Why isnt Communism decried as pure evil the same way as Nazism? Germany shut down its concentration camps in 1945...

Why isnt Communism decried as pure evil the same way as Nazism? Germany shut down its concentration camps in 1945. Soviet Union had Gulags until 1956 in which as many died as in the holocaust. Hitler starved POWs and Communists starved POWs and anyone who opposed them including whole ethnic groups and classes. Mass graves were first discovered in Communist occupied eastern europe and brought to the worlds attention by the Germans. Communists were the first aggressors attacking Finland then carved up Europe with the Nazis. Yes eventually it got much better after Stalin died but the facts should not be ignored Communism was much worse.

youtube.com/watch?v=3pzMHD0F4yQ

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Because the SU kept things lowkey. The Nazis exploded onto the world stage, with socialism and gunsablazin.

Because Jews. Not even memeing.

Because the things about the Soviet Union are just propaganda
And white by repeating propaganda all day you can get people to believe they're true. You can't demonstrate them because they're fake, so can't be as harsh as with the real thing (nazi crimes)

lel

Who is easier to hate the guy that writes you an email saying he's going to come to your house steal all your stuff and rape your wife and does it a week later or the random junkie looking for a fix who steals shit from your house and rapes your wife as a crime of opportunity?

Because the Soviets didn't attack Western Europe (aka the relevant world at the time) over autistic racial theories, bringing massive death and suffering to millions of people. That plus the systemic genocide of various groups. While the soviets did kill millions, they didn't go out of their way to do so in such a speedy and targeted manner like the nazis did.

That said, I do not like communism.

Why do polacks and the like always do this?

I.e. act as if in the eyes of normies communism is totes fine and people don't instinctly react with "gommunism killed a gorillion people". At best you'll get "good in theory bad in practice ;)".

history is written by the winners :^) (i.e. The Nazis lost)

>in which as many died as in the holocaust
incorrect

>Why isnt Communism decried as pure evil the same way as Nazism?
They weren't as much evil from ideological perspective (e.g. didn't called for extermination of whole nations) and they had lower killing intensity (for example Nazis passing through Belarus murdered every 4th person there).

Now go back where you belong

I wonder...

Germany was a wealthy country and they elected Hitler, the nazis went out of their way to kill Jews and other groups for no reason whereas Stalin purged and famined to cling to power as other tyrants have done for centuries. The nazis represent an outlier in history, an exceptional evil compared to the more mundane everyday evil.

>communists did something bad
>therefore communism is evil

Communism is a shitty idea, but it isn't inherently evil. Bizarre pseudoscience about race is a part of nazism.

>didn't called for extermination of whole nations
You are correct, just large portions like western Prussia.
Or let's not forget that time they imprisoned allied airmen for dropping supplies on Warsaw for the uprising.
Or how they treated the poles in general.
Communism should be remembered like fascism as a dangerous authoritarian system which oppressed it's masses and imprisoned people based on their thoughts and personal beliefs.

Killing people so yon can stay in power is not the same as rounding up specific races and executing them for no reason.

>Why isnt Communism decried as pure evil the same way as Nazism?
it really is a mystery

It is equally reprehensible.

Communism is way more evil in theory than in practice. Engels wrote about the necessity to exterminate entire races in addition to classes.

>no reason
Yeah Hitler hated the Jews "for no reason". You faggot. Hitler hated the bourgeoise for the same things communists hated them, except he also explicitly singled out their ethnicity.

>read OP and want to seriously answer
>read through thread
I am done with this board

Let's look at the USSR and Germany
Having a "reason" or not is irrelevant, the actions by both states was actively repressing their people for personal power, including killing and imprisoning people based on their ideological and theocratic beliefs, and yes they both hated religion on principle. They are very similar ideologies when you get down to the core of it, with very superficial differences, both hated religion, both had planned economics,both suppressed political opponents, both were gearing for war to retake what they viewed as their rightful lands. They are frighteningly similar, but communism was not stifled in its infancy and still exists, which is why the awful crimes communist nations committed and still commit are largely glazed over.
Both ideologies favor authoritarianism which is bad and will always be bad.

Maybe, but you can't do much about human thuggery while you can convince voters in a free country of the dangers of regimes like the nazis.

Whatever the bourgeoisie are in the wrong about is in a whole different ballpark to what tyrants routinely do.

>he also explicitly singled out their ethnicity
Why? Some eastern European Jewish immigrant is as far from bourgeois as Hitler was in Vienna. So this is still irrational even if I assume bourgeois are the most evil thing in the world ever justifying tyranny.

>Engels wrote about the necessity to exterminate entire races in addition to classes
what

>eastern European jewish immigrant
>immigrant

>Until its complete extermination or loss of national status, this racial trash always becomes the most fanatical bearer there is of counter-revolution, and it remains that. That is because its entire existence is nothing more than a protest against a great historical revolution. … The next world war will cause not only reactionary classes and dynasties, but also entire reactionary peoples, to disappear from the earth. And that too, is progress.

>Maybe, but you can't do much about human thuggery while you can convince voters in a free country of the dangers of regimes like the nazis.
What does this statement have to do with what I said?
I'm failing to see the relevance.

Can I get a source for that?
I want to have it on hand the next time a commutard starts blathering on.

marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm

because the worldwide propaganda machine was on during a time when the soviets were the good guys.

results 0 out of 0

The quote is two separate parts.

Cannot even find the words "racial trash" and when I google the whole quote I get Stormfront

not all jews are bourgeois
It is easier to convince voters not to be nazis than it is to convince Mugabe of the errors of his ways.

>Why isnt Communism decried as pure evil the same way as Nazism?
So decrying nazism accomplishes more, gram for gram.

>So decrying nazism accomplishes more, gram for gram.
No it doesn't. Nazism and Communism are two sides of the same coin.

Because it is in the worlds best interest to not antagonize eachother and communism is still very much practiced in China going around and decrying their ideology as autocratic thuggery would raise tensions between nations.
Meanwhile Nazism is dead and gone on the world stage.

>Communism
>Authoritarianism
Because those are two different tings you US-American. Their most popular crossover (Stalinism) is pure evil and commonly regarded as so, just as much as National Socialism is.

Show me a non authoritarian government that has ever been communist.
>inb4 No true communist meme.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory

Classless and hierarchyless society would ve the epitome evil.

Pls explain

It goes against God explicitly.

>Anarchism is a legitimate form of government.

You wanted me to show you a non-authoritarian government that is also communist. Anarchism is as non-authoritarian as it gets. What else do you need? Take a look at present-day Rojava if that isn't enough for you.

>anarchist
>government

>he doesn't know what anarchism is

Anarchism is not a government, it is the lack there of.
>belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

Rojava has the guarantee of property rights in its fucking constitution it is not communist by its fucking definition.

...

Germans in Prussia were repatriated, not exterminated.

>Or let's not forget that time they imprisoned allied airmen for dropping supplies on Warsaw for the uprising
Or when Stalin was stallin' the offensive during Warsaw uprising and let Germans massacre the city. But I don't think Poles will ever forget about Russian crimes against them.

>Communism should be remembered like fascism as a dangerous authoritarian system which oppressed it's masses and imprisoned people based on their thoughts and personal beliefs.
Yup, thats exactely how it is remembered everywhere, maybe except for Russia.

The Soviets didn't lose the war.

/thread

>the communist apologists this thread

...

>b-but Russians were just as evil as Germans!
>No, Russians were cunts, but Germans played on another level
>REEEE, commie apologist, REEEE

Go home crybaby

If they are both evil does it truly matter who is more evil?
If I kill a man for being a capitalist am I any more evil for killing the same man on the grounds he is a jew?
The answer should be no.

>that tattoo

As a person who did not started the thread I am not saying it matters much, as long as it is not the first step in rehabilitation of Hitler.

Because it's couched in the language of universal compassion and is thus attractive to people who prioritize care and fairness. Killing people for love.

but nazism was elected democratically and it is easier to convince voters than a dictator

OP said specifically
>Why isnt Communism decried as pure evil the same way as Nazism?
for practical reasons it makes more sense to decry nazism

Also communists focus on helping the little guy, at least ostensibly, whereas nazism involves antisemitism and other questionable things.

>GULag's
It's an acronym anglos, not a synonym for concentration camps. Russian historians do not use this word in this manner, as a synonym for the camps, because it's just plain wrong.

More Ukrainians were hunger-genocided in 1932-33 than Jews killed by National Socialists. Kiev Cheka-GP had 75% Jewish personnel from the very beginning to the end of the Second World War. In other words, Jewish Chekists killed more Ukrainians than National Socialists killed Jews.

Camps didn't disappear when the Main administration of the camps was disbanded. New administration with the old personnel was formed, in other words: nothing changed, except no longer quota for prisoners sentenced with article 58 was so high as it was during the Father of Nations. At some point in the late 70's, criminals might actually have surprassed politicals in numbers in the Archipelago.
The word 'camp' was no longer used for any concentration and forced labour camps, but all were 'colonies' (just like they are today in Russia, the same acronym ITK is still used).

>Communists were the first aggressors attacking Finland
German-Soviet invasion of Poland started the Second World War, so the war was started by Soviet Union and German in tandem. Attempted invasion of Finland by the USSR came few months later, but was independent conflict from the Soviet invasion of Poland.
Finland as German's ally, used military force only against Soviet Union, but only after it was attacked by the Soviets first (Finland did lay mines to the Gulf of Finland before Soviet military action, but mining is not an military action when done on own territories obviously).

>USSR
>Russians
Nice try.

>USSR
>Not Russians

Yea, sometimes I forget SSSR was actually reptilian...

Although it wouldn't be the first time stormfront has made shit up to suit its agenda, a search also comes up with a PRO communism blog quoting that and trying to debunk it. I'm a bit confused as to why that quote doesn't even show up there.

what the fuck kind of retarded analogy is this

Because the holocaust was a product of nazi ideology and the Soviet problems were products of an authoritarian state trying to centralize power.
Nazi- acted from an ideaology
>soviets- acted to control feedback from an arbitrary political revolution and centralized power.
Literally nothing to do with communism, it's system dynamics.
It's like the difference between arson and a forest fire.

>More Ukrainians were hunger-genocided in 1932-33 than Jews killed by National Socialists.
What is the proof for this claim?

What about the anti-communism propaganda? Mostly made by the USA? Almost every movie in the 80s (or close) had the villains as evil communists.

Y'know, minus the genocide they committed

Because communism is predicated on just assumptions. Fascism is predicated on unjust assumptions.

The Soviet Union never committed any genocide.

>2312625
Well they did

riiiiight

Nah, there's no evidence of any violence or oppression meant to eradicate a certain ethnicity.

However, under Stalin forced deportations absolutely happened. Many Muslim groups were deported to Central Asia so Islamic resistance could be contained. Hardcore tankies will say otherwise, but mass deportation like that is unforgivable.

>systemic genocide of various groups
>didn't called for extermination of whole nations
>never committed any genocide.

Let me tell you about the Holodomor, which is Ukrainian for "death by starvation". You see, in 1932 Ukraine was starting to realize that the whole Soviet Union thing wasn't really all that great. So, there were mutterings of rebellion, of independence. What Stalin did was that he effectively dismantled all Ukrainian infrastructure relating to the production and distribution of food, as well as moving all food out of the country. In addition, all foreign attempts to aid Ukraine was stopped by the Soviet government.

Over the next year, between four and seven million people died of starvation. This puts in the same category as the fucking Holocaust, as far as genocides go. Yet nobody speaks of it. No movies are made about it. No interviews with teary eyed survivors. Russia still denies it ever happened.

It's not that the Soviet Union never committed genocide - it's that they were a lot better at it. Hitler killed overtly, with the intent to send a message. Stalin committed genocide covertly.

Soviets did not tried to eradicate nations ala nazis, but they've broken and assimilated Nations. Which still qualifies for a genocide.

Even that Jew who coined the term "genocide" would call Holodomor, the most famous example, a genocide.

>This puts in the same category as the fucking Holocaust, as far as genocides go.
No not really. No gas chambers, no final solutions, no saturation of anti-Ukrainian hatred, no Einzatsgruppen.

>Yet nobody speaks of it. No movies are made about it.
There are, just not in USA. Since 19th century was west (starting with Austria) inciting Ukrainian nationalism in order to weaken Russian empire and later its red iteration. We just don't view it as a priority.

>Russia still denies it ever happened.
First they deny it was a genocide using the fact that there was Russia-wide famine and Ukrainians were not a special case. Second Russian nationalistic historiography is laughed throughout academia.

>it's a just assumption to assume that a peasant who employs another peasant to help harvest his fields come harvest time is an evil exploiter of said peasant and should be liquidated

I HATE THIS FUCKING BOARD

Why are gas chambers worse than actively starving people to death? And of course there was no anti-Ukranian hatred, as that would imply the existence of internal strife in the Soviet Union, something Stalin obviously wanted to avoid having to publically admidt.

What the fuck are you on about? You high? Need help? What's going on over there user?

It was as much Russian as Congo Free State was Congolese, retard.

>kill Jews and other groups for no reason
I'm not a Nazi apologist but that's just wrong, the Nazi ideology is about purity of race, that and centuries of hate for Jews and gypsies, right or wrong, justified the Holocaust in the eyes of the intelligentsia

I don't know why starving people to death is better than actively killing them, but it seems to be the case.
I mean, we can expand this to the British empire or Indonesia with east Timor. They starved folks out, but folks don't give any shits.
We can even talk about forms of direct killing. Gassing and going house to house is bad, but letting artillery shells do their work instead of soldiers, in the case of hafez al-assad and Homs, gets less flak in the press.

>The Soviet Union never committed any genocide.

>Why are gas chambers worse than actively starving people to death?
Dehumanization of victims, "industriality" and the fact it was final solution. During holodomor Ukies were "just broken down" accepted that they are actually Russians and lived happily ever after, until little green men appeared.

>internal strife in the Soviet Union, something Stalin obviously wanted to avoid having to publically admidt
You mean the Stalin who had his second in command exiled and killed? He didn't have problems with admitting anything, you are just grasping at straws here.

>Claims SSSR was reptilian
>Calls others retards
you might as well be insulting a mirror

>hunger-genocided
this isn't a thing you IRA Fenian cunt

Yes, nobody ever criticised colonialism.

>reptilian
That's just a strawman you used. It was created by Jews and ended up getting ruled by a Georgian. Russians were just occupied people in the USSR.

Sure thing buddy.

Not an argument, retard.

>Lenin
Jew-Kalmyk

>Trotsky
Jew

>Stalin
Georgian

>Beria
Georgian

>Krushchev
Ukrainian

>Brezhnev
Ukrainian

>Andropov
Jew

>Chernenko
Ukrainian

>Gorbachov
Ukrainian

Nice (((Russians))) you got there faggot.

Chernenko was a Jew.

They have, but not necessarily on account of starvation, unless one is part of the starved group.

wow so woke XD and totally not incorrect

Lenin was about as Jewish as Marx. jesus christ russians are retarded

There's a distinct difference between "this individual is a traitor in our ranks" and "a significant region in our union, consisting of millions of people, is questioning the core of our ideology".

>He didn't have problems with admitting anything
Of course. It's not like the he had a long history of 1984-style revisionism of historical facts, complete with make people unpersons whenever they fell out of favor with him.

>Kalmyk father
>Jewish/Swedish mother
The only Russian thing about him was that he spoke Russian, probably not even as his first language. According to Maxim Gorky he also basically said Russians are subhumans unless they carry Jewish blood.

>"this individual is a traitor in our ranks"
>Individual, not large portion of party

>Of course. It's not like the he had a long history of 1984-style revisionism of historical facts, complete with make people unpersons whenever they fell out of favor with him.
You are correct, I guess, still there was no orchestrated hatred against Ukrainians as a nation.

For same reason that no one remembers gypsies, slavs, gays, and retards that nazis gassed.

That doesn't make sense. Why would Americans try not to paint SSSR horns?

Still not an argument, Moishe.

>evil
>exceptional evil
>an outlier in history

Good fucking God just fuck off

Two things:

1) USSR wasn't the "real enemy" of the Allies in WW2, they just bullied the shit out of smaller countries with little fucks given. Nazi Germany however, really took the credit and limelight and has left a longstanding bad impression.

2) Communism is decried here in the US though, people call each other communists as a derogatory term. Simple non-radical ideas are labeled "communist" and everyone jerks their hand away like it was a hot stove.

But really, schools don't cover how bad(ass) Stalin's reign was. I didn't know what a gulag was til college, nor of his total kill score or pre-photoshop shenanigans.