« A Friday Thank You | Babalu Blog - Main Page | Play Time for Loons »

Ziva, BOTH are equally evil philosophies. It's just that Communism has been more successful at implementing its ideals than the the Nazis. 100,000,000 dead say so.

Great posting Ziva!

Communism worse than Nazism

Choosing between two evils is always a dicey proposition, but I would say that your proposition is easily disproven. History provides us with a precise example of Communism following Nazism, and that was in Easter Europe. To answer the question of which was worse, simply ask yourself the following questions: 1) Would you have rooted for a Nazi victory in Stalingrad? 2) Was East Germany a worse regime than Nazi Germany? The answer to both is clear and unambiguous.

Eastern Europe, carajo!

MMerchant, the Stalinist/Communist purges,the man-made famine in the Ukraine, and the Gulags predate Nazism by quite a few years. By the time Hitler started the death camps, Stalin had already murdered between 7 and 20 million of his people. As for Stalingrad, I know the Nazis needed to be defeated. But that does not imply a preference of one evil system over another. Churchill, no slouch when it came to the Communist threat, knew that Hitler was a greater "clear and present danger" than Stalin -- and he knew Stalin was just as bad. But the enemy of my enemy is my friend, as they say. History will record that Soviet Communism collapsed under its own dead weight, thanks in great part to Ronald Wilson Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

I recommend you read Harvest of Sorrow and The Great Terror by Robert Conquest, two books that will open your eyes about Stalin's genocides predating Hitler's.

Great work Ziva, keep shouting it out. We need to keep reminding them what Communism/Marxism was all about and who still plays by its rules. I especially liked how you labeled Chavez as a Marxist, which is what he practices and preaches. There are too many in this country that want to water down what he does by providing some bulls..t intellectual description of a so-called "socialist third-way." As for MMerchant - how pathetic.

Okay Mambi, if my position is so pathetic I'd love to hear your take on how the East German Communist regime was worse than Nazi Germany. This is an apples to apples comparison - a perfect case study, as this is the only place on Earth that had to live under both forms of totalitarianism. I'm sure you could easily come up with an answer, unless of course, your grasp of both history and reasoning are less than pathetic, which would not surprise me.

Communistas like Stalin didn't single out their victims by race, like Hitler did. To be racist to a liberal is like being gay to a right wing christiano. In other words, the ulitimo sin. Bank robbing, killing, even raping, pale before being a RACIST!
Watch Steven Speilturd's clunker 1941. Watch how it depicts the Nazi, played by an englishman, as a buffoon. While his amios, the Japanese, are treated as being noble and godlike people. Never mind that the Japanese killed more than the nazis did. And that they were ALLIES of the Nazis in the first place! The noble Japs didn't try and stop the killing of the Jews! See the Japs only killed white soldiers and brown civillians. Rich liberals don't care about brown skinned people unless they are being persecuted by white people. Then the liberals look all noble and non-racist by sticking up for them.
BTW, I wish libs would learn the difference between race and nationality. Hating Japs after PH dosen't make America racist. Hating all Asians would, but the American government did not lock up Chinese Americans. And Roosevelt was a Stalinist, btw.

Okay Mambi, if my position is so pathetic I'd love to hear your take on how the East German Communist regime was worse than Nazi Germany.

I'll bite.

You're stacking the deck by limiting the scope to one country, and only part of that country at that. The only remotely fair comparison would be to compare the effects of the Nazi regime only in the part of Germany that later became East Germany, not all of Germany.

But the effects of Nazism and Communism were not limited to countries of origin. That said, Nazism didn't even control half a hemisphere while Communism was worldwide. Among the 7 continents, only Australia and Antarctica had no Communist or Marxist governments. So in terms of area, Communism wins.

Communism also wins the battle of the body counts. More than twice as many people were killed by Communists than died in WW1 and WW2 combined, never mind just the European/Mediterranean Theater of WW2. (And many of those killed in WW2 were killed by Communists.)

But the Nazis didn't have enough time? Okay, so the Nazis were only around 12 years and the Communists started governing in 1917 and aren't even done yet and so have had more time. How many would the Nazis have killed in 90 years? A lot to be sure, maybe more than the Commies. But the thing is that Nazism is the kind of ideology that could never have lasted 90 years, because it's not nearly as contagious as Communism.

What do I mean by that? If you weren't a pure-blooded Aryan, you couldn't be a Nazi. On a global scale, that severely limits your recruiting prospects. On the other hand, there were (and are) no racial limitations on who could or couldn't be a Communist. And the worst part is the sympathizers -- The Nazis had some sympathizers in the West, but very few. But the Communists had (and still have) hordes of sympathizers and outright admirers in the West. No-one walks around with Hitler T-shirts but there are plenty of Che shirts, not to mention and plenty of Castro- and Mao-philes in the entertainment industry and on college campuses. If Kruschev hadn't "de-Stalinized" the USSR, we would probably be seeing Stalin t-shirts too because he was the object of literal worship in the West by many, and likely would have stayed that way if not for Kruschev.

This is an apples to apples comparison - a perfect case study, as this is the only place on Earth that had to live under both forms of totalitarianism.

False. Nearly all of Eastern Europe, including a sizable chunk of Russia was controlled by the Nazis for 2 to 5 years, depending on which Eastern European country you're talking about. Poland suffered longest.

I'm sure you could easily come up with an answer, unless of course, your grasp of both history and reasoning are less than pathetic, which would not surprise me.

As we've seen, your grasp of history is pretty shaky.

MMerchant, I think Z-man did a good job. Don't know why you would even defend the Communists, and it's outrageous to even compare East Germany to Nazi Germany. You would have to compare Nazi Germany to the Soviet Union - the two masters, not their minions, otherwise you would have to compare East Germany (a vassal state of the Soviet Communists) to Fascist Hungary or Romania (vassal states of Nazi germany). Any other comparison is ludicrous.

The underlying problem with both Communism and Nazism is DICTATORSHIP.

You're stacking the deck by limiting the scope to one country, and only part of that country at that.

Removing extraneous variables to focus on the issue at hand is stacking the deck? By comparing a Nazi German society to a Communist German society? Sure, let's just compare all sorts of different countries with different histories to draw a conclusion that can be attacked from a dozen angles. That'll resolve the argument.

The only remotely fair comparison would be to compare the effects of the Nazi regime only in the part of Germany that later became East Germany, not all of Germany.

Reductio ad absurdum. Nice try.

But the effects of Nazism and Communism were not limited to countries of origin. That said, Nazism didn't even control half a hemisphere while Communism was worldwide. Among the 7 continents, only Australia and Antarctica had no Communist or Marxist governments. So in terms of area, Communism wins.

Area is an interesting and irrelevant stat. It's the lives of people that matter, not the square mileage. You speak of Antarctica. Had Hitler been ruler of Antarctica, no one would have cared except maybe the penguin division of PETA.

Communism also wins the battle of the body counts. More than twice as many people were killed by Communists than died in WW1 and WW2 combined, never mind just the European/Mediterranean Theater of WW2. (And many of those killed in WW2 were killed by Communists.)

No one said Communism wasn't a mass-murding ideology, but talk about stacking the deck! You're including the Nazi dead among the victims of Communism to beef up the count. What purpose does that serve?

But the Nazis didn't have enough time? Okay, so the Nazis were only around 12 years and the Communists started governing in 1917 and aren't even done yet and so have had more time. How many would the Nazis have killed in 90 years? A lot to be sure, maybe more than the Commies. But the thing is that Nazism is the kind of ideology that could never have lasted 90 years, because it's not nearly as contagious as Communism.

Hmm, Nazism wasn't as contagious as a similarly horrible ideology. Could it be because it was worse?

What do I mean by that? If you weren't a pure-blooded Aryan, you couldn't be a Nazi. On a global scale, that severely limits your recruiting prospects.

Yes, and their final solution to the recruiting problem to that was to exterminate the non-Aryans. Once again, Communism an evil, Nazism a worse evil.

On the other hand, there were (and are) no racial limitations on who could or couldn't be a Communist. And the worst part is the sympathizers -- The Nazis had some sympathizers in the West, but very few. But the Communists had (and still have) hordes of sympathizers and outright admirers in the West. No-one walks around with Hitler T-shirts but there are plenty of Che shirts, not to mention and plenty of Castro- and Mao-philes in the entertainment industry and on college campuses. If Kruschev hadn't "de-Stalinized" the USSR, we would probably be seeing Stalin t-shirts too because he was the object of literal worship in the West by many, and likely would have stayed that way if not for Kruschev.

Okay, I agree with your argument that the Communists defeated the Nazis in the battle of the t-shirts. And this is relevant because....?

Nearly all of Eastern Europe, including a sizable chunk of Russia was controlled by the Nazis for 2 to 5 years, depending on which Eastern European country you're talking about. Poland suffered longest.

Okay, let's expand the comparison to all of Eastern Europe if you prefer. Which one of these countries were better off under Nazism in your view? Would Lech Walesa have said that the Nazi occupation of Poland was not as bad as the Communist regime? Would Vaclav Havel say that the Warsaw Pact invasion of his country 1968 was worse than the Nazi invasion of 1939? The answer to all of these is clear and unambiguous.

Don't know why you would even defend the Communists

If arguing that Nazism is worse than Communism equals "defending the Communists" then you're also saying that the opposite position amounts to a defense of Nazism. So, either admit your lame attempt at a smear or, if you want to play that game, explain for me how you arrived at your pro-Nazi leanings and why you harbor dreams of ridding Miami of its Jewish population.

Removing extraneous variables to focus on the issue at hand is stacking the deck? By comparing a Nazi German society to a Communist German society? Sure, let's just compare all sorts of different countries with different histories to draw a conclusion that can be attacked from a dozen angles. That'll resolve the argument.

You totally miss my point, which is, in part, that your approach of comparing what it was like in a given place under Communist rule vs. Nazi rule is tunnel vision. To determine which is worse, you have to go by its total effect throughout the world. I don't claim that Nazi rule in a particular country or county or burg was any better than Communist rule. Depending on who you were, it was obviously sometimes worse.

However, I do claim that Communism by its nature was vastly more successful in terms of the number of people it enslaved, imprisoned, and killed, because -- again by its nature -- it was vastly more insidious than Nazism, which is why it is still with us 90 years later while the Nazis lasted only 12 years. The Nazis were evil and vicious, but they made no effort to disguise who they were or what they were about: "If you aren't a member of our master race, you will be exterminated." But the Communists always just said they were "here to help the little guy and save him from those mean rich people." They were able to tap into a sentiment of envy that is so powerful that to this day Communist dictators and revolutionaries with the blood of millions on their hands are STILL admired and even worshipped. THAT is what makes Communism worse.

Nazism was like a violent thunderstorm that everyone knows to take shelter from, and though it does a lot of damage it's gone very quickly. Communism is like a calm, steady, seemingly unthreatening rain as you lay curled up on the couch with a good book...except that it never stops. By the time you figure out that the river has overflowed its banks and the wall of water is headed your way, it's too late.

Area (covered by Communism) is an interesting and irrelevant stat.

Not irrelevant. Because as you say:

It's the lives of people that matter, not the square mileage.

There are an awful lot of people on 5 continents. The most populous continent, Asia, was almost entirely under Communism's boot. And as I said before:

"Communism also wins the battle of the body counts. More than twice as many people were killed by Communists than died in WW1 and WW2 combined, never mind just the European/Mediterranean Theater of WW2. (And many of those killed in WW2 were killed by Communists.)

No one said Communism wasn't a mass-murding ideology, but talk about stacking the deck!

You seem to acknowledge Communism mass-murdering tendencies as if they are tangential to the argument. But this tendency is at the heart of the issue. They killed vastly more people than the Nazis did. 100+ million and counting vs. between 20 and 30 million by the Nazis.

You're including the Nazi dead among the victims of Communism to beef up the count. What purpose does that serve?

I'm not counting the Nazis themselves because their deaths, even at the hands of the Commies, was justified. But the Red Army deliberately killed a LOT of Germans, most of whom were NOT Nazis. The Red Army soldiers were even specifically ordered by their commanders to rape and murder German women. They didn't merely turn a blind eye to it, they ORDERED it. They also massacred 15,000 of Poland's best and brightest, both military and civilian, at Katyn Woods after they absorbed the eastern half of Poland in 1939. Just took them out in the woods and shot them. They also killed a lot of Fins when they invaded Finland in 1940. There were also many Allied soldiers taken prisoner by the USSR who never saw their homes again.

Hmm, Nazism wasn't as contagious as a similarly horrible ideology. Could it be because it was worse?

Asked and answered above. But brief recap: The fact that it wasn't nearly as contagious as Communism meant that it could never affect nearly as many people. The body count speaks for itself.

Yes, and their final solution to the recruiting problem to that was to exterminate the non-Aryans. Once again, Communism an evil, Nazism a worse evil.

And their final solution meant the world would rise up shoulder to shoulder in utter unanimity against it and take it out very quickly, whereas even after all the revelations about the Communist holocausts, half the free world was (and still is) at best ambivalent about whether Communism is evil and had no stomach to fight it. Insidious evils tend to be vastly more destructive than evils that trumpet their names as they cross the George Washington Bridge.

Okay, I agree with your argument that the Communists defeated the Nazis in the battle of the t-shirts. And this is relevant because....?

Because it perfectly illustrates my point above about the insidious nature of Communism, that it can dupe vast numbers of free peoples into believing its mass murderers are folk heroes, and thus weaken their countries' resolve to fight it.

Okay, let's expand the comparison to all of Eastern Europe if you prefer. Which one of these countries were better off under Nazism in your view? Would Lech Walesa have said that the Nazi occupation of Poland was not as bad as the Communist regime? Would Vaclav Havel say that the Warsaw Pact invasion of his country 1968 was worse than the Nazi invasion of 1939? The answer to all of these is clear and unambiguous.

...and irrelevant to my point. Nazism in the Czech Republic lasted 7 years. Communism lasted there 53 years. Because people around the world quickly recognized the threat of Nazism while the half of the same people welcomed Communism with open arms.

MMerchant, here's what you deserve based on your IGNORANT comment directed at me - You're a Moron!! My comment was aimed at your apologia for the Reds and had absolutely no pro-Nazi drift to it. You couldn't argue decently so you reverted to the trash talk - classic liberal/left mindset. You're a sorry specimen. 'Nough said!

My comment was aimed at your apologia for the Reds and had absolutely no pro-Nazi drift to it.

Of course it had no pro-Nazi drift to it, you friggin' idiot. Any reasonable person would see that. The only person who insists that being anti-Nazi is the same as being pro-Communist is YOU. By YOUR OWN dumbass logic, you put your anti-Communism into the pro-NAZI camp. A totally stupid position to take, but then again, WHAT CAN ANYONE EXPECT FROM A DUMBASS LIKE YOU?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: