The difference between Stalin and Hitler? Hitler lost. WaTimes:

Amid all the chitchat, commentary and controversy over this week's celebrations marking the end of World War II, there is a question that has never been far from the surface, though it has rarely broken through: Which was really worse -- communism or Nazism?

One answer, a sensible one at that, is that both systems were so degraded, disgusting and unpalatable that it is impossible to establish a hierarchy of value in which one could possibly stand higher, or lower, than the other. When you've reached the deepest pit in Hell there's nowhere lower to go.

Unfortunately, though, that conclusion is often lost in a quagmire of ignorance and historical distortion. Not because anyone this side of decency really doubts the horrors of Nazism. But, sadly, because there are still large numbers of people (and judge for yourself which side of decency they stand) who still refuse to face up to the horrors of communism.

Take veteran Guardian columnist Jonathan Steele, writing in that paper just last week. In an irony that would certainly escape him, he makes it clear that one purpose of his polemic is to combat the "denial" in the West about the role of the Soviet Union in defeating Hitler. In attempting to foreclose on the argument that "Nazism and communism were somehow two sides of the same evil coin" he reaches a crescendo with the following, extraordinary statement: "Mass terror and purges," he says, "were not intrinsic to Soviet rule, as was clear after Stalin's death."

Yet, no one says, "Hey, those fascists weren't really all that bad. It was Hitler that perverted fascism." See how this works? As if any paper would stand up and call Mussolini a reformer, Franco an anti-Hitlerite, or Juan Peron an idealist.

Soviet mass terror, by contrast, was a feature of the regime right from the beginning. Lenin's core principle of Red Terror was applied in the slaughter of up to half a million class enemies in the very first years of Soviet rule. And that is before we add in the millions of victims of a civil war which was the direct result of communist despotism.

In Lenin's own words, the new Soviet system was "a special system of organized violence against a certain class." The use of terror against class and ideological enemies was thus a central, defining part of the communist system.

Lenin's Commissar for Justice Issac Steinberg well remembers in his memoirs a telling conversation with Lenin in which he (bravely) expressed reservations about the scale of that terror. "Then why do we bother with a commissariat of Justice?" he asked Lenin. "Let's call it frankly the commissariat for Social Extermination and be done with it!" Lenin jumped at the idea. "Well put," he said. "That's exactly what it should be...but we can't say that."

The full death toll, most of it accumulated in peace time, at the hands of Lenin and his political and ideological successor, Stalin, is estimated by the best authorities at somewhere between 25 million and 30 million people. Not bad in a system for which mass terror and purges were not "intrinsic" parts. In what passes for Steele's argument, he suggests the scaling down of the terror after Stalin's death is evidence the system was not inherently terroristic. Does it not occur to him that there was no one left to kill?

But by far the most significant category is made up by people who have a deep ideological need to save the reputation of the one by showing up its "better" qualities in comparison with the other. Neo-Nazis have thus long sought to stress the crimes of Stalin while diminishing or denying entirely the crimes of Hitler. It serves their perverted aims to do so. The old, Western Left has participated in exactly the same kind of enterprise in reverse. The difference is, of course, that they continue to get away with it, avoiding the contempt that both groups, not just one, so richly deserve.

One of the main speakers was an American from the CPUSA. Had he been 5 feet closer I would have punched that SOB right in the mouth. The utter drivel coming out of his mouth about how Russians were so much better off under the Soviet Union and how they enjoyed such a higher standard of living than Americans.

Being a Leftist is a lot like being a member of a cult. But at least in a cult they need to make you eat low-protein gruel to lower your resistance to suggestion. Leftist seem willing and able to buy into the ideological nonsense of their own free will.

Hmmm, I take that back. Maybe kashi (mush) and shi (cabbage soup) were Communist inventions to get the masses on board with the Fearless Leader's glorious seven year plan?

Hat tip: Kevin Aylward

Posted by: Rusty at 09:06 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 900 words, total size 5 kb.

Ok, you know our position here at The Jawa, too many right-wingers are overly critical of Vladimir Putin. But this? These comments are beyond the pale. It's not so much that he's wrong about the immorality of the Dresden bombings as he's got a hell of a lot of nerve being critical of the Western Allies and saying the Soviets were, you know, just nice guys.

The last two night The History Channel has been running episodes on the final days of the Eastern front. The Soviets were every bit as bad as the Nazis in the way they handled the war. Millions of German POWs were starved to death or outright murdered by the Soviets. Hat tip Bill Dauterieve.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:28 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The Red pot is calling the kettle black.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 05, 2005 01:45 PM (x+5JB)

2 But, how can you be hard on him with comments like this? Putin... said the civilian population in Germany had suffered greatly during the war but said it was not the Soviets’ fault. “The Soviet Union or the Red Army can’t be blamed for that... it wasn’t the Soviet Union that started the war.” See, while there was great suffering, it was a) not the Soviets fault because b) the Soviets didn't instigate war. How such logic would not apply to the UK and the US, I have no idea. Also considering that the Red Army routinely shot its own generals and soldiers without much care, you have to wonder what "special humanity" would logically be in store for German troops and civilians.

Posted by: Wine-aholic at May 05, 2005 01:45 PM (Wsn+K)

3 Like Greg Fonda here, Putin is a dick.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 05, 2005 01:47 PM (yBHNA)

4 I have not seen The History Channel series. Based on past shows about WW II and other wars, THC has a habit of always skewing things to make it look like America is always the angel in the war, while the others parties involved are barbaric heathens. I don't neccessarily agree with a few of the comments Putin made, but he absolutely correct about the Allies indescriminant blanket bombing of German cities. More often than not, it was civilians who suffered in these bombing campaigns. If recall correctly, the blanket bombing of German cities killed well over 100,000 civilians. People who had nothing to do with the war, other than being German. These bombings were done using what were known as Fire-bombs (the predessor to Napalm). The bomb would explode with a jelly-like gasoline substance that would in turn start fire-storms. The fire-storms would spread so quickly, the civilians would be trapped in city streets. In other words, tens of thousands of men, women, and children were burned alive. Sound familiar? There is no doubt Hilter was an evil, stupid man who deserved no less than the same treatment he gave european Jews, Muslims, Gypsies, and others. But to play out the Allies as somehow the avenging angels of mercy is equally dishonest. Our war-crimes were equally brutal and unforgiving. 23 million people died in WW II. Someday someone will take that number and figure out exactly who killed who and how many. Maybe then people won't be so high and mighty, and will accept the truth of war. That truth being: No one wins a war.

Posted by: deccles at May 05, 2005 01:50 PM (UCtX/)

5 Let's see - Japan just apologized and Rasputin is crying, "It wasn't our fault. WAH!" I don't know which is worse. Apologizing for something other people did or simply denying the past.

Posted by: Oyster at May 05, 2005 01:51 PM (fl6E1)

6 "...it wasn't the Soviet Union that started the war." - Tell that to the Finns. Has Putin forgotten which side his country started out on? Anybody remember the Ribbentrop Pact?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at May 05, 2005 02:01 PM (RHG+K)

7 Talk to my Polish and East German relatives, Mr. Putin, if you think *Russia* has any grounds for bragging about "special humanity" during WWII. You know, East Germany? The place where you personally worked with your Stasi buddies a little later? Denying that Moscow was to blame for Germany’s post-war division, Putin said Soviet leaders had worked hard “to preserve the integrity and unity of Germany” after the war. “But some of our allies unfortunately took the opposite position.” Yes, I have no doubt that the Soviets wanted to preserve the unity of Germany... under the Red Star, that is.

Posted by: Varenius at May 05, 2005 02:03 PM (pGHMt)

8 deccles: That truth being: No one wins a war. No, we won the war. Dumbass.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 05, 2005 02:08 PM (JQjhA)

9 Uhhhh, we kicked much ass. We won. We continue to win. Only libs can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

Posted by: Obsnooks at May 05, 2005 02:09 PM (yBHNA)

10 Rusty, Tell that to the families who suffered through that. Dumbass

Posted by: David Eccles at May 05, 2005 02:15 PM (UCtX/)

11 David, Ok. Hey families that suffered through that: We won the war. There is a difference between a war being just and actions within a war being just. All wars have unjust actions in them. Not all sides, though, are guilty of those unjust actions being systematic. The U.S. made some mistakes in WWII, but the war itself was just. Also, as the actions of the German 6th Army show, German soldiers were willing to risk life fighting the Soviets just so to have the opportunity to surrender to the U.S. That is telling.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 05, 2005 02:26 PM (JQjhA)

12 I've got one word for Mr. Putin: Katyn.

Posted by: D. Carter at May 05, 2005 02:29 PM (Suv/B)

13 I never liked Putin, he's KGB after all. Hardly the type that's likely to cultivate democracy. Don't forget that asinine statement Bush made to the effect that he had looked into Putin's eyes and found a man he could trust. The immorality of Bush's war in Iraq has led us to lay down with this undesirable bedfellow. Essentially the deal is this: You Russians don't arm the Iraqi insugents and we'll let you do whatever you like in Chechnia and at home. One step forward and one step backwards. We're on a treadmill making up no ground.

Posted by: greg at May 05, 2005 02:42 PM (/+dAV)

14 Greg Fonda. Puh-lease. What-everrrrrr.

Posted by: filthy allah at May 05, 2005 02:45 PM (yBHNA)

15 David Eccles: Of course the US did commit some atrocities during the war -- the European family members I mentioned previously were also on the receiving end of American bombs, some in fact in Dresden itself. But you don't have to have a "Rah rah, American is always right" mindset to be bothered by Putin's statements. Russia has little grounds for criticizing its other Allies for their wartime conduct, both because of Russia's own list of wrongdoing AND its initial cooperation with Nazi Germany. Putin should at the very least keep his mouth shut. By the way, the death toll you give for Dresden is quite inflated. See this book review for more. Or to put it another way, be careful about learning history from Kurt Vonnegut.

Posted by: Varenius at May 05, 2005 02:45 PM (pGHMt)

16 "Ok. Hey families that suffered through that: We won the war." I guess you'll just never get it Rusty. This is for everyone reading. I been reading blogs for only a few months. Some of it is good, some of it is trash. There is one thing that amazes about people responding to comments I post sometimes. It's that as soon as I say something that doesn't neccessarily agree with the opinion of the author or the other bloggers, or perhaps attempts to give more than one point of view, out come these freaks who immediately assume I'm some kind of evil idiot who doesn't deserve to live. Here's my example for today - "There is a difference between a war being just and actions within a war being just." No where in my original post did I mention the war was just, unjust or anything else. I simply stated fact. "All wars have unjust actions in them. Not all sides, though, are guilty of those unjust actions being systematic. The U.S. made some mistakes in WWII, but the war itself was just." Notice the constant, desperate attempts to defend the position no matter how atrocious the action discussed may have been. I wouldn't call the intentional fire-bombing of tens of thousands a "mistake". A mistake is when you spill your milk on the carpet. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. D-E-N-I-A-L. "Also, as the actions of the German 6th Army show, German soldiers were willing to risk life fighting the Soviets just so to have the opportunity to surrender to the U.S. That is telling." I bet they did. I wouldn't want to be forced to fight and starve to death either. But so what? What does this have to do with my original post? And why is it that when I post dissenting, or alternate veiwpoints I get comdemned as a traitor? Isn't it stated in not so many words in the Constitution and Declaration that speaking out about my government when I believe they are doing wrong is not only my right, but my duty and responsibility? I can't think of anything MORE American than doing just that. That's how America got here in the first place, was people speaking out against their government. I for the life of me cannot understand why some people are against this concept? Nevermind. Rusty, you brought out the best in me today. Thanks.

Posted by: deccles at May 05, 2005 02:55 PM (UCtX/)

17 Both the Germans and the Russians were Soc---ist countries. Hitler and Stalin both thought Marx was the man. So it should be no surprise that they were both vicious.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at May 05, 2005 03:03 PM (Kkge+)

18 BTW This is the man that was the head of the KGB in the USSR

Posted by: Rod Stanton at May 05, 2005 03:07 PM (Kkge+)

19 Actually, the Dresden bombings were done in response to a request by the Soviet Union to support its military operations by attacking key communications routes in Germany with respect to the eastern front. These bombing operations were coordinated with the Soviets and the subject of intense discussion at Yalta. Putin is a liar. Must be related to Greg.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 05, 2005 03:23 PM (xauGB)

20 While I'm not normally a fan of Wikipedia, this discussion of Dresden is quite good. It references more modern estimates of casualties and addresses the difficult question of what international laws of war applied.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 05, 2005 03:28 PM (xauGB)

21 The Soviets were every bit as bad as the Nazis in the way they handled the war. That's at the very least an understatement. The Soviets were so bad that Hitler feared them: he feared waiting for them to make their move and he feared not being able to defeat them. That Putin is who he is reflects his place in Russian history, and the nature of politics. And David, spare me the "patriot dissent" BS. You accuse others of knee-jerk, pro-America responses, but you are the mirror opposite. You've been pegged in your first post here, where you note an atrocious approach to war employed - the bombing of cities that cost "civilians" their lives. What you deny is that those were not unwitting innocents, they were supporters of the regime whether they wore a uniform or not. They went to work, paid their taxes, kept society going. If they weren't supporters, they should have gotten out of there rather than staying like parasites, or acted as covert counteroperatives, which makes them combatants. It's a perfect example of the bumper-sticker maxim: Evil thrives when good people do nothing. Then you summarize: Our war-crimes were equally brutal and unforgiving. You've just labled every action by Allied forces as a war crime, though you use the term slyly in an effort to disarm people in the wake of Abu Graib - who wants to be in denial about such things? But it's a nonsequitur; war was conducted with the objective of winning with least cost in lives and material. War crimes occur outside the order; the line is blurred by the war crimes the Germans were charged with. But they were the losers, the perpetrators, and they were acting as part of the greater plan. So let's lay down the gauntlet, David. What constitutes appropriate warfare? Killing is obviously out, because it will cause pain and suffering, and some people who we think shouldn't pay the price will, which is totally untenable to you. It appears that outside of submitting to any power that marches the face of the earth, you would allow us all to suffer exactly what you hate.

Posted by: tee bee at May 05, 2005 03:36 PM (q1JHF)

22 Greg, How does it feel to be the Israel on this website. Here and other posts I see, Greg is a devil, he is a traitor, he just sucks. And lot of the time you havenÂ’t even posted anything. It is much like the stupid Arabs saying US sucks for attacking Iraq (in both wars) and Israel sucks also. Well Israel is not attacking anyone, but they still suck and we are going to kill them anyway. Well,good luck routing these Arabs.

Posted by: Butch at May 05, 2005 03:44 PM (Gqhi9)

23 Butch, I view this phenomenon from a sociological perspective. A society needs the cohesive properties of external forces to hold it together. Boogeymen have provided this force since the dawn of man. To the readers of the Jawa Report I play the role of boogeyman by proxy.

Posted by: greg at May 05, 2005 04:05 PM (/+dAV)

24 Greg has confused "boogeyman" with "booger". The latter is that thing you find in your nose and are unable to get off your finger.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 05, 2005 04:16 PM (xauGB)

25 Rod: Didn't Hitler hate communism, ergo, Marx?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 05, 2005 04:52 PM (iBKJj)

26 Boogey my *ss, you're a f*cking decoy in the pond, that's what you are

Posted by: Talking head at May 05, 2005 04:55 PM (a9tRx)

27 "It's not so much that he's wrong about the immorality of the Dresden bombings as he's got a hell of a lot of nerve being critical of the Western Allies and saying the Soviets were, you know, just nice guys." Whats what some dead people did 50 years ago got to do with him?

Posted by: actus at May 05, 2005 04:58 PM (CqheE)

28 Hitler and Communism Yes, Hitler disagreed with Communist theory; that the power should be held by the people, but that wasn't Communist practice, just propaganda, a means to an end. Hitler was fascist who put the State before the People, but at least he was honest about it. Lenin and Stalin did the same, but just lied about it. The key difference between the two systems was collectivization. Under the Nazis, German citizens lived very well and had full property rights within the law, but Soviet citizens had no property rights and lived or starved at the pleasure of the State. Hitler's system was the lesser of two evils, mainly because he actually did care about his own people to a certain extent, whereas the Russian leaders enjoyed starving their own people to death just to prove a point.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 05, 2005 05:12 PM (0yYS2)

29 IM: You are a gentleman and a scholar.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 05, 2005 05:54 PM (iBKJj)

30 Putin what in his Ass&%*& Enough of this filthy talk!

Posted by: sparky at May 05, 2005 06:32 PM (F1nba)

31 "Under the Nazis, German citizens lived very well and had full property rights within the law" WTF are you talking about? What was kristallnacht?

Posted by: actus at May 05, 2005 08:32 PM (CqheE)

32 Actus, What IMax should of said was those people Hitler to be true Germans enjoyed. (Blonde hair and Blue eyes.) Of course this does not extend to the Jews and others.

Posted by: Butch at May 06, 2005 07:36 AM (Gqhi9)

33 Yes, I think he was referring to Party memebers who supported him.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 06, 2005 08:47 AM (x+5JB)

34 Is anyone really surprised by anything Putin says or does these days?

Posted by: Venom at May 06, 2005 11:31 AM (dbxVM)

35 YEAH I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN I THINK THAT THEIR IS ANOTHER DICTATOR AT THE WHITEHOUSE ,,

Posted by: SANTOS GONZALEZ at May 14, 2005 09:42 PM (9tPxG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment