He killed 60 million people

Hitler thought the people killed by his regime to be liabilities too.

This fucker also basically gave Mao China.

>He didn't just killed random people who born jews or gypsies like Hitler
>He got rid of corrupt people

Gee, there sure were a lot of corrupt and useless people if tens of millions had to die.

>He killed 60 million people
Veeky Forums - History memes

Kulaks aren't people /pol/tard

>he killed people
he made others kill people for him, he dindu kill them with his own hands

Fuck off, commie.

Going to be honest, I learned about dictators in history.

I also learned of Soviet Russia under Stalins rule.

What surprises me is that no one seems to see the similarities between him and Hitler.

Don't worry OP, there are schools who are taught of Stalins cruelty and the failure of communism, as well as the failure of fascism.

You do realize that capitalism has killed more right? What about America who had killed millions more natives and Muslims? Or the British empire?

Is that a challenge?

Also you don't deserve to call yourself a leftist if you can't call the middle guy and tell who he was.

>>defeated Hitler
With the help of all other superpowers.

>What surprises me is that no one seems to see the similarities between him and Hitler.

Like what? That they were evil dictators?

Well, the main problem with Stalin and Mao was this retarded idea of forced central planning and well, a shitton of people were doing useless work, and food was wasted. Most of the deaths came from this crazy economic plans.
While Hitler did not have total power over his country, even during Furher era, and he has well, at least there was some economic progress in Germany, and well there was a plan to kill the jews, while Mao and Stalin never explicitly said that they want to kill bazilion people.

How many motherfuckers in history have been capable of orchestrating the mass killing of humans?
I have no strong opinions of the man, except he pretty much broke the spine of German Army in WW2

>This fucker also basically gave Mao China.
No he didn't. He consistently tried working with Chiang. He honestly didn't think Mao could pull that shit off.

Stalin was great.

Khrushchev fucked it all up.

...

Communists hate Khrushchev because he was a revisionist.

Everyone else hated Khrushchev because he was a communist.

CONCLUSION:
Either be anti-revisionist or anti-communist, otherwise you will have no friends.
EX: Trotskyists

>Trusting Soviet official records

You're a moron. Consider the total population, also consider the fact that Stalin never really "believed" in idealist communism, like Lenin did. Go back to parliament-worshipping.

There are hardly any similarities you are just a brainwashed capitalcuck

>implying he could control the weather to stop famines
>implying kulaks didn't deserve it for hoarding food surplus

Aside from Hitler and Stalin, I'd go out on a limb and say Paul Pot

Look, Stalin was a terrible person, but he didn't kill 60 million people, okay?

>hardly any similarities

Both conducted mass purges of people who did not fit into the mould of their regime

Both had cults of personality

Both censored and controlled the media

Both were dictators

I could go on...

Spooked as shit. Fucking classcuck.

Why the fuck are there so many classcucks here. I'm going back to leftypol where we have real intellectual discussion

You are wrong on so many levels.

>ultimate political power lies with an unelected state security service
>little to no autonomy for individuals
>economy is leveraged almost entirely for state directed ends

Pretty much the same thing from a practical perspective, except the fascists don't drive down living standards as fast.

bye

There are no serious leftists that actually defend Stalin. Please fuck off

He had the power to confiscate food, the power to allocate resources, the power to keep people from leaving.
Also "kulak" ended up as a word to refer to dissidents. You're a Holodomor denier
Furthermore, people were executed and worked to death. Holodomor wasn't the only atrocity in his rule.

1. Hitler was elected. Stalin got into power through conspiracies. Hitler did not have absolute power, and gave a lot of control to his ministers, while in USSR Stalin was well, purging.
2. >implying freedom exists.
3. Third Reich economy had a lot of free market elements in their economy, and well, if you were aryan educated person, you had so much freedoms, that you lived in fucking heaven on earth. Stalin centrally planned economy had potential for equality and doing great things, but sadly Stalin had very little knowledge on economy (in comparision with Lenin) and so some people died for useless tasks.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga–Don_Canal
The Holodomor was another very badly executed central plan, and well, another fucking disaster.

>Hitler was elected

No he wasn't, you stupid faggot. He won a pluraity in a parliamentary election and was made Chancellor.

Learn to parliament, you uncultured swime.

>implying freedom exists
>le nirvana fallacy

I know, but being chosen Chancellor is part of democratic process.
As if they wouldn't elect them the chances of him becoming Chancellor would be much smaller.

>, if you were aryan educated person, you had so much freedoms, that you lived in fucking heaven on earth.
No, you didn't. You couldn't read unapproved books, newspapers, radio broadcasts, films, or publish any of those, and you still had to deal with shortages and scarcity of basic goods.

Here in Sweden we don't even get to read about the Soviets and their warcrimes desu. At least I never did all we got to read about was the ''ebil nazis''. Then again Sweden is a socialist country so I'm not really that surprised about it.

>capitalism has killed more

You're not going to post that image are you?

It's such bollocks

Being made party secretary is constitutional too. Stalin did that, and pulled the same set of moves Hitler did, just a decade earlier.

You don't get elected dictator. Because if it was a society that liked dictators, they would be a monarchy, not a democracy.

People should read Solzhenytsin.

Hitler did not kill Trotsky. And still Hitler wasn't a total power dictator.
Still much better than Ukrainian in 30s

>Hitler did not kill Trotsky

No, he killed Ernst Rohm, and every other political rival he had within Germany

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

>And still Hitler wasn't a total power dictator

This is a totally meaningless sentence. He could and did have even the most powerful people in his country killed.

>Still much better than Ukrainian in 30s

And being a Ukrainian in the 30s beats being a Pole in the 40s.

Not an argument

K, maybe you are right

Huh.

That never happens.

I only have these arguments to increase my WPM and research random shit.

Je vois que tu compte les morts causé par les Juifs Communistes au début du 20e siecle, sale Sioniste...

>muh 60 gorillion!

wait, what

>classcuck
Countries with best standard of living are capitalistic.

Accurate. But there have been tons and tons of leaders orchestrating mass murder. The killings in Indonesia, for example, as well as all the military dictators with their death squads in Central and South America (like Sombra Negra I think). I'm pretty sure their were state sanctioned death squads in Thailand as well

Is no one going to commentate on the fact this user just called one of the worst dictators Paul?

Friendly reminder that R.J. Rummel was a neo-con loony.

rudyrummel.blogspot.ca/

>trusting ridiculously inflated figures by literally whos
It's like the fucking Japanese vs Chinese shitposting where the Nips claim there weren't even 40,000 people left in Nanjing to massacre and the Chinks insist that the Yangzi river was clogged with 4 million corpses

Just wanna throw this out there -- the Iraq War is an excellent shibboleth for assessing (without having to do any real reading) whether an apparently intelligent pundit is actually too dumb to live.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stéphane_Courtois#Support_for_military_intervention_in_Afghanistan_and_Iraq

This is the time where teenagers who are very ignorant dumb fucks. They believe that communism is great and stalin was a hero for the masses they also believe that hitler should have won ww2 to bring prosperity to europe and the worst is they believe that japan is the victim of WW2. Internet really spawned an age of swagworldstar kids not knowing real history.

Gommunism has not killed anyone. You are wrong and brobably a Cossack faggot.

Hail Stalin

Yes but he ruined his country.

youtube.com/watch?v=kOnIp69r6vg

Standard of living is a spook.

If he's one of the worst dictators, why did I never learn about him in school?

That's not true, Stalin killed 500 trillion people

Anyone who denies this fact is a NKVD executioner partisan terrorist

>Conquest: The Soviet Records need to be released. As logistical records, they are unlikely to be effected by propaganda to make the USSR look better in the history books. They will likely confirm our figures.
>Soviet Archives opened
>Conquest: You can't trust the Soviet Archives, they were likely to have been propogandized and wouldn't show the actual numbers. Of course they wouldn't confirm our figures.

>Paul Pot

>60 million

According to who? Less than a million people were executed during Stalin's thirty year reign, of any crime. 2 million died in the Gulag system, but these were mostly long-term prisoners who perished due to natural causes.

Why is this dude lumped together with Hitler when he literally saved the Soviet people from German annihilation?

Is it just bourgeois propaganda?

> wouldn't show the actual numbers
This is true. Russians asspull the numbers like mangaka asspulls plot twists in battle shounen and it was even popurar practive in soviet times.

>This

Both also made a non-aggression pact with a dictator similar to themselves

The Soviets completely destroyed the Finnish Air Force, apparently twice, in the Winter war according to their figures. But somehow there were still Finnish planes left after the armistice.

Soviet official records are exceptional, mate.
They've had an extensive bureaucracy and tried to keep the track of everything. Because of soviet official records we know they made up some of the heroes during WW2 or the whole Stakhanovite movement. Their records are devoid of propaganda and there's no reason to believe that they would fudge the numbers for something that was never meant to be shown to the world.

>We can't trust Soviet sources they are probably biased
>We can trust every single Holocaust account though

Stalin did nothing wrong, kulaks deserved it

>killing off the equivalent to the enitre population of Britain is perfectly fine
>Stalin only believes what i say he believes because im in his head and all that

lmao Finland had like twenty planes and Soviets could not even get rid of those

Bump

Historical consensus is he is responsible for 6-9 million deaths. Most of which occured during the holodomor.

I thought this is a history board

Fucking kek,
>Historical consensus
a.k.a cold war propaganda

At most 1 million died in the gulags. Stalin had nothing to do with the Ukraine famine.

You have to add the shooting actions by the NKVD during the great purge. The "Polish" operation, the "kulak" operation etc, whic amount to close a million. Around a 1+ million excess deaths in the gulags. And some 3-4+ million during the famine in 1932-33, it was in fact man-made, but its debatable if it was intentional. I also think it was more a failure of economic coordination and the early central planning.

Liberals, man

But obviously not all gulag deaths were due to abuse

>be Ukrainian in the 1930s
>get told that you're now living in an equal society of workers
>but the comrades at the top think you're hiding something
>seize all your food, even your seed grain because Stalin thinks you're a Western agent
>if you complain you're a kulak and off to the gulag with you
>entire family starves
>put your children and wife down to spare them the suffering
>as your body catabolizes itself to death your last wish is that your suffering is never forgotten

>80 years later fat and spoiled comfortable middle class 16 year old Americans laugh at your pain and call it fake

This.

Fuck no.

Stalin feared a China united under communism. This would mean communism would have a second head instead of the USSR. The greatest amount of support he gave Mao was a bunch of captured German weapons and moral cheearleading.

For all their message about MUH INTERNATIONALE communist states suspected each other. Especially Nonwhite ones because they saw in USSR domination a Colonialism 2.0. Which is EXACTLY what the average Chink pleb thought of all those Technocrats were.

Stalin wanted a China divided between Commies and Nationalists. A unified China was a problem to the USSR in the Stalinist worldview. Unified under Chiang, that would mean sharing a vast border with an ANti-Communist State. Unified under the PRC, a second, potentially powerful & influential communist state.

You're an idiot.

Well argued friend, you twisted my arm!

>it was in fact man-made, but its debatable if it was intentional

That Soviet weather machine strikes again! The declassified letters show they had no idea what was going on until too late, there was a failure at local level to report the extent of the situation. Ukraine Nationalists have been milking the famine ever since while ignoring their very real Volhynia massacre.

>Stalin wanted a China divided between Commies and Nationalists

What on earth? Proof or sources please.

Read to reflect on the idiocy of your post.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split#Origins

Stalin wanted Mao to not take in charge of China and make peace with Chiang Kai-Shek after WWII. Mao seemingly agreed until ideological differences (i.e. Communism is European and wont apply directly if copy-pasted to China/Asia) and nationalist sentiments (i.e. I FUCKING JOINED THE REVOLUTION TO DRIVE OUT FOREIGNERS, NOT FIGHT FOR THEM) meant that Chinks began disobeying Soviet wishes.

>>the power to keep people from leaving.

Allowing people to leave would have put pressure on the surrounding regions, more people would have died. It was a bad harvest all over, it was the correct move.

>>the power to allocate resources

Once the extent of the famine was realised they did allocate food and they cut grain exports.

>The Political Bureau believes that shortage of seed grain in Ukraine is many times worse than what was described in comrade Kosior’s telegram; therefore, the Political Bureau recommends the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to take all measures within its reach to prevent the threat of failing to sow [field crops] in Ukraine.

>Signed: Secretary of the Central Committee – J. STALIN March 16th, 1932.

>>He had the power to confiscate food

Food was collectivised not confiscated. To not collectivise would have also caused deaths. Poor peasants died every year because they had no food but I guess they didn't pull up their bootstraps. Famines occurred every 2-3 years under the Tsars and the Bolsheviks did what they could. To imply Holodomor was an intentional genocide is not back up by any historical facts

>Also "kulak" ended up as a word to refer to dissidents.

Not at all. There were peasant protests but that was about 5% of the population and most were settled via the OGPU Ukrainian police. There was no significant peasant opposition or dissidents. Collectivisation and heavy industrialisation was a success that modernised Ukrainian farming.

Stalin was much more efficient than Hitler, and I say this as a Conservative. That doesn’t mean his actions were ethical.

this. stalin killed million billion trillion people
/thread

holy shit did he just

What the fuck mean "slava ukraine gerojam slava".My russian frend joke about it a lot.