Who do you hate more?

[David Floyd]

The hatred against Jews was there since the beginning and the plan to get rid of them was around even before then (see: Mein Kampf). As long as Naziism has been around, there has been an ethnic cleansing component to it.

The hatred against Jews has been there throughout Russian history as well. The Russians were conducting pogroms long before anyone ever heard of the Nazis.

So because it'd serve your own personal interest, regardless of how others are treated, you would hate it less? That's ****ed up man. Does your morality come down to, well, if I'm doing well, its ok to slaughter everyone else?

Because the end result will be fairly equally poor, I might as well go for the regime in which I am personally better off.

And here we have it... David Floyd knows **** all about Communism... though I suspected as much. Read up on the NEP and that was Lenin's idea (and advocated by Bukharin). Also look at Deng-ist Chinese Communism (ie, the socialist market economy).

Yes, I understand that Communism isn't SUPPOSED to result in equal poverty and privation. It's just that it always seems to.

And regardless, even if communism was about making everyone equally poor, it is still is leagues, leagues better than an ideology based on racial purity. Better to be poor than to kill all the darkies.

Funny, then, that the leading two Communist nations in the world - the Soviet Union and the PRC - have EACH killed more of their own citizens than the Nazis did. Is it any wonder that the Ukrainians initially WELCOMED the Germans?

In addition, Naziism was centrally based on constant warfare... it's what would actually make life better for the likes of you, which you care about so much. Constant invading and enslaving of lesser races. Commies liked mostly just starting small proxy wars.

Actually, you can easily make the argument that between 1933-1939, when Germany was NOT at war, the average German was fairly well off economically speaking. Although yes, I grant you that the end result of the Nazi regime pretty much inevitably had to be war. But that doesn't make it worse or more deserving of hatred than communism. If war-mongering was the sole measure of "evil", then I'd have to say most of the world throughout history has been just about equally culpable.

Perhaps this is just based on the movies and therefore a bit silly, but there is a reason that the villains of Indiana Jones 1 & 3 were far scarier than 2 or 4 and made far, far better enemies than Indians or Communists. That's because Nazis are ****ing EVIL.

You're right, it is pretty silly, especially when you consider the villians in The Temple of Doom, who certainly appeared to be just as evil as the Nazis - I mean, human sacrifice? Ripping people's hearts out? And the Nazis get a bad rap for trying to dig up religious artifacts? ****, at least they weren't hearts!

This discussion is rapidly degenerating to the point of me appearing to defend Nazism, which isn't the case at all. I'm just merely pointing out that morally/ethically speaking, it is neither a better or worse choice than Communism or radical Islam, given the relative histories and outcomes of nations based on any of those systems. Once we determine that, it's a simple matter of picking the system in which you personally would be better off. For me, it'd be Nazi Germany. For most of us, it would be Nazi Germany.

[David Floyd]

And here we have it... David Floyd knows **** all about Communism... though I suspected as much. Read up on the NEP and that was Lenin's idea (and advocated by Bukharin). Also look at Deng-ist Chinese Communism (ie, the socialist market economy).

Sorry, missed a point here.

Why are we picking the brightest spots (and that's a very relative term) of communism and using those as the baseline? That's not really fair, since those spots are few and far between and by no means comprise the norm. In fact, the only way to make communism "successful" is by introducing as much capitalism as possible, thus making it something different (see, e.g., modern China).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The hatred against Jews has been there throughout Russian history as well. The Russians were conducting pogroms long before anyone ever heard of the Nazis.

Commies do not equal Russians. Chinese Communists are not Russians.

Because the end result will be fairly equally poor, I might as well go for the regime in which I am personally better off.

Wow... I don't normally say this to people, but you are a dick. Equally poor for who?! For the privileged white class? What about for the darkies? They don't count? At least they'd have a chance to be ****ing alive in Communism.

Yes, I understand that Communism isn't SUPPOSED to result in equal poverty and privation. It's just that it always seems to.

And capitalism isn't supposed to result in imperialism or corporatism. It's just that it always seems to. That's just as silly. Obviously Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot aren't what Marx or Lenin had in mind.

Funny, then, that the leading two Communist nations in the world - the Soviet Union and the PRC - have EACH killed more of their own citizens than the Nazis did. Is it any wonder that the Ukrainians initially WELCOMED the Germans?

How many people do the Soviet Union and the PRC have? How many did the Nazis kill relative to their numbers? Let's be honest with numbers, no?

And I don't think the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China every tried to invade other countries so it could kill their lessers.

Actually, you can easily make the argument that between 1933-1939, when Germany was NOT at war, the average German was fairly well off economically speaking. Although yes, I grant you that the end result of the Nazi regime pretty much inevitably had to be war. But that doesn't make it worse or more deserving of hatred than communism. If war-mongering was the sole measure of "evil", then I'd have to say most of the world throughout history has been just about equally culpable.

As has been discussed on other threads, the economic boost of German was in the GEARING UP FOR WAR. The re-militarization of the Reich is what led to better economic times. You can't just have those industries produce the goods for war and not think they are going to be used at some point.

As for most of the world throughout history... they aren't in the discussion, but ideologies which base themselves on war mongering are worse than those who don't. Having the mass killing or enslavement of others as your goals drops you down a few steps in the evilness pyramid.

You're right, it is pretty silly, especially when you consider the villians in The Temple of Doom, who certainly appeared to be just as evil as the Nazis - I mean, human sacrifice? Ripping people's hearts out? And the Nazis get a bad rap for trying to dig up religious artifacts? ****, at least they weren't hearts!

Just as evil as the Nazis? What were you watching? People found the Indian villain to be laughable rather than evil.

This discussion is rapidly degenerating to the point of me appearing to defend Nazism, which isn't the case at all. I'm just merely pointing out that morally/ethically speaking, it is neither a better or worse choice than Communism or radical Islam, given the relative histories and outcomes of nations based on any of those systems. Once we determine that, it's a simple matter of picking the system in which you personally would be better off. For me, it'd be Nazi Germany. For most of us, it would be Nazi Germany.

And to me this is incredibly morally distasteful. Morally/ethically speaking, Communism is a better choice than Naziism, no contest. Naziism may be on the same level as radical Islam, but both of them centrally embrace genocide, which is quite possibly the worst thing a state or ideology could do. Personal comfort means nothing when comparing a system that is based on genocide and aggressive, permanent war and another which is based on neither (if you want to call revolution of the working class an "aggressive, permanent war", go ahead... the Nazis still have genocide).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Sorry, missed a point here.

Why are we picking the brightest spots (and that's a very relative term) of communism and using those as the baseline? That's not really fair, since those spots are few and far between and by no means comprise the norm. In fact, the only way to make communism "successful" is by introducing as much capitalism as possible, thus making it something different (see, e.g., modern China).

Well, you can go ahead and pick the brightest spots of Naziism... you know the parts where they are taking away the rights of Jews and building their economy on gearing up to start the greatest war mankind has ever seen.

Btw, the NEP, which Lenin introduced, included some market aspects, so saying it was "making it different" is a bit silly when the founder of Leninism-Marxism was doing it.

And we are "picking the bright spots" because of your inane comment that communism is about making everyone equally poor... showing, no, it doesn't always have to be that way (and also showing that market concepts in socialism and communism have been around for a looooong time).

[Theben]

Imran has gone full-fledged commie now.




Oops! Sorry, Imran. I hope you didn't have any aspirations to hold a position in the DOJ.

[rmsharpe]

Communists.

At least the Nazis have given up trying to defend their stupid statism.

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Theben
Imran has gone full-fledged commie now.

Oops! Sorry, Imran. I hope you didn't have any aspirations to hold a position in the DOJ.

He'll have to settle for the Department of State.

[David Floyd]

Commies do not equal Russians. Chinese Communists are not Russians.

Oh, you want to talk about the Chinese, then? You mean, the China that, both now and in the past, tends to be an extremely racist society?

Wow... I don't normally say this to people, but you are a dick. Equally poor for who?! For the privileged white class? What about for the darkies? They don't count? At least they'd have a chance to be ****ing alive in Communism.

Better dead than red, Imran.
But (more) seriously, first of all, I don't know where you are getting "darkies" from. The Nazis didn't implement a policy about black people that I'm aware of. Oh, they liked them about as much as Americans and Soviets at the time did, but I still don't know why you're bringing it up. If you perhaps meant "Jews", plenty of Jews died under the Soviet regimes as well. And if you just meant people in general, then I hate to tell you, but the Soviets and Chinese probably exterminated as high a percentage of their own population as the Nazis did, and certainly more in absolute terms, so I'm not sure why you think anyone in particular would have a higher probability of being alive in a communist regime than in a Nazi one.

The only exception to that would be if you belonged to a group the Nazis specifically targeted for extermination camps, in which case you would have a MARGINALLY better chance in a communist country, but not necessarily that much better of one.

In any case, since I think it's fairly clear both systems murder people with about the same level of frequency, I'm going to have to pick the system that I personally have a better chance at living through. I don't think that's being a dick, or even being particularly selfish (not that being selfish is necessarily bad) - it's just picking what for me is the lesser of two evils.

And capitalism isn't supposed to result in imperialism or corporatism. It's just that it always seems to. That's just as silly. Obviously Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot aren't what Marx or Lenin had in mind.

Well, intent isn't all that important, it's the end result that counts. And, since I don't recall capitalism being part of the OP, bringing it up seems to be something of a red herring. Either way, imperialism and corporatism have caused far less harm than Nazism, Communism, or radical Islam, so I'm not sure I see your point, anyway.

How many people do the Soviet Union and the PRC have? How many did the Nazis kill relative to their numbers? Let's be honest with numbers, no?

Well, let's see. Germany's population was approximately 75 million in 1940. If we are talking just Germany's population, I'd have to guess that the number of Germans killed by the Nazis would be around 1.5-2%. If you go ahead and include all Holocaust victims, that number jumps to around 15%. This is counting victims from 1933-1945.

If we assume a Soviet population of around 170 million, and we accept a death figure of around 30-35 million as a direct result of communism and it's resulting policies, then you're actually looking at a higher percentage.

Of course, these numbers are all a bit disengenuous, as obviously all those millions were not killed by either side in any single year. Granted, the Nazis packed their killing into a tighter time frame, but it's very clear that the Soviets and Chinese killed more in absolute terms over their much longer reigns of terror.

So, the real answer here is, I don't know which regime was more murderous, and neither does anyone else I would imagine. It would have to depend upon your criteria, of which several could be used, and even then it could be tough to measure.

And I don't think the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China every tried to invade other countries so it could kill their lessers.

That wasn't really why the Nazis did it, either.

As has been discussed on other threads, the economic boost of German was in the GEARING UP FOR WAR. The re-militarization of the Reich is what led to better economic times. You can't just have those industries produce the goods for war and not think they are going to be used at some point.

Oh, well if gearing up for war is the criteria, then we should probably note that the Soviets were doing the exact same thing. Why else would they have an inventory of around 24,500 tanks and over 200 organized divisions in mid-1941 if they weren't gearing up for war? And you can't say that the Nazis started it, since up until around 1935 they certainly were not gearing up for anything, whereas the Soviet buildup was ongoing since the 1920s (interesting enough, it was the Soviets who encouraged the Weimar-era Germans to get around the anti-rearmament provisions of the Versailles Treaty but surreptitiously building submarines for the Germans). Oddly enough, though, you didn't really notice an economic boom if you were an average Soviet citizen.

Just as evil as the Nazis? What were you watching? People found the Indian villain to be laughable rather than evil.

You mean, as laughable as the Nazis who dabbled in the occult, in real life?

And to me this is incredibly morally distasteful. Morally/ethically speaking, Communism is a better choice than Naziism, no contest. Naziism may be on the same level as radical Islam, but both of them centrally embrace genocide, which is quite possibly the worst thing a state or ideology could do. Personal comfort means nothing when comparing a system that is based on genocide and aggressive, permanent war and another which is based on neither (if you want to call revolution of the working class an "aggressive, permanent war", go ahead... the Nazis still have genocide).

And my point is, it doesn't matter what you call it, it's the result that counts. The Nazis may have killed more of specific groups, but the Communists killed more in absolute terms spread over a wider range of ethnicities, religions, political beliefs, and lifestyles. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other, so I'm going to pick the system I'm more likely to survive.

[Harovan]

Plutocrats. Alas, they're not even on the list, so the mighty banana is it.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Oh, you want to talk about the Chinese, then? You mean, the China that, both now and in the past, tends to be an extremely racist society?

Dude are you really that desperate to defend your point? The fact they are racist societies has little to do with them having a Communist goverment, in fact had they been capitalist nation states rascim would have been even more prevalent. The ideal of Communism was to overcome nationalism and racism and embrace the unity of the working class in its struggle against the opressors.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by David Floyd

And my point is, it doesn't matter what you call it, it's the result that counts. The Nazis may have killed more of specific groups, but the Communists killed more in absolute terms spread over a wider range of ethnicities, religions, political beliefs, and lifestyles. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other, so I'm going to pick the system I'm more likely to survive.

Your entire post is intellectually bankrupt.



Germany today has 80 million people, back then it killed 12 million people in various extermination programs and started a war that claimed enough people to dwarf that number. It would take PRC an absurd number to match that kill ratio.

Also most of the so called "victims" of Communism died because of starvation. Are you saying that starvation due to inefficiency is the same as concentration camps and gas chambers? One is negligence, the other is premeditated murder.

Do I need to bring up the millions dead in famines of non-communist regimes? Perhaps the ones claimed by the Union Jack? I wonder what Britains kill ratio was in the late 19th century?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, you want to talk about the Chinese, then? You mean, the China that, both now and in the past, tends to be an extremely racist society?

Were they racist before communism? If anything, the PRC is less racist than the previous regimes.

I hate to tell you, but the Soviets and Chinese probably exterminated as high a percentage of their own population as the Nazis did, and certainly more in absolute terms, so I'm not sure why you think anyone in particular would have a higher probability of being alive in a communist regime than in a Nazi one.

As pointed out, a good deal of deaths in the USSR and PRC were a result of negligence and dumb policies, not as a result of extermination. 30 million people did not go to the gulags in the Soviet Union.

Furthermore, take away Stalin and what are the death rates under Soviet rule? I imagine they are quite, quite low. You don't hear about millions killed under Krushchev or Breznev.

Of course, if we are going to count starvation deaths in the Commie death toll (and we should), then I'd postulate that all deaths in the European theater of WW2 should be placed squarly on the Nazis shoulders.

Well, intent isn't all that important, it's the end result that counts.

Bull****. Intent is always important. That's why in the US legal system we have a difference between murder and manslaughter. Just because a man has died doesn't necessarily mean you should put to death (ie, intent is important).

And, since I don't recall capitalism being part of the OP, bringing it up seems to be something of a red herring. Either way, imperialism and corporatism have caused far less harm than Nazism, Communism, or radical Islam, so I'm not sure I see your point, anyway.

It is showing how utterly silly the idea is that communism always leads to poverty. And imperialism is much worse than communism and even radical Islam (as of yet), as it completely destroyed a great deal of the world. Former Communist countries seem to doing not that horribly, but victims of imperialism, such as Africa and the Mid East and Central America have a great tendancy to be basketcases.

And the Nazis, of course, started the bloodiest war in human history.

So, the real answer here is, I don't know which regime was more murderous, and neither does anyone else I would imagine. It would have to depend upon your criteria, of which several could be used, and even then it could be tough to measure.

Of course we do. One used work camps and extermination for their killing, the other was mostly inept. There is a vast difference over which was more 'murderous'.

That wasn't really why the Nazis did it, either.

Lebenstraum seems to have that as an underlying idea. And they sure did begin to do that as soon as they invaded a new county.

Oh, well if gearing up for war is the criteria, then we should probably note that the Soviets were doing the exact same thing. Why else would they have an inventory of around 24,500 tanks and over 200 organized divisions in mid-1941 if they weren't gearing up for war? And you can't say that the Nazis started it, since up until around 1935 they certainly were not gearing up for anything, whereas the Soviet buildup was ongoing since the 1920s (interesting enough, it was the Soviets who encouraged the Weimar-era Germans to get around the anti-rearmament provisions of the Versailles Treaty but surreptitiously building submarines for the Germans). Oddly enough, though, you didn't really notice an economic boom if you were an average Soviet citizen.

All of this completely ignores the fact that the German economy boomed as a result of war production, which was done in order to WAGE AGGRESSIVE WAR. Ever since the beginning, this was the Nazi goal.

The Soviets had to gear up war production mostly to defend themselves from an invasion in their East by a combination of forces (including US) in the 20s and then for the forthcoming assault by the Germans (Stalin, rightly, never trusted Hitler to keep his word).

And my point is, it doesn't matter what you call it, it's the result that counts. The Nazis may have killed more of specific groups, but the Communists killed more in absolute terms spread over a wider range of ethnicities, religions, political beliefs, and lifestyles. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other, so I'm going to pick the system I'm more likely to survive.

No, its always the intent that counts. To only focus on results, as in an ends justifies the means type of way, is morally bankrupt. Its like saying a guy who killed someone with an axe in a premeditated way is just as bad as the guy who ran over a pedestrian because it was raining so hard he couldn't see... after all, the result is the same.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Theben
Imran has gone full-fledged commie now.

Nuance and thinking makes you into a commie these days.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Zanarkand
I can't say I hate the nazis. I don't hate anything. I just consider negative things as a source of frustration.

You're obviously Nickolai's completely non-evil twin.

[Nikolai]

He is in fact my mental side-kick.