our understanding. Germans still recoil at the mention of Hitler while in Russia nostalgia grows for Stalin and his era. Much of the evidence of Stalin’s crimes has turned to dust; none of the perpetrators were ever punished. After briefly seeing the light of day during the Gorbachev era, the Stalin-era files have been resealed.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: History • Tags: Russia 
Hide 70 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. CK says:

    If only Trotsky had defeated him. Then all the neocons would have been Soviets, the Frankfurt school would have moved to Trotskygrad instead of NYC, and the Perfidious Albionese would be speaking perfect German.

  2. Susan Liebman Bendheim Butler, author, Roosevelt and Stalin; Portrait of a Partnership

    Question from audience: “Hitler and Stalin were tyrants, But Isn’t it true that in the ‘30s with Ukraine and purge trials and gulags that Stalin mass murdered more people than Hitler?

    Butler. Actually that’s not true, No. [long pause.]
    But the major difference between the two , in my mind, is ideological: Stalin killed because he was trying to create a greater Russia, and that’s why he killed kulaks. The greater number of people that he killed were kulaks, when he was trying to change into collective farming, whereas Hitler was trying to annihilate the Slavic races and the Jewish races.”

    Question: Regarding the fear of Germany simply rising up again, one of Stalin’s ideas was simply murdering all the German officers, which kind of appalled the West.

    Butler: That happened in Tehran. Yeah. There was a toast made: “Here’s to the death of 50 000 officers,” and everybody toasted it. And uh Churchill got really angry and hot under the collar, and he’d had too much to drink — too much brandy, and he got up and he stormed out and he was angry at everybody who agreed with Stalin and who toasted the death of all these German officers.“

  3. This message needs frequent repetition. Another aspect that doesn’t get much attention is the curious fact that while much effort is expended tracking down the last ancient Nazi’s, Ex-Soviet KGB murderers walk free. Lands stolen under Communism in Central and Eastern Europe have never been returned. No one makes a peep about this. So far as I know, there is no branch of the US government dedicated to keeping former commie thugs out of the country.

    There is no better “get out of jail free card” than a red star on your hat.

  4. Martin Amis and Ron Rosenbaum discussing their books, Explaining Hitler and The Zone of Interest at NYC Museum of Jewish Heritage, 2014

    Rosenbaum: What do you think of this new controversy about Hitler and Stalin and comparative evil and — Timothy Snyder ’s book Bloodlands which sort of says Stalin was equally genocidal, um do you feel that there’s any point in uh this sort of competition or is Hitler in some way set apart from Stalin?

    50 min Amis: Well I think he is in this sense. In — the Stalin crime that most neatly corresponds to the holocaust is the terror famine in the Ukraine in 1933 where, it’s not known but something like 7- 8- 9-million peasants were starved to death, even tho the granaries were full. And … the descriptions of what it’s like to watch your family starving to death matches in cruelty the holocaust, I think; comparable. . . . Some mothers ran away from their children; some mothers ate their children. Some mothers were loving right to the very last gasp. . . . So, very comparable to the holocaust.
    BUT, the difference is, Stalin really had no choice; his intention was to break the peasantry and collectivize. And uh if he’d decided on something more Bukharin-like it would have been abandoning the socialist experiment and betraying the revolution. So he had to go forward. He had to be as hard as nails to get that through.
    whereas There’s no conceivable ideological justification for what Hitler did.

  5. from FDR by Jean Edward Smith

    Within a few months of the beginning of his first term in office, FDR took the first steps toward his long and close relationship with Josef Stalin.
    By that time, the Holodomor had begun and was on-going; it is hard to imagine that as much as FDR and his agents knew of Russia, that FDR was not aware of Stalin’s acts of mass killing.

    “An equally serious foreign policy issue involved diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union. In 1933, the United States was the only major power that had not established formal relations with Moscow. The USSR had been a full participant in the London Economic Conference, it had become a vigorous trading partner for the nations of Euorpe, and it was abundantly clear that the Soviet regime would remain the government of Russia for the foreseeable future.

    Under the Constitution, the power of diplomatic recognition is entrusted exclusively to the president. And by the fall of 1933 Roosevelt had come to the conclusion that continued nonrecognition served no useful purpose. The furor of 1920S anti—BOLSHEVISM had subsided, American business looked favorable on increasing trade, and the traditional rivalry between Russia and Japan in the Far East made the Soviet Union a reliable buffer against Japanese expansionism. A survey of 1,139 newspapers in September indicated that fewer than 27 percent opposed recognition. “I think the menace of Bolshevism in the United States is about as great as the menace of sunstroke in Greenland or chilblains in the Sahara,” said Roy Howard, head of the Scripps-Howard chain.

    . . .

    Because the career diplomats in the State Department — many of whom had spent the last fifteen years hobnobbing with White Russian emigres — were still imbued with nostalgia for the czarist past, Roosevelt handled the negotiations himself, first through Henry Morgenthau, then through Willian C Bullitt. Morgenthau, as head of the Farm Credit Administration, dealt with the Soviet trade organization Amtorg; Bullit with Boris Skvirsky, the senior Russian commercial representative in the United States.

    As a result of these covert discussions, FDR invited Soviet foreign minister Maxim Litvinov to Washington for direct negotiations in early November. The ostensible outstanding issues involved freedom of religion for Americans in Russia and the continued agitation for world revolution mounted by the Comintern. The real sticking point was restitution of American property seized by the Soviet government in the nationalization decree of 1919. Roosevelt and Litvinov compromised. The agreement is known as the Litvinov Assignment. The Soviet government assigned to the United States its claims to all Russian property int he United States that antedated the Revolution. The United States agreed to seize the property on behalf of the Soviet Union, thus giving effect to the Soviet nationalization decree, and use the proceeds to pay the claims of Americans whose property in Russia had been confiscated. The constitutionality of the assignment was twice challenged before the Supreme Court, but in both instances it was upheld, the “taking clause” of the Constitution notwithstanding.

    FOOTNOTE: Morgenthau’s role is discussed extensively in John Morton Blum, From the Morgenthau Diaries, 54 ff (Boston, Houghton Mifflin 1959)

  6. German_reader says:

    “From 1918 to the late 1950’s (Stalin died in 1953), an estimated 20 million or more Soviet citizens were worked to death, shot or starved in the 500 camps that made up the Gulag.”

    As far as I know, those estimates are a massive exaggeration and have been refuted by historical research of the last 25 years…as a German who has nationalist inclinations I’d like to believe otherwise, but it seems clear to me that the German Nazis both murdered more people (about 14 million seems to be the accepted estimate now) and had more radical intentions than the Stalinists…though of course that doesn’t negate the fact that Soviet communism was a totally criminal system. The whole “worse than the Nazis” part just isn’t credible anymore though.

    • Agree: Kiza
  7. attonn says:

    Don’t know…20 million seems to be too round of a number to be believable, figures like that are almost always simply made up. What we do know for sure, is that there is an awful lot of SS veterans still alive and marching in the Baltics, as well as old and wrinkled Ukrainian Nazis doing the same all over Ukraine. That alone makes alleged totality of Stalin’s repressions somewhat suspect.

    • Agree: Regnum Nostrum
    • Replies: @Scripted Reality
  8. Hitler bad. Stalin bad. Mao bad.

    That’s all there really is. The “greater evil, lesser evil” stuff is mere sophistry.

  9. bossel says:

    “those estimates are a massive exaggeration and have been refuted by historical research of the last 25 years”
    Rummel tends to disagree:
    Soviet democide
    (under Stalin’s rule more than 40m)

    Nazi democide
    (ca. 21m)

  10. 5371 says:

    We live in a world where Martin Amis is apparently considered a historian.

  11. Great article.

    Count the dead to determine true killers, to correct the official narrative.

    It seems to me, Stalin was Hitler’s and Mao Tse Tung’s example: rule thru the barrel of the gun.

    Imported from Cowboyland US, controlled by Jewish bankers, who setup communism.

  12. JackOH says:

    Eric, thanks. Peter Brimelow has suggested that various wrongnesses in American domestic policies after 1945 could be understood as an unusual, intemperate abreaction to Hitlerite excesses. To that may be added that in the popular historical Gestalt, Hitler is always “figure”, Stalin “ground”.

    I sort of mostly buy into the idea that there’s an unarticulated strain of political thought that America ought to be as “not-Hitler” as possible, no matter the cost. That seems to be the unspoken motive that’s empowered the radical, destructive policies many of us on this site rail against.

  13. Pontius says:

    Former PM Harper had a monument to the victims of communism planned and ready to go in Ottawa. There was much opposition and the plan was eventually kiboshed by the government of our new Emoter-In-Chief . Canada was thus relieved of actually taking a stand on an issue, and there was much rejoicing.

    It would have been installed right in front of the Supreme Court, which would have been ironic on many levels.

    One wonders if a monument to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust would have been similarly rejected. Perhaps that’s what that plot of land is being reserved for.

  14. I suppose the Russians either do not have any memory or love being murdered. How else to explain the survey of 2011 in which they voted as the most popular leader of all times Leonid Brezhnev followed by Stalin and Lenin. If all those numbers bandied around were correct there would be no Russian left after the end of WW2. Revolution of 1917, the subsequent civil war, Stalin and finally WW2. Ten millions here, twenty millions there and not to be outdone by other experts thirty million somewhere else.

    • Replies: @Varenik
  15. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It’s a good thing to keep history in mind. However, it’s all in the past, Hitler and Stalin have been dead for years now. So what about the present? Who’s committing mass killing, invasions, destroying nations today? The US, that’s who. The US has causes millions to die, created millions of miserable refugees, destroyed countries with it’s invasions and aggressive wars. It’s the US that is today the world’s most dangerous aggressor.
    These lists of ‘who killed more’ are used to camouflage American war criminality. They were worse so therefore we’re good because we’re not as bad as they were. America comes in about fourth on the list of numbers of people killed as a result of government action, depending on how one wants to figure it, in the aggregate or per capita. It usually runs like this: Mao, Stalin, Hitler. Who comes next? Pol Pot? Per capita, yes, in sheer numbers it’s the US. If one widens the time frame then the Mongols and Turks should be added to any such list of shame.
    Right now, today, it’s the US that’s been the worldwide leader for the past sixty years or so.
    We’re #1, We’re #1

    • Replies: @Max Havelaar
    , @JackOH
  16. @anonymous

    Who do you think runs the US?

    If you think the Jewish AIPAC/ADL rule US foreign policy, then you need to know their history of involvement in the Russian Bolshevik revolution: hugely a Jewish enterprise.

    According to A. Solzhenitsyn ‘s book: 200 years together.

  17. @German_reader

    The numbers held against the Germans are surely exaggerated, as well as estimates of Soviet casualties (still quite large, no doubt). In particular, the sacrosanct “6 million” is largely agreed to be symbolic, indeed it was used after WW1.

  18. The winners of the war do always write their views in the History-Books.

    The average Citizen is not much interested in History and does not know much about Mass-Murderer “Uncle Joe”.This would bring the winners of the War in trouble.
    So for example they were quiet about the Katyn-Massacre.Truth was not important.
    The same with the Soviet-German Treaty about Poland.

    Since the 1920:s it was well known in the West what is happening in the Soviet-Union.

    Germany’s Economy since the mid 30’s was too successful and the rise of this Country was the opposite of the winners from WW I.The Treaty of Versailles did intend to keep Germany down like their colonies.

    Roosevelt was forced to do the same with his “New Deal” and to bring the American workers Jobs they lost because of the Wall Street.

    What would have said English workers if they would have seen simple German workers on their “Strength through Joy”- Ships in English Harbours ? Simple German workers on vacation! This would have been destroyed the stories in the English Press.

    Germany did Business wihout Dollars and currencies ( machines for commodities).

    Germany has had a real economy based on facts and not a faked one based on speculations.

    Look at the modern History.Every Country who is successful without the Dollar is a Danger for the US.This was the real reason why the US did first fight Germany instead of the Japanese who did attack Pearl Harbour.

    France and Britain were been Colonial -Superpowers at this time and the US was their upcoming successor.They did use Poland as a “Gamechanger” to bring Germany down.

    France and Britain did declare War on Germany first (September 3rd,1939) – Hitler never did declare War on GB and F.Because it was the lesson from WWI and the Versailles Treaty.

    Instead of fighting together with Russia and Iran against the real enemy the US prefers to have “friends” like Saudi-Arabia and Turkey.

    The real decision-makers are sitting always behind the scene.

  19. @attonn

    When I remember well it was Stalin who said:
    “One killed man is a murder.100 killed men is a mass murder.One Million killed people is a statistic”.

    Every killed human was one too much.

    You never should judge people from today’s view.You have to see it from their perspective and as people of their time and time-witnesses.

    After WW I a lot of people did lose their believing in God.They were thinking it is time for a new society for a new era.It was the fight between two upcoming systems National Socialism and International Socialism (Communism).

    Baltics and Ukrainians at this time did suffer from the Soviet occupation (Baltic) and the Holodomor from the Ukrainians was well in the mind of the Ukrainians who did survive this experiment in the “Communist Paradise”.

    ——–>The biggest enemy of the Historian is the time-witness.
    Especially Historians from the Federal Republic of Germany.<———

    Try to read about what the Soviet NKVD has left in the City of Lemberg short before the Germans did reach the town.
    Try to inform you what German Soldiers did see in the Communist Paradise as they were welcomed from the Ukrainians .
    Try to inform you about the living-standard there.

    Perhaps then you will understand the motivation why people did fight in the Waffen-SS.

    This is no excuse for war-crimes!
    No excuse for criminals like Bandera!

    I want to show you how humans can act.

    But when your people are starving to death or are tortured,deportated and killed from the NKVD then you will understand why they did think it is better to fight against Stalin.

    When you are complaining about people who did fight under the Swastika you should also complain about people who did war-crimes under the Red Star.
    Look at the Parade in Moscow on their Day of Victory on May 9th.There are a lot of people from the former NKVD who are responsible for mass-murder.You recognice them on their blue peaked cap.They are proud to wear their medals – whatever they may have done for…

    History is not easy as it seems.Everything has two sides,Always check them both to become your OWN opinion.

    Thesis + Antithesis = Hypothesis.

    • Replies: @attonn
  20. Mulegino1 says:

    Stalin’s tolls are obviously exaggerated.

    Hitler’s tolls are free inventions – there never was any intention to murder all the Jews of Europe. Hitler was neither cruel, nor particularly destructive – his hand was forced by the Western Allies and their provocative proxy, the Polish regime of colonels.

    Stalin, on the other hand, was brutal, but, consider the Trotskyites and their ilk, his rule was providential; he saved the Russian nation and culture from annihilation.

    • Agree: Bill Jones
  21. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says:

    “whereas There’s no conceivable ideological justification for what Hitler did.”


    If Hitler’s chosen ideology said “Jews are vermin”, the Holocaust does make ideological, if not moral, sense.

  22. “And rightly so. This major historic crime must be vividly remembered and never allowed to slip into oblivion. ”

    All fiction is ephemeral.

  23. attonn says:
    @Scripted Reality

    “One killed man is a murder.100 killed men is a mass murder.One Million killed people is a statistic”.

    This alleged Stalin’s quote is so preposterous, it’s got to be a fake. Probably manufactured by some clever western “historian”.

  24. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    As for a cumulative legacy of death, Stalin is surpassed by Woodrow Wilson.

  25. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says:

    Comparing Hitler and Stalin’s body counts isn’t really fair.

    Suppose we compare Mao’s body counts with that of Pol Pot. Mao killed many more people in gross numbers because he ruled over so many Chinese, but Pol Pot killed more in percentage terms.

    We have to keep in mind that Stalin ruled for much longer than Hitler and over a larger population. Also, Stalin killed all he wanted to kill. Margolis says 20 million, but many historians put it closer to 10 million or lower. But let us say 20 million were killed.
    In contrast, let’s say Hitler killed about 10 million — Jews, Poles, the rest of them.

    But Hitler ruled for only 12 yrs, and he never got to do all he wanted to do. But suppose Hitler had defeated the USSR. Given his nutjob racial ideas, he might well have embarked on wiping out 10s of millions of Slavs and then enslaving the rest.
    So, if Hitler had prevailed, he would have been a much worse killer than Stalin.

    Also, one could argue that most of the killed during WWII can be blamed on Hitler since he was most responsible for the war. So, one could say Hitler deserves blame for most of the 50 million killed in WWII. That makes him, bar none, the greatest killer of the 20th century.
    Why shouldn’t the war dead be counted. We blame Japanese for the war dead in Nanking. We blame Napoleon for the millions dead as the result of his wars. And we blame Genghis Khan for killing many folks.
    So, most of the dead in WWII should be blamed on Hitler.

    In some ways, comparing Hitler and Stalin is like apples and oranges.
    In most respects, fascism is far more humane than communism. Fascism is about compromise among the classes and various forces in society. Mussolini and Ataturk led the way. Mussolini and Ataturk for a New Order and modernity. For real progress. But they didn’t feel that religion needed to be stamped out. Ataturk didn’t banish Islam. He secularized Turkey but allowed Islam. Mussolini was a secular leader but made pact with the Vatican. In contrast, Soviets destroyed over 40,000 churches and killed many priests. Marxism-Leninism was to be the new religion.
    Also, economically fascism was more humane and moderate. Mussolini saw some value in socialism but he didn’t believe in wiping out the business class. Castro would have achieved much more as a fascist than communist. Communism destroys wealth-creation, incentive, and enterprise. There is no motivation to work since profit is banished or severely curtailed. So, people have to be forced to work for ‘moral incentive’ which gets tiresome fast.
    National Socialism, as a compromise between capitalists and workers, was far more humane than Soviet communism that wiped out entire classes and then used working class as slaves to build the economy.
    But to be fair to the USSR, Germany was already industrialized when Hitler took power, whereas Russia was semi-industrial when the commies took over. So, Stalin had to do more to build an industry, and he used extreme means to do so.

    What really made the German form of fascism so deadly was Hitler’s nutjob race theories. Not all his race theories were wrong, and some of them are valid today. But the idea of ‘subhuman’ was poisonous. Also, Hitler had a personality of a venomous grumpkin. If Hitler had the same racial views but had the personality of Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan, he might have been more live-and-let-live despite his racial views. But he was like a rabid wolf. His hatreds and contempt were limitless. And he was a megalomaniac who saw history as a Wagnerian opera where he would be both Wotan and Siegried. But actually, his monstrous feelings of resentment made him feel more like Alberich the Jewish Nibelung. Mao also had a massive chip on his shoulders as well as view of himself as man of destiny. So, he did a lot of crazy chopsuey stuff to China that killed many. Mao was nutty like the blonde chinaman in the INCREDIBLE KUNG FU MISSION.

    To be sure, because of Hitler’s race theories, he could be relatively nicer to certain peoples. Nazis were generally humane to the Nordics and the French IF they behaved. Nazis just wanted obedience and compliance from such people. Even though Nazis thought the Latins weren’t as good as Germans and Nordics, they had great respect for Latin contribution to arts and culture. So, French folks who didn’t resist didn’t have it so bad under the Germans.
    In contrast, Stalin was a meanie to just about all groups. He was an equal opportunity oppressor. Every group got it pretty brutal under Stalin.

    But then, when it came to the ‘subhuman’ races, the Germans were much worse.
    Just think about it. Ukrainians went through hell under Stalin and greeted the Germans as liberators. But they soon soured on the ruthless Germans and many turned partisan against the Germans. Why? Because Germans treated them as subhumans. As for the Jews, we know that story.

    So, if Stalin was very very bad to everyone, Hitler was good with some people but totally evil with others. So, this makes Hitler more frightening. It’s like Godzilla is, all said and done, worse than King Kong in KK vs GZ. KK is brutal, but GZ takes it a bit further.

    Also, Stalin understood limits and compromise. He made a pact with Hitler and stuck to it. And had the Pact been honored, most of the dead in WWII could have been prevented. But Hitler the reckless degenerate gambler diva god-man decided to throw all caution to the winds and attack Russia, and THAT unleashed the biggest murder mayhem in European history. Prior to the German invasion of Russia, the number of dead was under million or at most, few millions. But once Germanzilla clashed with Russokong, it just went totally crazy.

    Also, Hitler must take blame for WWII in the way that Germany does NOT deserve full blame for WWI. Germany may be most to blame for WWI, but other nations were revved up to fight too. France had long waited for a time for revenge. And Russia was willing to enter the war too. And then, UK got involved even though it should have stayed out.
    But WWII was Hitler’s baby. UK didn’t want war. France didn’t want war. Poland didn’t want war. Even Italy didn’t want war. Mussolini just went along since he though the Germs would win. And Russian didn’t want war. But Hitler kept finding reasons to keep pushing Europe further over the edge. Initially, his demands made good sense. Rhineland, Austria, Sudetenland. But the crazy bugger then moved into Czech territory. As for Poland, he should have just taken Danzig which really was a German city. But the bugger decided to divvy Poland with Russia. As Stalin feared resurgent Germany, he figured it would be safer to make peace with Germany than remain as enemy. So, most of the war dead in WWII must be blamed on Hitler.

    Personally, I think Stalin killed maybe 10 million. The 20 million figures seems a bit exaggerated. Also, it’s not so easy to tally up the numbers in the Soviet context. When Germans killed Jews, they really meant to kill Jews. But in the Soviet system, many people died from hardships but they weren’t killed outright. Is that ‘murder’? It’s been said that 10% of Chinese died in America building railroads. Were they ‘murdered’?
    And many people died while building the Panama Canal. Could we say there were ‘murdered’? Suppose someone was sent to the Gulag and his health was ruined. Suppose he was released and lived only for 2 yrs. Did he die of natural causes or was he ‘murdered’?

    Also, let’s keep in mind that Stalin did produce real successes, something which cannot be said of Mao. Mao ruined China economically and culturally. So, all the dead under Mao was pointless.
    In contrast, Stalin did kill many but he did succeed in turning USSR into a super industrial state. Also, even though cultural life under Stalin could be repressive and stifling, Stalin was not a total yahoo, and there were genuine cultural achievement under him: Eisenstein, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Sholokhov, Akhmatova, Bulgakov, etc.
    And even artists who died under Stalin were able to finish some stuff before they were bumped off. But Mao not only totally ruined the Chinese economy but turned culture into Andy Warhol Mao paintings.

    Also, Stalin had real enemies. He was paranoid but right to be paranoid since the Bolsheviks all came to power through terror, subversion, deception, espionage, ruthlessness, and conspiratorial plotting. Since he did it to others, why wouldn’t others do it to him? So, he felt a need to purge the party.

    Also, communism was a kind of war. And in wars, people get killed.
    Communism wasn’t just a case of new regime in power. It was a case of waging war on the old to create the new. The logic of War Revolution emboldened Stalin and his cohorts to use whatever violence necessary to win and force the people under their will.
    But wasn’t this the same logic of Americans IN WAR? When US got into war with Japan and Germany, firebombing entire cities was deemed justifiable. Even nuking cities was justifiable. Why? It was war, and US had a vision of creating a new world order. So, ANYTHING was justified in war. If the logic of war justified US policies during WWII, then the logic of war also justified communist excesses, at least in commie eyes. Personally, I loathe communism and do see Stalin as a mass-killer. But if you see history as a war between old injustice and new justice, then utter ruthlessness seems justified.

    This is why WWII is called the Good War. US and UK killed millions of folks, even civilians such as womenfolk and babyfolk, but the war was seen as ‘freedom and goodness’ versus ‘eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil’. So, in order to defeat eeeeeeeeeeeeevil, any amount of violence seemed justified.
    From a communist viewpoint, the old way was eeeeeeeeeeeevil or very very unjust. In order to birth a new order, a war on history had to be waged, and not just politically but economically, culturally, spiritually. And in war, the thing is to win. Whatever it takes to keep winning battles until the war is won to ‘end history’. Communism saw everything it did in terms of War on Old History to win for New History. It’s like US had plans to nuke several more cities in Japan if the Jappers still refused to surrender after Nagasaki.

    It’s like in DR. ZHIVAGO. The commies see history as a war. So, they use the logic of war in fighting the enemy.

    And Americans got pretty violent during the Civil War. The Union was willing to kill any number of Southerners to win and restored the Order. And Sherman went to extremes.

    There’s bound to be the most violence when the Great Vision is at odds with the Stubborn Reality. White Americans had a Great Vision of a white-ruled America. Indians stood in the way like childish savages, so white men used ruthless means to sweep them aside. There was little mercy.
    But once the Great Vision was fulfilled, there was no more need to whup the Indians, so they were left alone later.

    Stalin operated on the same principle. He saw nation-building as a two-front war fueled by two Great Visions. One was unity of USSR. As USSR was multi-ethnic, it had the danger of breaking apart or being invaded by others. So, like ruthless Abe Lincoln, he was willing to use lots of violence to send a strong message that Moscow rules all, and all better obey.

    The other Great Vision was to soviet-ize the entire economy and culture. Since most people in the USSR had no idea what communism was, it had to be forced upon the people with utmost ruthlessness since communism was so unfamiliar with business-as-usual for most folks.
    So, to achieve those two Great Visions, Stalin waged war on Reality and killed many. But once he achieved them, the killings were greatly reduced, even ended. So, it’d be wrong to say Stalin killed for the hell of it. He killed to fulfill his Great Visions. He had to bend reality to them.

    Also, US is still willing to use great violence to fulfill its Great Vision around the world. As US is now controlled by Jews, the Great Vision is dominated by Jewish identity and interests. And look what happened to the Middle East since the end of the Cold War. Nations smashed, 100,000s of womenfolk and babyfolk starved and killed of disease and malnutrition, with Kaganovich-like Madwoman Albright saying, “it was worth it.”

    I think, in some ways, people like the Neocons and Albright are worse than old commies and American ‘neo-imperialists’ in Vietnam.
    Commies sucked real bad, but they really believed themselves to be the agents of history and really thought the future of humanity depended on the triumph of Marxism.
    As for US mass-killing in wars during the Cold War, it was bad stuff, but the Cold War was a real global conflict and much was at stake. And the US was clearly better than the USSR.
    US killed millions in Vietnam, and that was horrible stuff, but it was a war US couldn’t just walk away from since it had made a pledge to the South Viets. Once a great power makes a pledge to an ally(which it more or less had created in the first place), it would look real bad to say, “Sorry, we ain’t gonna protect you and just walk away.” Of course, as the war dragged on, US got a bad reputation as a mass-killer empire of a poor nation. But US was caught between rock and hard place. It had to keep its promise to an ally.

    This is why all the critics of Vietnam War are missing the point. They say US shouldn’t have escalated the war or just walked away. But that would have meant US just abandoning an ally and reneging on its pledge to defend it from communism. So, as bad as US involvement in Vietnam became, it was at least understandable given the context.

    If US is to be faulted in Vietnam, it was in having created the condition of a divided-nation in the first place. If US had not got involved in Vietnam in the 50s, all of Vietnam would have fallen to Ho Chi Minh and that would have been the end of that. But US decided to create a condition whereby the nation would be divided and the southern part would essentially be a client state of America. Once such condition was created, US had an obligation to play protector. So, in retrospect, people shouldn’t so much blame America’s involvement in the Vietnam War but fault America’s involvement in Vietnam itself in the 50s.

    It’s like US made a pledge to defend West Germany from the Soviet Bloc. But suppose US had allowed all of Germany to fall to the Soviets. Then, US would have had no obligation to Germans.
    But once US participated in the condition of a divided Germany, it was obligated to protect the West from the communist East.
    Looking back on Vietnam, US should never have gotten involved in Vietnam to begin with. On that score, Eisenhower is most to blame for the debacle since his actions bound US to South Vietnam. It became difficult for Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon to say “Sorry!! We Americans don’t keep promises”, especially after Cuba fell and became a client of the USSR in the early 60s.

    The condition of the pledge never should have been made under Eisenhower. Eisenhower is credited with ending the Korean War and warning about the military-industrial complex, but his getting US involved in Vietnam made it difficult for US to just walk away. The division of Vietnam hardened, and US pretty much signed the South a blank check for protection IF it sided with US in the Cold War.
    Kennedy, and especially Johnson and Nixon couldn’t just walk away.
    They felt like the Burt Lancaster character in this scene in GO SMELL THE SPARTANS:

    This is why Pat Buchanan, who’s lived through the whole debacle, warns against foreign intervention. Once US makes a pledge to nation, it may become stuck there maybe forever, which is bad. Or, if US decides to ‘cut and run’, it makes US look like a coward, quitter, and betrayer.
    US is stuck in Afghanistan. US finally left Iraq, and the place is a total mess. US also got involved in Libya and doesn’t know what to do with it. And another mess in Ukraine.

    Anyway, at least the Cold War was really a mega-global struggle, and US couldn’t stay out. And this Cold War was really a huge conflict about the future of all of mankind.

    But US foreign policy and wars following the end of the Cold War have been either gratuitous — US flexing its muscle as the sole superpower — or petty in the sense that their sole purpose is to appease the insatiable ethnomania and vileness of the Zio-Glob.
    Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and dangerous ‘pivot’ against China are all driven by Jewish foreign policy ‘experts’ who seek total mastery of the world. Not for the good of all of humanity but to make all of humanity into ass-kissers of Jews.
    Jews also spread homo agenda all over the world to spearhead Zio-American cultural imperialism. Also, the GLOB, after unleashing a massive ‘refugee-migrant’ crisis, demands that EU and even Japan take in all these desperate people who’ve been rendered homeless because of Zio-Glob driven American Wars in the Middle East and North Africa.

    In this sense, Zio-Glob-ism is more like Nazism. Communism and American Liberalism had their dark sides, but they offered two vision of socio-political order that was meant to better serve all of humanity.
    In contrast, the Nazi empire was all about serving the Germans and ‘Aryans’. (To be sure, most fascist nations were NOT imperialist or racially supremacist. Ataturk was essentially a fascist, but he didn’t believe Turks were better than non-Turks and he had no designs on other nations. He did kill a lot of Armenians, but things got crazy during wartime. After all, the massive expulsion of Germans after WWII also led to horrendous suffering. And US felt that the deaths of 100,000s of Iraqi women and children was ‘worth it’.) Like the Nazi Empire, the Zio-Glob empire is all about making the world serve Jews(and homos as proxy agents of Jews). It is about increasing diversity and promoting homo agenda in every nation to weaken the power of the native majority. Thus, the nation becomes easier picking for Jewish globo-agents. Notice that Jews use the homo-agenda to butter up the nationalist-traditionalist defenses of all nations, with the exception of nations like Saudi Arabia that colludes so slavishly with the Zio-Glob agenda.

    In one respect, Zio-Glob is worse than Nazis. Nazis were psycho mass killers, but they were honest about what they stood for. Hitler said, “we are great, you guys suck, so kiss my arse or die.”
    But Zio-Glob goes around yammering about ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’, ‘rule of law’, and ‘liberal values’ when the ONLY thing it cares about is how to expand Jewish power.

  26. Winston Churchill was no piker in the mass murder sweepstakes either. The Bengal famine of 1943-44 occurred with his blessing; millions died. His apologists do an excellent job of scrubbing his legacy, so he isn’t thought of in the same category as Stalin, even though he should be.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  27. related to the topic:
    An Algemeiner article whinges that students at a high school in Tooele, Utah made a mockery of the sacred holocaust, hosting a “Ballocaust” and wearing T shirts that had (gasp) the image of Hitler on them.

    The event was announced over the school’s PA system!! Can you imagine!!

    A concerned parent reportedly contacted Good 4 Utah with a complaint: “Those kids were able to wear those shirts on the court at a school-sponsored activity. Their name was announced over the PA address system with many students present at that school-sponsored activity. Someone should have put a stop to it.”
    “I find it very disturbing that we can make a mockery, in today’s day and age, that we make a mockery of an event where millions of people lost their lives,” the parent of a student at Tooele High School said.
    Principal Jeff Hamm did not return Good 4 Utah‘s call about disciplinary action.

    Who’s that guy who used to do those “Rest of the Story” programs?

    Here’s the Rest of the Story about Tooele:

    Tooele, Utah is home to Dugway, the United States government facility obtained by Franklin Roosevelt in 1939 and used to develop and test chemical and biological weapons to use (initially) against Germany and Japan.

    According to a report by the U.S. Department of the Interior, in 1942 Erich Mendelsohn, “the Jewish architect,” and several other architects collaborated with the U.S. Air Force, Standard Oil Corporation, and set designers from Hollywood movie studios to design and build precisely detailed replicas of German and Japanese workers housing.

    U.S. Air Force and Standard Oil developed the most efficient methods to create a firestorm intended to destroy not only the structure and the people inside but to use that targeted structure to spread a firestorm that would destroy as much of the surrounding town as possible.

    In that way, according to Jorg Friedrich in The Fire, 75% of Germany’s built infrastructure was reduced to ash and rubble; 600,000 German civilians were incinerated; 7 million German civilians

    were (intentionally) “de-housed,” to use Bomber Harris’s term. All this killing power, that Robert McNamara and Curtis LeMay acknowledged as “crimes against humanity”, are fruits of US government activity in Tooele, Utah.

    But the killing power of FDR’s heart of darkness in the Utah desert did not end with the destruction of Germany and Japan in World War II; Tooele’s air, water and soil are polluted with chemicals and toxins, perhaps irremediably, stemming from the use of the desert basin in Tooele by U.S. government as well as massive copper mining in the region, and the use of part of the original Dugway site as one of the nation’s largest waste dumps.

    According to the Wikipedia entry for Tooele, Utah:

    heavy industry and resulting pollution of the air and earth have been a regional concern for decades.
    The US Environmental Protection Agency has reported that US Magnesium produces and discharges dangerous toxins and cancerous byproducts. In 2008, the US Government considered listing the area as a Superfund site.

    Another firm, Stericycle, reached a settlement with the US Government to reduce its fines by relocating a chemical plant from North Salt Lake to Tooele, where it would double its production, burning 18,000 tons of medical waste annually in the west desert community.

    For years, Tooele County has been listed as having the worst air in Utah, according to Federal agencies and environmental groups.

    The Tooele County Health Department notes that the chemical output of the heavy industry can be particularly dangerous in the winter, because the region’s climate and setting create winter inversions, suspending the toxins in the air, and posing “serious health concerns.”

    • Replies: @Varenik
  28. @Bragadocious

    8 to 10 million Iranians died of starvation in WWI, attributable to the British using Iran’s food stocks to provision British troops (see The Great Famine & Genocide in Iran: 1917-1919 by Mohammad Gholi Majd )

    (even as the British were blockading essential shipments of food to Germans, resulting in the deaths of 700,000 German civilians see The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919 by C. Paul Vincent ).

    • Replies: @Bragadocious
  29. Svigor says:

    Question from audience: “Hitler and Stalin were tyrants, But Isn’t it true that in the ‘30s with Ukraine and purge trials and gulags that Stalin mass murdered more people than Hitler?

    Butler. Actually that’s not true, No. [long pause.]
    But the major difference between the two , in my mind, is ideological: Stalin killed because he was trying to create a greater Russia, and that’s why he killed kulaks. The greater number of people that he killed were kulaks, when he was trying to change into collective farming, whereas Hitler was trying to annihilate the Slavic races and the Jewish races.”

    True lies. Soviets killed way more than the Nazis did. Focus on Hitler and Stalin and the thirties is tendentious.

    Commies eat their own young. At least the Nazis focused it outward.

    This message needs frequent repetition. Another aspect that doesn’t get much attention is the curious fact that while much effort is expended tracking down the last ancient Nazi’s, Ex-Soviet KGB murderers walk free

    IIRC, it was Kaganovitch, “Stalin’s Himmler,” who died in his bed, a free man, long after the fall of the Soviet Union. He was never charged with any crimes. Never so much as condemned, for all I know. If he’d been a non-Jew killing Jews, the Israelis would have murdered him, or better yet, kidnapped him and brought him back to Israel for a show trial.

    Lands stolen under Communism in Central and Eastern Europe have never been returned. No one makes a peep about this. So far as I know, there is no branch of the US government dedicated to keeping former commie thugs out of the country.

    There is no better “get out of jail free card” than a red star on your hat.

    Hear hear.

    BUT, the difference is, Stalin really had no choice;

    See, Stalin didn’t go after G-d’s Chosen.

    What’s a few million goyim, more or less? Gotta break eggs to make omelets, am I right?

    whereas There’s no conceivable ideological justification for what Hitler did.

    Only if there’s no conceivable ideological justification for what Stalin did. Otherwise, Hitler was obviously more justified than Stalin, because the Nazis didn’t focus on eating their own young, the way the Commies did.

    Don’t know…20 million seems to be too round of a number to be believable, figures like that are almost always simply made up.

    Like, say, 6 million.

    • Replies: @Greasy WIlliam
    , @Varenik
  30. JackOH says:

    Some years ago I did some very rough guesstimating of countries ranked by number of man-years their troops had been present on foreign soil. My time frame began about the start of WWI and ended a century later. I didn’t distinguish between troops present on foreign soil by virtue of conquest, treaty, commercial agreement, etc. The U. S. was indeed in first place. Nope, I’m not sure that’s totally bad, and, in some cases, probably there’s some good done. But, I feel uneasy about it.

    Yeah, the estimates of non-American casualties in Vietnam and Iraq II, including refugees, number in the millions if my memory’s okay and the statistics are to be believed. They exceed WWII’s total casualties in the European theater from 1939 to June 1941, again if my memory’s okay.

    What to make of that? I’m not sure.

  31. @Svigor

    If he’d been a non-Jew killing Jews, the Israelis would have murdered him, or better yet, kidnapped him and brought him back to Israel for a show trial.

    Yes we would have. We are too strong for losers like you.

    Anybody who raises his hand against us gets it back 1000x worse. It has always been so and thus it shall always be.

    Sucks to be you, Sivvy.

  32. @attonn

    If this quote is not true so it very well invented.It shows perfectly that a human brain can not handle and imagine such huge numbers.

    Let’s talk about the victims.
    Because it is very silent about these people.Nobody is interested in.Like I wrote in my comment – it would bring the winners of WW II in a not so good image they have created for themselfes.
    These millions of victims have no Lobby-Organisations in Washington,New York,Hollywood-LA,in London,Paris,Tel Aviv,Jerusalem,Moscow,Berlin.

    But if you see how Holocaust victims complain that they did not receive the money from Germany, that they live in poverty while their gouvernment shows with the finger to Berlin and that they should pay more while other people like (when I remember right) Lawrence Eagleburger sitting in the Council and “earn” several hundret thousand dollars.

    There is a good Documentary called “Defamation”.Here you can see how History is becoming Business.It is from a Jewish Director and listen what his mother in this report says….

    Nobody does take care about the victim of the International Socialism.
    Germany has lost one third of its territory after the war.up to 14.7 million were kicked out of their former homeland and about 2.7 million died – nobody cares about them.
    Nobody does take care about other victims from the colonial war of France in Algeria.
    Nobody does ake care about victims of Agent Orange and Bombardments in Vietnam.
    Nobody does take care about Victims of Korea and so on.

    It is easy for the whole world to show in the direction of the Germans althogh they have also dark sides in their History.

    WW I and WW II has many fathers.The winner writes his view in the History-Books.

    By the way please do not use the word “Nazi”.Everybody who uses this term is in my opinion not objective.It is a propaganda-term. When I hear this word then I know the rest of the statement.

    Also a thanks to the Unz-Review.Here you can write without much censorship – even if you are not “mainstream” and AIPAC-like.

    It must have its reson why International Socialists (Communists) do not use the word “National Socialist”. Because people would compare and ask “too much”.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  33. denk says:

    did stalin killed millions of his own people, i’ve no way of knowing ?

    i highly doubt if mao *murdered millions of his own people* !
    why ?
    cuz it came from the same lies factory that concocted many of the greatest hoax of the centuries,
    *china invaded india in 1962,
    *china committed genocide in tibet,
    *china massacred thousands of peaceful demonstrators in tam,
    *china brutally cracked down peaceful demonstrators in tibet, 2008,
    *china bruatlly cracked down peaceful demonstrators in xinjiang 2009,

    i do know the greatest killing machine in human history has slaugtered tens, perhaps hundreds of millions innocent people since 1875 up to this very minute.
    everybody knows who im talking about, i presume ?

  34. @SolontoCroesus

    Left-collectivists ideologues seem to never tire of “splainin’” the unimportance of human life when a Higher Calling (worldwide socialism) is involved.

    To them, you and your loved ones are nothing but insects in a hive, and if their program requires you to be fumigated, tough luck.

  35. @SolontoCroesus

    I didn’t know that about Iran, but I did know about the German blockade. Thank you. The Brits have always used food as a weapon, and starvation as the final kill shot. People talk about the Irish famine but that was child’s play compared to some of these other British extermination campaigns.

  36. I’ve never understood the Brits’ and American Anglophiles’ visceral hatred for their cousins in Germany. When you look at the starvation blockade of Germany by Britain during World War 1, the propaganda coup of the Brits digging up the transatlantic cable that did NOT run through England so that England could completely stage-manage America’s news media to help Wilson lie the USA into just another European war (setting the stage for the Bolshevik Revolution’s success in a weakened Russia, the Treaty of Versailles, etc., etc.,) it is clear that the enmity between the UK and Germany trumps self-preservation.

    Does this have something to do with ancient conflicts among the royal lineage of each country? Is today’s Open Borders Immivasion, tantamount to Europe’s people dousing themselves with gasoline and setting themselves, their children and their history ablaze, somehow part and parcel of the 20th century’s cage-match duel to mutual destruction? Are Germans and everyone else the Hatfields and McCoys bent on annihilating their antagonists even if they hoist with their own petard?

    The agreement at Potsdam simply cannot be explained via rational thinking. It is as though the boundaries of hell were relaxed and several demons escaped to run for (or seize) the highest offices of the most powerful countries on Earth.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  37. Svigor says:

    Yes we would have. We are too strong for losers like you.

    Anybody who raises his hand against us gets it back 1000x worse. It has always been so and thus it shall always be.

    Sucks to be you, Sivvy.

    The fact that you’ll take your own side in a fight isn’t a problem. The problem is that you’re so invested in making sure no one else does (at least, not in countries you lot might want to live in some day). That sort of thing can go on for a while, but often ends badly. Seems especially likely to in the information age. Hell, I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. You probably know as well as anyone how often Jews’ behavior catches up with them.

    • Replies: @Greasy WIlliam
  38. @attonn

    The quote is apocryphal and on top of that taken out of context. Stalin is alleged to say that during some meeting where some official was enumerating the victims of a famine. There is a good website which tries to investigate the origins of quotes and it is called Quote Investigator. You can find more on that particular quote and its history right there.

  39. @Scripted Reality

    Too true.

    Nazism: National Socialism
    Communism: International Socialism
    Fabians: Democratic Socialism (AKA the “third way.”)

    Today’s USA is a mix of Fabian Socialism & Corporatism (which is what Mussolini called his Italian “miracle.”)

    Coming soon: Socialist Democracy (income is taxed) will turn to Cannibal Democracy (where the majority parasites vote to directly tax wealth, not just income derived from it) and when that inevitably destroys capital, wealth and income, Cannibal Democracy will turn into Zombie Democracy where the rabble, in its rage, begins to eat the brains (i.e., murders the very intelligent, hard-working, wise-stewardship people without whom utter poverty is inescapable.)

    Democracy is incompatible with civilization, especially when the polity is Diverse ™ and its very heterogeneity leads to innumerable factions simply engaging in a war of political robbery. As long as the USA is populated by people of various factions (races, ethnicities, classes) engaging in a Hobbesian war of all against all over legal preferences and looting the treasury, the destination remains the same.

  40. In my opinion there is worldwide only one Democracy – it is Switzerland.
    People can vote about every important case.
    This is how a State should be and how Domocracy works.It is a peaceful and wealthy State.

    The US could be a real Democracy too.The Elites try to use the Starspangle as the glue who does keep everything together.But in reality you are only worth as much as you got in your pocket or on your account.

    The US is ruled by the Establishment of Corporations,Banks,Wallstreet,Media,NGO’s,Councils, Leagues,Bllionairs,Think Tanks – all are non-elected.

    It is just a Plutocracy.The Big business is setting the themes like NAFTA, TTIP,open borders,Multiculturalism,One World,a War here a War there, no money for the own people.

    Both types of Socialism were totalitary systems.
    Communism did fail because people are different and only a successful economy makes it possible.
    National Socialism was very efficient – in every way (good and bad).It was like a anthill or a bee colony – from the bottom till the top – all working together on one aim.

    Today we have again a totalitary system and live in a Plutocracy.
    This is very dangerouse.Because more and more people have no idendification (=money) with this system and it is losing more and more the right of existence.

    If the West does reduce the Democracy a new System will take over.
    Rich Elites still believe in One World because they can afford it with their money.They believe they got everything under control and every state will follow US instructions.
    But they have forgotten that they did wake up since 1979 a sleeping Giant called Islam.

    It remebers me on a scene in TV. A Afghan Mudshahedeen (at this time they were “Freedom-fighters”) did fire a stinger rocket at a Russian plane and did scream while he was fireing “Death tio the Americans”.
    And the US has still “friends” like Saudi-Arabia and Turkey…..

    USA- wake up!!! WW II and the Cold War is over.Know your Enemy!
    But the big money has bought former US-elites.But the Saudis and all the others have a lot….

    If the whole world would be like Switzerland there would be peace everywhere.

  41. Svigor says:

    In my opinion there is worldwide only one Democracy – it is Switzerland.
    People can vote about every important case.
    This is how a State should be and how Domocracy works.It is a peaceful and wealthy State.

    This is a really bad idea IMO. I prefer a strong constitution that decides the vital issues beforehand and prevents stupid fad- or impulse-based decisions. E.g., mass immigration. A properly-constructed state will not even countenance open borders, any more than it will deliberate on collective suicide.

    Other limits, like keeping the total size of gov’t down (e.g., in a wide variety of senses: total % of the population allowed on the payroll, total tax burden, etc.) are probably a good idea, too.

  42. anon • Disclaimer says:

    It is never a question of who is “more” evil, Hitler or Stalin. Both were degenerates. The question is who was more dangerous to a western democratic state. Hitler appealed only to Germans and Germany is a small country. Communism-socialism had its adherents all around the world and the USSR was vastly bigger, more populous and filled with resources.

  43. @Svigor

    The fact that you’ll take your own side in a fight isn’t a problem.

    Yes it is. You are clearly salty about the German war criminals we executed after the war.

    Iowa caucuses were tonight. Weren’t you promising us on Ron Paul revolution around this time 4 years ago? How is your homo idol doing these days?

    • Replies: @attonn
  44. attonn says:
    @Greasy WIlliam

    Ron Paul is surely doing better than the US middle class. And how is he a “homo’? He does, without a doubt, has more spine and intestinal fortitude ( and thus what we call manhood) than the combined rest of America’s politicians.

  45. Varenik says:
    @Regnum Nostrum

    It’s simpler than that. When the policies, as murderous as they were, applied across the board, regardless of nationalities – everyone suffered.My Cossack father’s family was decimated and my Jewish mother’s family lost plenty as well in 1930’s.
    Hitler was trying to wipe out several RACES.
    That difference should never be whitewashed by the likes of Buchanan, who back in the 80’s was maintaining that Treblinka was just a “transit camp”…
    Just a troubling is the current Ukrainian fascination with their own neo-nazis, just as ignorant of history – where Hitler considered them as sub-humans on par with jews, gypsies and the rest of Slavs. Mind-boggling selective amnesia.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  46. Varenik says:

    “See, Stalin didn’t go after G-d’s Chosen.”
    Really ?
    Stalin was an equal opportunity murderer. Plenty of Jews died under him as did everybody else.

  47. Varenik says:

    So, it was the Jew that did it ?
    Not TOO biased, are we ?

  48. @Varenik

    There is no objective evidence that the Germans had a systematic plan to “wipe out” anyone, be it Jews or Slavs. The war in the East was ugly, no doubt, but exaggerations and outright fabrications of German atrocities have taken on an almost religious-like quality. It’s as if some people can’t get through life without fantasizing about their ancestors’ persecution.

    • Replies: @attonn
    , @Varenik
  49. attonn says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    There is an obvious trend right now of Stalin’s demonization and parallel rehabilitation of Hitler. Over time it can lead to only one outcome, namely Germans demanding return to their pre-WWII borders. After all, if Stalin is a mass murderer worse than Hitler, then on what basis do Poles and Czechs own German land? Once resisting becomes untenable, Poles (themselves champions in Stalin bashing) and Romanians will pose the same question to Ukrainians, Belarussians and even Lithuanians. We may see wholesale redrawing of Europeans borders in our lifetime.
    Ironically, Stalin’s currency is at its lowest in the countries that benefited from his largess the most – Poland, Ukraine, and Lithuania. They will live to regret such shortsightedness, once what Stalin had given them is taken away.

    • Replies: @OutWest
  50. Varenik says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Might you be an American ?
    The country that suffered the least tends to produce doubters of your kind.
    Tell that to any Slav or Jew from the continent and you might get surprised by the viciousness of the reaction. I can speak for my family, without any fantasizing, and, judging by the last year’s march in Moscow of families with relatives who died in WWII, for millions and millions of Russians. Negating others’ suffering is outright ignorant and insulting, hence my guess vis-a-vis your domicile…
    Goes hand in hand with the latest push in the West to whitewash nazis and Hitler.

  51. attonn says:

    “Whitewashing Nazis and Hitler” is actually done mostly in the East, in the Baltics and in the Ukraine… Not in the West. Slavs (Ukrainians and Croats) are some of the most prominent Hitler fans these days. Crazy, but true.

    • Agree: Regnum Nostrum
  52. @Varenik

    Sadly, yes, American. And I have no doubt Jews and Slavs wouldn’t react kindly to my positions. Now, why don’t you try to be useful and explain how any of that is relevant?

  53. @Varenik

    Oh, and what “push in the west” is there to whitewash Hitler? The same west where historical revisionism is punishable by imprisonment? You’re kind of proving my point.

  54. JackOH says:

    Who, besides a handful of historians, really remembers the atrocities committed by Francisco Franco or Ante Pavelic, both of them contemporaries of Hitler? My point, of course, is that Hitler was a belligerent against both Roosevelt (and successor Truman) and Stalin, was defeated by both, and gave both strong reason to magnify and highlight every iniquity of the Nazi regime after the end of the war.

    If we want to look clear-headedly at the iniquity of a particular leader or regime, we’d probably do well to tightly define exactly what we’re talking about. There’s no “rehabilitation of Hitler” that I’m aware of, but there are pointed questions being asked by good people about why the European template of moral relations among peoples is laid down upon the Middle East, North Korea, etc.

    I have no specific expertise here, but I can’t think of anything goofier than to believe the Europe of 1936, or 1941, or 1947, has a damned thing to do with how we handle things in the world elsewhere in 2016.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  55. Rehmat says:

    I know Eric Margolis hate Josef Stalin for many reasons. But like Hitler, Stalin did many admirable things for the Organized Jewry.

    German author Hennecke Kardel wrote a book, “Adolf Hitler: Founder of Israel”.

    Josef Stalin not only married three Jewish women, but also created the first Jewish state in Russia – Birobidjan (or Birobidzhan) in 1934.

  56. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    [Hitler] gave both [Roosevelt and Stalin] strong reason to magnify and highlight every iniquity of the Nazi regime after the end of the war.

    What were those good reasons?

    Roosevelt and Stalin decided in 1943 that unconditional surrender would be demanded of Germany; in Tehran they toasted the scheme to kill 50,000 German officers; in 1944 Morgenthau proposed and Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to a plan to starve German civilians and kill German POWs. Churchill agreed with Stalin’s plan to ethnically cleanse several millions of German civilians.
    All plots and plans were carried out after the German surrender; more Germans died after the war ended than during the fighting.

    What good reasons were there for this level of savagery?

    there are pointed questions being asked by good people about why the European template of moral relations among peoples is laid down upon the Middle East, North Korea, etc.

    If only the European template were laid down, rather than the Anglo-Zio-American template.

  57. dfordoom says: • Website

    I’ve never understood the Brits’ and American Anglophiles’ visceral hatred for their cousins in Germany.

    Economic rivalry?

    • Replies: @JackOH
    , @5371
  58. @Rehmat

    Stalin’s relationship with the Jews was not clear cut, some say he was anti-Semitic, others only anti-Zionist. Here’s some interesting revisionist work out of Russia re. the purges:’s-1937-counter-revolution-against-trotskyism/

  59. @Rehmat

    So many inaccuracies in such a small space. Stalin only married twice and Birobidzhan is a town not a state. It is an administrative centre of a Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Russia. I would not mind a reference to your claim that Stalin’s wives were Jewish. It is a sad fact of the times that everybody writes books nowadays and even sadder that a lot of people believe what is inside. To claim that Hitler was a founder of Israel goes beyond any classification of stupidity.

  60. JackOH says:

    British elites in the late 19th century were squeezed between cheap American farm products and cheap German manufactures. American enmity toward Germany–in its early 20th century iteration– may derive from American Anglophilia and Francophilia.

    The united German nation-state from 1871 onward seems to me at least a bit like today’s mainland China. Both are ancient peoples who discovered a new groove: the former in unification, the latter in economic liberalization. China seems a lot more deft at handling its new worldwide importance, but, then again, the last century offers much instruction on how not to do things that provoke international suspicion.

  61. OutWest says:

    Holodomor perhaps.

    • Replies: @attonn
  62. 5371 says:

    We always hate those whom we have injured.

  63. attonn says:

    If Holodomor is behind Ukrainian worship of Hitler, then one can only wonder about the logic. What fate do Ukrainians think was prepared for them in the Third Reich, other than eternal subservience to the “master race”, if not an absolute national annihilation? Didn’t Nazi drive for a “lebensraum” mean territorial dispossession of Eastern Slavs (including Ukrainians)? Sure it was.
    Also, how can Holodomor be used to incite hatred against Russians, when the latter were as much the subject to the same cruelty as Ukrainians themselves (a lot of Russians died of hunger as well at the same time)? And Russians weren’t even the most fanatical Commies. In fact, they were the first among the underrepresented ethnic groups in the highest echelons of the Soviet power.
    Even Ukrainians enjoyed far more privileged position.

    Only in a warped mind of contemporary Ukrainian – part professional victim, part con-artist – can such a twisted mental processes gain any traction.

    As for me, I believe the answer yo the puzzle is much simpler. Ukraine desperately needs a new sugar daddy (after Putin reduced, and now ended Russia’s sponsorship) , and the West is sufficiently rich and gullible to be the one. Hence Kiev’s swift geopolitical pivot, with grotesque Russophobia – and the corollary deification of Hitler- presented as a proof of its conversion.

  64. @attonn

    “Lebensraum” had nothing to do with Germany invading the Soviet Union in WW2, much less any grand scheme for colonization of the East. Hitler used the term in the 20’s (i.e. before he came to power) to speculate on the instability of the Soviet Union at the time, and how those lands could be ripe for acquisition by Germany in the event of the Bolshevik’s downfall (something that obviously didn’t happen, and was in no danger of happening in 1941). There is no evidence that the notion played any role in his decision to attack, although obviously after the invasion the Germans took an opportunistic (and often brutal) approach. “Lebensraum” is one of the most over-used myths associated with WW2 (and there are a lot of myths).

  65. @attonn

    BTW, one possible reason for the recent appeal of men like Hitler and Stalin in these former Soviet states is that both men’s crimes (while doubtless real and large) have, in fact, been exaggerated in the West for propaganda purposes, and the reality on the ground is somewhat more complicated than westerners would like to grant.

  66. AP says:

    If Holodomor is behind Ukrainian worship of Hitler

    Ukrainian worship of Hitler is overplayed in Russian propaganda. There is much more open Hitler-worship in both Russia and Ukraine than in the West. There isn’t a big difference between Russia and Ukraine though; in neither is Hitler-worship mainstream.

    Also, how can Holodomor be used to incite hatred against Russians, when the latter were as much the subject to the same cruelty as Ukrainians themselves (a lot of Russians died of hunger as well at the same time)?

    Ukrainian SSR was over-represented in terms of deaths and within the Ukrainian SSR rural (thus more-Ukrainian) people died more. Ukrainian peasants experienced Holodomor as Russians and Russian-speaking Jews coming into their villages and taking their grain, shooting those who resisted. In Russia this ethnic aspect may have been absent, but not in Ukraine where cities had different populations from the countryside.

    And Russians weren’t even the most fanatical Commies. In fact, they were the first among the underrepresented ethnic groups in the highest echelons of the Soviet power.
    Even Ukrainians enjoyed far more privileged position.

    Nonsense. Jews, Georgians and Latvians were over-represented among commies. Ukrainians and Russians were both under-represented, but Ukrainians were more under-represented than Russians.

  67. and the reality on the ground is somewhat more complicated than westerners would like to grant.

    I agree with that completely.

    I gather that the main criticism of Hitler among the more sophisticated far-right German intellectuals at the time was that he was a Heldentenor—an opera star—and not a real leader, but they nevertheless gave their begrudging support to the Nazi party because it was tapping into some legitimate social and intellectual currents.

    Stalin seems to have had a valid relationship with the peoples of the Soviet Empire and his actions were within the historical traditions they were familiar with, even if he was atypically heavy-handed and ferocious.

  68. @German_reader

    So the estimates of Stalinist crimes are a “massive exaggeration,” but Hitler’s crimes against the Jews we can take to the bank? I have yet to see or read any evidence to the effect that even one Jew was “gassed” at Auschwitz. Yet to this day Auschwitz is portrayed as a “death camp.” I have yet to see one photo showing the accumulated ashes and bones of millions of Jews put to death in any alleged German “death camp.” Isn’t it about time that we get some solid evidence?

  69. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Great column, but let’s be clear about who plays the largest role in the “repression of 5 million Palestinians” – it’s their leadership, and always has been.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Margolis Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Bin Laden is dead, but his strategy still bleeds the United States.
Egyptians revolted against American rule as well as Mubarak’s.
“America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in...
A menace grows from Bush’s Korean blind spot.
Far from being a model for a “liberated” Iraq, Afghanistan shows how the U.S. can get bogged down Soviet-style.