Why is it taboo to deny or minimise hitler's crimes but not stalin's?
>b-but hitler picked on people in the basis of race!!
Stalin picked on people for their race, specifically the Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Cossacks. He deported them en masse to die in labour camps because of their ethnicity.
Because Hitler lost and nobody likes a loser.
because stalin killed white people and white people are evil
Yes the worst
Absolute devils
I would be very careful about crossing white peope
Best to keep them safe and happy
>Why is it taboo to deny or minimise hitler's crimes but not stalin's?
first of all, most people don't even know who stalin is anymore or only vaguely know about him. second, most people that do know about him wouldn't defend his policies unless they are apologists for communism or marxist-leninism more specifically.
who do you think minimizes his crimes? he got vilified by the communists after kruschchev and by anticommunists throughout the cold war when they wanted to show the failure of communism.
>Why is it taboo to deny or minimise hitler's crimes but not stalin's?
It literally isn't.
I keep seeing /pol/ shit like this yet whenever Stalin is mentioned in real life all I hear is "Satan incarnate".
this tbqh
Doesn't matter. Ask yourself which professor would have an easier time getting fired a Stalin revisionist or a Hitler revisionist.
Both are shit and should be fired.
which one is actually going to be fired though
No one, paying them for the years of service is not worth it.
there is a hell of alot more evidence for the holocaust then for muh holdomor, never forget the 100 billion kulaks
It depends on the country. Ukraine is pretty spergy when it comes to holodomor revisionism.
And hate to break it to you user but Hitler was worse. And no, the "haha, bet you thought Hitler was worse but in fact Stalin killed 60 gorillion people ;)))))))))" meme is not some startling revelation that only some educated few "know". Just reddit tier meme history.
Truth be told the stupid 20th century deathtolls attributed to individual leaders is just a dumb 20th century meme driven by political necessity rather than any kind of academic merit.
Nobody attributes gorillions to Caesar or the like despite being equally responsible for countless deaths. Personally I think the whole death toll nonsense for individual people be abandoned.
>Nobody attributes gorillions to Caesar or the like
they do though
I'm not arguing who is better or worse either way. But to deny academia as a whole has been softer on Stalin as a whole is hardly uncontroversial.
Hitler
>killed G*d's chosen people
Stalin
>killed slavs and finnic subhumans
>But to deny academia as a whole has been softer on Stalin as a whole is hardly uncontroversial.
please show me which historians who do this
Not in the same way and you know it. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and a few other 20th century dictators are inherently tied to some abstract death toll that (primarily in the case of the non-Hitler ones) is tied to some ill defined amount.
i.e. in Hitler's case it's usually just the holocaust. For Stalin and the like anything from actual state executions to simply dying from diesease is thrown under the banner of "killed by Stalin".
This is of course not to say Stalin "dindu nuffin" it's just a stupid way of looking at these regimes.
>But to deny academia as a whole has been softer on Stalin as a whole is hardly uncontroversial.
Only because Hitler was worse. That said I do despise moralising and sensationalism in history. One can report on the actions of Hitler and the like without pointing out how evil or heinous one finds these actions to be.
Because Stalin did nothing wrong
I dunno do I really have to? "Soft" positions on Hitler has been associated with edgelords and crackpots since the second world war ended, meanwhile French academics were dedicated Stalinists into the late 70s. I don't think this is really contentious. Apologists for either aren't really the norm in academia but Stalin apologists certainly are "more" normal.
>I dunno do I really have to?
yes, or else everything is just your unsubstantiated opinion and nothing else.
>Apologists for either aren't really the norm in academia but Stalin apologists certainly are "more" normal.
maybe so but even if stalinism is marginally more accepted it's just symptomatic of the left-leaning opinion of the professorate and nothing more. I wouldn't read to deep into it desu
Because we aren't in the second world, but in the 1st one, just like the country hitler ruled
Stalin did not go far enough. Or else how would Khrushchev and the revisionist corn lords gain power?