11–20 of 49 posts
Stalin's propaganda was even effective in the U.S. He really deserves to be at the top of the list when evil leaders are discussed. Yes, Hitler was awful, but Stalin was far worse. But saying so often draws only criticism. That's how good his propaganda was.
Stalin's propaganda was even effective in the U.S. He really deserves to be at the top of the list when evil leaders are discussed. Yes, Hitler was awful, but Stalin was far worse. But saying so often draws only criticism. That's how good his propaganda was.
Genghis Khan killed more, and yet he's considered a national hero.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The USSR would've conquered all of Europe if it weren't for Germany - read _Icebreaker_, et. al. by Suvorov.
Suvorov’s books are widely considered an entertaining alternative history fiction as far as I know. I’d be curious to know of any actual historians who consider his books a realistic and plausible version of history.
edit: also, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOtinTlx7yo
Stalin's propaganda was even effective in the U.S. He really deserves to be at the top of the list when evil leaders are discussed. Yes, Hitler was awful, but Stalin was far worse. But saying so often draws only criticism. That's how good his propaganda was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure any kind of “x was worse than y” makes sense on that scale of evils. How can one possibly weigh the countless lives lost due to decisions made by both? I think the only thing one can truly say is, both were terrible human beings, and hope we can detect and stop someone in the future from becoming such. Yet, I am not sure it is possible, the banality of evil is slow and unnoticeable until it is too late.
My point is really that no one calls their opponents 'Stalin' or 'Commies' the same way people in America tend to call others 'Hitler' or 'Nazis,' which is surprising, given the enormity of the crimes against humanity committed by Stalin and the Russian Communists during roughly the same time. I posit that the root cause is due to the effects of propaganda. No one has really addressed that.
The question of why insult X versus insult Y survives and thrives in this day is certainly interesting. I think it's a combination of many factors
- The enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if I don't like him very much. Ergo, if we were fighting Nazis together, by definition the Commies are not as bad. Considering the huge amount of media produced in all the time since the end of the war, in which the enemy is the safely defeated Nazis rather than still-potential-adversary Pinkos, it's probably safe to say that Nazi's are worse than Commies in absolute terms as far as the collective subconscious is concerned.
- Nazis are generally seen as wishing to exterminate, subjugate or banish all people outside their narrowly accepted criteria. Commies maybe exterminate their own people for their own internal reasons, but don't really threaten our existence nearly as much - for a long time, it's "live and let live" more or less. Ergo, I am more scared of Nazis than Commies (though don't underestimate the fear of nuclear annihilation the seventies and eighties kids grew up in).
- A lot of the fear of Commies was driven by disagreements over economic models, and fear of wealth loss by the "capitalist" class, obviously. That isn't really something very threatening to the average person, not on the instinctive level of "Nazis want to kill me because I exist". Those who lived through the red revolution and escaped it to the USA would have a much more visceral reaction to communism, but they would be a vanishing minority in the general population, I imagine.
- Finally, Nazism/Fascism is in the conversation these days because it's really a thing, unlike communism. There aren't many people stridently fighting and believing in communist ideals, but there indeed are people who hold pretty clearly and openly fascist beliefs. So, when you see someone called fascist, it's not necessarily an insult but a statement of fact.
Edit: I'm not defending Stalin or USSR, like I said in the parent comment, both leaders are indescribably horrible humans, in case that needs to be said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suvorov’s books are widely considered an entertaining alternative history fiction as far as I know. I’d be curious to know of any actual historians who consider his books a realistic and plausible version of history.
Patton's letter to his wife made it clear he thought we were fighting the wrong enemy. edit: also, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOtinTlx7yo
At the end of the war, Soviets were in Berlin. If they were bent on continental domination, they could've fairly easily taken the rest of the exhausted Europe. Instead, luckily, the Allies managed to work out a peace agreement that held until the shockingly peaceful dissolution of the USSR, despite several close calls.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’re being downvoted because the conventional reasoning is that Nazi Germany would’ve likely conquered all of Europe if it wasn’t for the Soviet Union. While this is (mostly) true, if we’re operationalizing the definition of “evil” in terms of a raw body count Stalin would indeed be at the top of the list.
The USSR would've conquered all of Europe if it weren't for Germany - read _Icebreaker_, et. al. by Suvorov.
They might have tried.
Of course, without the Axis, Europe and the US would be firmly aligned against the USSR; the simultaneous existence of the Axis (which was more overtly expansionist) and the Soviet Union (whose ideology was more hostile to capitalist enterprise) split the capitalist West between those more concerned about the threat of Fascism and those more concerned about the threat of Communism.
Stalin's propaganda was even effective in the U.S. He really deserves to be at the top of the list when evil leaders are discussed. Yes, Hitler was awful, but Stalin was far worse. But saying so often draws only criticism. That's how good his propaganda was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suvorov’s books are widely considered an entertaining alternative history fiction as far as I know. I’d be curious to know of any actual historians who consider his books a realistic and plausible version of history.
Patton's letter to his wife made it clear he thought we were fighting the wrong enemy. edit: also, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOtinTlx7yo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patton's letter to his wife made it clear he thought we were fighting the wrong enemy. edit: also, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOtinTlx7yo
Patton was a general, and it was his job to consider and prepare for the worst, of course. That doesn't mean he had any magical insight into the Soviet plans before the war. At the end of the war, Soviets were in Berlin. If they were bent on continental domination, they could've fairly easily taken the rest of the exhausted Europe. Instead, luckily, the Allies managed to work out a peace agreement that held until the…
From Patton's journal, taken from The Patton Papers, 1940–1945, edited by Martin Blumenson:
> 18 May
> In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms’ whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to fight the Russians, the sooner we do it the better.