Who was worse, Stalin or Hitler ?

Reekwind

Since you ask:

The seminal paper (in English) that introduced archival evidence into the discussion is 'Getty, Rittersporn and Zemskov, (1993), Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years'. Such archival evidence has been drawn upon by 'Getty, (2002), The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks', 'Wheatcroft, (1996), The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings', 'Ellman, (2002), Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments', to name a few of the more relevant papers. Plus more general books such as the likes of 'Fitzpatrick et al, (2009), Beyond Totalitarianism' and 'Lewin, (2005), The Soviet Century'

For the famine see, 'Davies, Harrison and Wheatcroft, (1993), The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union' and 'Davies and Wheatcroft, (2004), The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933'

A good summary of the above is Ellman who notes that: "The best estimate that can currently be made of the number of repression deaths in 1937-38 [ie, the height of the violence during the Stalinist period] is the range of 950,000-1.2million, ie about a million. This is the estimate which should be used by historians, teachers and journalists concerned with 20th C Russian - and world- history"

For Nazi killings, see the above mentioned Wheatcroft paper. A more in-depth source is 'Mazower, (2009), Hitler's Empire' which is much better than its title suggests

So yes, the USSR, and particularly the Stalinist period, is one that I have researched a great deal over the past few years. Which is why it is so infuriating to see some of the nonsense being thrown around here

Ellian

Reekwind wrote: »

First of all, I object strongly to this. There is absolutely no evidence that there a 'Soviet Holocaust' in the USSR or some sort of concerted campaign to eradicate the Jews. Anti-Semitism did become increasingly common in the latter years of Stalin's reign but to describe this as anything resembling events in Germany/Poland is both inaccurate and trivialises the Nazi crimes

I may be mis stating myself. I am not for a second saying there was anything like a Soviet Holocaust - an industrial concerted effort to eradicate Jews from Europe. What I am saying is that anti Semitism became rampant in Stalins Russia and many Jews suffered and died because of it. It is certinaly not my intent to "trivialise" Nazi crimes against humanity.

Ellian

Reekwind wrote: »

Those figures are absolutely ridiculous. You are suggesting that the Stalinist regime killed, at a minimum, almost half the number of Jews as the Nazis did? I shudder to ask where exactly you saw those figures. Needless to say, they are completely out of whack with mainstream academia

I did not say that I agreed with them, just that over the years I had seen numbers that varied that wildly. But just to clarify - over what period of time are we basing the discussion? War years only, or the entire span of Stalin's reign.

CDfm

Reekwind wrote: »

So yes, the USSR, and particularly the Stalinist period, is one that I have researched a great deal over the past few years. Which is why it is so infuriating to see some of the nonsense being thrown around here

Nice one.

In the history forum you always win with facts- but you have to cite your sources and put them up for discussion

BTW - welcome to H & H -its nice to see someone with an interest.

Now Irish connections or a bit of lore like "most evil henchman" would break the seriousness.

Reekwind

Ellian wrote: »

I may be mis stating myself. I am not for a second saying there was anything like a Soviet Holocaust - an industrial concerted effort to eradicate Jews from Europe

I'm not going to quibble over the definition of the Holocaust as inherently "industrial"* but the impression that I got from your post is that the Soviet state killed millions of Jews as part of an anti-Semitic programme. Correct?

If so then this is just incorrect. Not even the high estimates of Western historians in the 1960s seriously argued that millions of Jews were being killed in the USSR. Not least because by the 1930s there were probably less than 3 million Jews in the country (2.6m according to the 1926 census). The "many Jews" who died as a result of the emerging anti-Semitism of Stalin's later years would have been measured in the dozens, not millions or even thousands

Now this is obviously a terrible thing and no one here is going to defend anti-Semitism. But it has to be placed in the context of the Nazi genocide elsewhere in Europe; that is the purpose of the thread after all

*Incidentally, it's worth remembering that the activities of the Einsatzgruppen in the occupied USSR were far from 'industrialised'. Yet they are most certainly considered part of the Holocaust

What I am saying is that anti Semitism became rampant in Stalins Russia and many Jews suffered and died because of it. It is certinaly not my intent to "trivialise" Nazi crimes against humanity.

I think that few people (although there always are exceptions) actively go out to trivialise the Holocaust and Nazi crimes. Let's be clear that I'm not accusing you of consciously playing down the impact of Hitler's regime

What I do strongly believe however is that people who propose these exceptionally high figures for Soviet repression deaths - which are completely out of step with recent research and typically magnitudes greater than even earlier estimates - do play a role, however inadvertently, in minimising the scale of the Holocaust. The figures that we have for Nazi crimes are relatively well established; to dwarf them with unsustainable/imaginary statistics from the USSR (or to argue that the GULAGs were of comparable lethality to Nazi extermination camps) cannot but reduce their impact

This thread is proof of that. It is staggering to think that most people here genuinely think that Stalin is responsible for more deaths than Hitler and that some are genuinely arguing in favour of a Nazi victory

Ellian

Reekwind wrote: »

I'm not going to quibble over the definition of the Holocaust as inherently "industrial"* but the impression that I got from your post is that the Soviet state killed millions of Jews as part of an anti-Semitic programme. Correct?

No I did not say that. I think the Soviet state killed millions of it's citizens and some of those were Jews, but I do not believe it was part of the same kind of organised program as the Nazis. It may not be millions, but I would be truly amazed if it was measurable in dozens (although if you can point me to a good source, would much appreciate.)

Reekwind wrote: »

If so then this is just incorrect. Not even the high estimates of Western historians in the 1960s seriously argued that millions of Jews were being killed in the USSR. Not least because by the 1930s there were probably less than 3 million Jews in the country (2.6m according to the 1926 census). The "many Jews" who died as a result of the emerging anti-Semitism of Stalin's later years would have been measured in the dozens, not millions or even thousands

Now this is obviously a terrible thing and no one here is going to defend anti-Semitism. But it has to be placed in the context of the Nazi genocide elsewhere in Europe; that is the purpose of the thread after all

*Incidentally, it's worth remembering that the activities of the Einsatzgruppen in the occupied USSR were far from 'industrialised'. Yet they are most certainly considered part of the Holocaust

I think that few people (although there always are exceptions) actively go out to trivialise the Holocaust and Nazi crimes. Let's be clear that I'm not accusing you of consciously playing down the impact of Hitler's regime

What I do strongly believe however is that people who propose these exceptionally high figures for Soviet repression deaths - which are completely out of step with recent research and typically magnitudes greater than even earlier estimates - do play a role, however inadvertently, in minimising the scale of the Holocaust. The figures that we have for Nazi crimes are relatively well established; to dwarf them with unsustainable/imaginary statistics from the USSR (or to argue that the GULAGs were of comparable lethality to Nazi extermination camps) cannot but reduce their impact

This thread is proof of that. It is staggering to think that most people here genuinely think that Stalin is responsible for more deaths than Hitler and that some are genuinely arguing in favour of a Nazi victory

Point well made and taken.

Dudess

DublinWriter wrote: »

I think it's a mute argument, a bit like asking which is worse - bestiality or zoophilia?

Absolutely. And it's a bit sick to push Stalin as the answer, as a means of pushing an anti left-wing agenda, which I've seen blatant examples of on this thread. As if left-wing = totalitarian communism.

CDfm

Dudess wrote: »

Absolutely. And it's a bit sick to push Stalin as the answer, as a means of pushing an anti left-wing agenda, which I've seen blatant examples of on this thread. As if left-wing = totalitarian communism.

ah cmon on Dudess, Stallin and the CP were Marxists and used marxism to justify their actions. They also had Irish associates.

Pointing that out is hardly anti-left wing but builds a picture and makes the history accessable.

It is also a history forum and not a politics forum and you will get some bias but you should not get agenda's really as the facts should do the talking.

And, you do not need to be a wing of anything to find the actions of both Stalin & Hitler awful and to condemn them.

Dudess

I didn't mean all here who picked Stalin.

jonniebgood1

Dudess wrote: »

it's a bit sick to push Stalin as the answer, as a means of pushing an anti left-wing agenda, which I've seen blatant examples of on this thread. As if left-wing = totalitarian communism.

If there is a problem with any posts please report them rather than accusations of agendas. On the other hand if they are blatant feel free to challenge them directly rather than this post (quoted) which is a broad sweeping statement covering a large number of posts within the thread (albeit qualified in post 130).
Thankyou- moderator

Dionysus

As shocking as it might sound, this morning while I was trying to personify the word 'cruel' to my students I instanced Hitler and Stalin. A Russian kid got quite animated about it, protesting that "my grandfather worked for Stalin ("So did all Russians", I thought); Stalin was not like Hitler". Even allowing hugely for teenage angst, I was speechless that any Russian could be oblivious to Stalin's true record. Are they whitewashing it in schools there today?

CDfm

I can't see how this is history but

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-big-question-why-is-stalin-still-popular-in-russia-despite-the-brutality-of-his-regime-827654.html

jonniebgood1

For anyone thats interested here are a few links to information posted by Reekwind in earlier post. I have only had a quick scan through these at this stage so have no comment.

Reekwind wrote: »

... introduced archival evidence into the discussion is 'Getty, Rittersporn and Zemskov, (1993),

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/GTY-Penal_System.pdf

Reekwind wrote: »

... The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings (1993),

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Scale_Repression.pdf

Reekwind wrote: »

Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments

http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/SovietCrimes.pdf

CDfm

I think the point many have made is that the figures quoted are estimates and expecting and accurate figure or a verifyable figure is not realistic.

You can only really produce figures within a range because you have recorded and unrecorded deaths. The same is true of figures produced in respect of the Irish Famine.

If someone is to have an argument about it -then the argument to have is in the accuracy or inaccuracy of the sources and that is a totally different topic to that being discussed and what you are including and not including. If those figures are discussed seperately within a range and by classes you can arrive at a numerical comparison.

So IMHO people are expecting too much of the figures and maybe if thats what people are expecting of the history they should produce a Hitler vs Stalin Body Count which would be a lot more fun.

Hitler and the Nazi's pursued a policy of Lebensraum - literally living space and to acquire natural resourses and pursued this to the East and displaced or killed people to achieve this. What are you going to compare this too in Soviet expansion ? How do you quantify Soviet expansion and migration into Balkan countries like Latvia for instance ? How did the Soviets treat the natural resourses of the countries they took over? How did they treat the local populations.

Here are some examples in post war Europe and you also had the Comintern and the Soviet Defintion of Liberation was not the same as the Allies. Compare any of these to Japan for instance.

Was it the same as Lebensraum and what were the economic consequences for the states behind the Iron Curtain.

Communisim in Eastern Europe 1945-194

CountryDateMethodAlbania1945 The Communists immediately took power. Bulgaria1945 In the 1945 elections, a Communist-led coalition was elected, but the Communists executed the non-Communists. East Germany 1945 East Germany was the Soviet zone of Germany. In 1949, they set up a Communist-controlled state called the German Democratic Republic. Romania1947 In the 1945 elections, a Communist-led coalition was elected to power. The Communists gradually took over and in 1947 they abolished the monarchy. Poland1947Stalin had promised to set up a joint Communist/non-Communist government at Yalta, but then he invited 16 non-Communist leaders to Moscow and arrested them. Thousands of non-Communists were arrested, and the Communists won the 1947 election. Hungary1947The non-communists won the 1945 elections with Zoltan Tildy as president. However, the Communists' leader, Rakosi, took control of the secret police (the AVO), and executed and arrested his opponents. Tildy was forced to resign and Cardinal Mindzenty, head of the Catholic Church, was imprisoned. By 1948, Rakosi had complete control of Hungary. Czechoslovakia1948 A coalition government was set up and led by the non-Communist Benes. However, the Communists' leader Gottwald made sure they controlled the radio, the army and the police. Gottwald became prime minister and set up a secret police force. Non-Communists were arrested. In 1948, Communist workers went on strike, the non-Communist minister Masaryk committed suicide and Gottwald took over the government.

Conclusion- Stalin was not a democrat.

These are facts and ,of course, that is what history deals with.

Cherrypicking Hitler vs Stalin is inane. To properly discuss Stalin you have to compare what he did against the Marxist ideology he used and what he did as opposed to comparing him directly with Hitler and the Nazi's. You should compare it on issues like social policies, justice and fairness and individual freedoms as well.

That type of analysis is neither left wing or right wing and from it you can draw your conclusions about Stalin.


And Yalta & Potsdam literally picked Poland on the map and moved it to the West causing a huge displacement of people.

So it is not just political concepts you are dealing with but real facts.


Finally, you are discussing the Kulaks and collectivisation -it is fairly simple why that did not work and it did not work and ask any Mum or Dad who tries to organise collective housekeeping

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

I think the point many have made is that the figures quoted are estimates and expecting and accurate figure or a verifyable figure is not realistic.

You can only really produce figures within a range because you have recorded and unrecorded deaths. The same is true of figures produced in respect of the Irish Famine.

If someone is to have an argument about it -then the argument to have is in the accuracy or inaccuracy of the sources and that is a totally different topic to that being discussed and what you are including and not including. If those figures are discussed seperately within a range and by classes you can arrive at a numerical comparison.

So IMHO people are expecting too much of the figures and maybe if thats what people are expecting of the history they should produce a Hitler vs Stalin Body Count which would be a lot more fun.

You may be correct r.e. the figures being estimated but the point of these links is that they explain in great detail how the estimates were calculated. My understanding is that prior to 1991 most estimates were inaccurate due to lack of information. After the fall of the USSR state archives became availiable that allowed for more accurate records to be analysed independently. These figures are open to questioning but for the most part they seem to explain how conclusions were drawn from them. Of course they are also open to interpretation as are all figures of this kind. If we are to have any discussion about Stalin, or irish famine, or war of independence, etc we almost inevitably end up using figures as they give a sense of scale to the discussion. If this is true then we must use the most accurately put together figures, usually this can develop as time goes on and more information becomes available.

CDfm

But jonnie - that is the argument you always get .

There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to the number who died at Stalin's hands. There's the "Why doesn't anyone realize that communism is the absolutely worst thing ever to hit the human race, without exception, even worse than both world wars, the slave trade and bubonic plague all put together?" school, and there's the "Come on, stop exaggerating. The truth is horrifying enough without you pulling numbers out of thin air" school. The two schools are generally associated with the right and left wings of the political spectrum, and they often accuse each other of being blinded by prejudice, stubbornly refusing to admit the truth, and maybe even having a hidden agenda. Also, both sides claim that recent access to former Soviet archives has proven that their side is right.

Look at the tables

Lenin

http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#RCW

Stalin

http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin

Hitler

http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Hitler

http://necrometrics.com/warstatx.htm

These were compiled by a librarian named Matthew White

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/map-faq3.htm

These tables are taken from the University of Michigan - Correlates of War Project . So there are good sources available.

The Correlates of War Project was founded in 1963 by J. David Singer, a political scientist at the University of Michigan. The original and continuing goal of the project has been the systematic accumulation of scientific knowledge about war. Joined by historian Melvin Small, the project began its work by assembling a more accurate data set on the incidence and extent of inter-state and extra-systemic war in the post-Napoleonic period. To do this scientifically Singer and Small found they needed to operationally resolve a number of difficult issues such as what is a “state” and what precisely is a “war.” Building upon the work of other pioneers such as Pitirim Sorokin, Lewis Frye Richardson, and Quincy Wright, Singer and Small published The Wages of War in 1972, a work that established a standard definition of war that has guided the research of hundreds of scholars since its publication.
This publication was only the beginning of the project, for the fundamental goal of the project was not just to measure the temporal and spatial variation in war but rather to identify factors that would systematically explain this variation. Accordingly, early efforts were undertaken to measure many of those factors that purportedly accounted for war such as national capability, alliances, geography, polarity, and status in the post-Napoleonic period, and the list of data sets assembled by the project has continued to grow over the years (see Data Sets). In addition to the collection of data, the project has conducted many empirical studies (see Bibliographic Essay) about war and conflict. An important progeny of the project is the BCOW (Behavioral Correlates of War ) project headed by Russell Leng. Through the years, the project has served as a major training ground for young scholars, and many of today’s best known and widely respected international relations scholars are “products” of the project. More generally, the correlates of war project promoted cumulative science in the field of international relations when the scientific study of politics was in its infancy. By helping to establish a clear temporal and spatial domain for research, promoting the use of clearly defined concepts and common variable operationalizations, and allowing replication of research, the project has been a mainstay of rigorous international relations scholarship.
In the late 1990s scholars became concerned about how the work of the project could be continued given the pending retirement of J. David Singer, and arrangements were made to transfer the project to Penn State under the leadership of Stuart A. Bremer. This transfer was marked by a March, 2001, conference discussing the future study of war, held at Penn State. Penn State has archived all available original material from the Correlates of War project, and is extending and enlarging the data collection efforts it began.
As of November, 2002, the project continues under the leadership of Interim Director D. Scott Bennett, and Associate Director Glenn Palmer. As of January 2005, the project continues under Director Paul Diehl, and Associate Director D. Scott Bennett.



http://www.correlatesofwar.org/Datasets.htm

Take these "body count" type tables -that look a bit right wing to me on the presentation side and I haven't checked their statistical accuracy.

http://www.scottmanning.com/content/nazi-body-count-in-ussr/

http://www.scottmanning.com/content/communist-body-count/

It is not nesscessary to be totally accurate as historical data is continually updated retrospectively. Historians will accept variations as a given.

I cannot see the point of the thread & if it is a "body count only" comparison of Hitler and Stalin -and if people want to argue the accuracy of the sources versus a historically acceptable standards - I am afraid that work is well established already as are the historical conventions.

Anyone, like these two,whose bodycount hits 5 million is as badass as you get - some analysists define multicide as figures more than 5 million and tbh that is the population of the Republic of Ireland and a million either way really does not matter as the figures would still be massive and the multiples of populations of small countries like ourselves.

So to compare them historically , you need to compare their policies, objectives, and ideologies, regimes and ,of course, the numbers of deaths by execution,famine,casualties,displacement and incarcerartions are a part of that discussion and not all of it. If a poster is having difficulty with it, it might to look at it as methods they used to achieve their policies. It does not help to approach this with a political bias.

I did a thread on Gay Ireland and started with the hanging of Bishop Atherton under legislation he had enacted (hoisted on his own petard one might say)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056206669

It was a good thread as we got lots of different views and facts into it.

Now the thread could be a very good thread, and, could even throw up lots of stuff of an Irish interest that we do not see in mainstream books and that would depend on how generous people are in putting their political views to one side. (I wouldn't expect a here is a picture of my Granny with Stalin after a short holiday with Hitler in 1939 but we have had Patrick Pearses Grandnephew posting here so who knows)

EDIT - What White says is this and his logic is flawless

As you can see, there's no easy compromise between the two schools. The Big Numbers are so high that picking the midpoint between the two schools would still give us a Big Number. It may appear to be a rather pointless argument -- whether it's fifteen or fifty million, it's still a huge number of killings -- but keep in mind that the population of the Soviet Union was 164 million in 1937, so the upper estimates accuse Stalin of killing nearly 1 out of every 3 of his people, an extremely Polpotian level of savagery. The lower numbers, on the other hand, leave Stalin with plenty of people still alive to fight off the German invasion.