@ Loftus99 Is it not obvious the Stalnist apologist get's his info from old issues of Pravda.

Numbers so huge? Not if we believe warsprite and others who claim that anyone who denies that the Soviets killed 70 million of their own people gets their news from Pravda. The population of the USSR was not that large - 160 or so million in 1937. The German invading force had 4 million troops, the Soviets were initially outnumbered but thanks to their efficient ability to both call up and train reservists, they were able to organize several million more during the course of the war.

The numbers and landmass canard doesn't really work when you consider Japan held huge swaths of China for 8 years and ultimately weren't defeated by the Chinese but by the Soviets and the Allies. The landmass issue wouldn't have been a problem had Hitler not been a strategic buffoon and concentrated his forces on one target. Instead he divided his armies to try and take 3 targets simultaneously - Leningrad, Moscow, and Ukraine. Plus, had he knocked out Moscow - the communications nerve of the USSR, the landmass issue would have worked against the Russians, since they wouldn't be able to coordinate their armies.

"The battle of britian was also not a draw it allowed the allies to gain air control and was the only place left in europe not under nazi control giving the allies hope"

Yeah that's the official line. But the fact of the matter is German airpower would never have been able to defeat the British navy and successfully complete an invasion. But even more importantly Hitler was never confident when it came to the use of naval power and never really wanted to invade Britain. The Germans never produced and prepared the kind of naval strength required for such an operation. The British didn't significantly decrease German airpower when looking at the total numbers of serviceable aircraft prior to the battle and after the battle. Read Richard Overy's book on it.

I've never seen any claims of 70 million killed by Stalin and company. 20 million is accepted by most objective people with ranges of 15 to 30 million during his approx 30yr reign of terror. Your the only one stating numbers like 70 million.

See, my read on the purges is that Stalin is a fairly traditional one. During the 20's they're about Stalin accumulating power versus his rivals. In the 30's they're about Stalin making sure he has no rivals. In the 40's, they're about punishing fascist collaborators. And in the 50's they're about Stalin being batshit insane and probably a DSM IV model paranoid schizophrenic.

As to the holodomor, I don't think there's been a consensus as to whether it was an actual, intended genocide, or merely about 3.2 million counts of criminally negligent homicide. Regardless, it wasn't a time of fluffy bunnies and rainbow-farting unicorns if you were Ukrainian or Moldovan.

Warsprite: see Robert Conquest. Of course, there's no fanatic like a convert, and Conquest was a former Commie who went anti-Commie in a big way, and was sort of prone to take worst case scenarios regarding Stalin as the truth.

Read the thread. Roobinhood claimed that the Soviets killed 5x the number that Hitler did. Since 12 million were killed in the Holocaust alone, that puts the number killed by the Soviets at 60 million. RJ Rummel has put the number between at 52 million. Noted anti-Semitic monarchist and beloved anti-communist crackpot Solzhenitsyn claimed 60 million were killed. John Gold says 50-60 million. Dyadkin says 56 to 62 million.

So I exaggerated slightly when I tongue-in-cheekly said 70 million, but the numbers game is still ridiculous and the research is still absurd and sloppy. If you're just making numbers up at this point, why stop at 62 million?

One thing, of course, that the Black Book of Communism types have never been able to explain is why peasants were dying from famine in the Volga, and Siberia where collectivization was not resisted at the same time as in Ukraine, where the man-made occurred. And where was the order given for the intentional famine?

"I don't think there's been a consensus as to whether it was an actual, intended genocide, or merely about 3.2 million counts of criminally negligent homicide. Regardless, it wasn't a time of fluffy bunnies and rainbow-farting unicorns if you were Ukrainian or Moldovan."

Or an alternative 3rd scenario of there being a wheat crop failure throughout the whole of the USSR and even Bulgaria. I'm sure the kulaks helped matters by destroying 50% of their own livestock too. Obviously it's the state's fault. Nothing else can even be considered.

Norman Davies out did him with est of 50 million during the period. So I guess that makes Conquest a moderate.

Yes, actually Conquest has moderated his views considerably since his initial stunt as the point-man for CIA propaganda. He now even denies the famine was deliberate.

Roobinhood's statement was kinda half true and half BS. Actually it could be said that Dr T Morell, aka Der Reichsspritzenmeister did more for the Allies than anyone person. Using belladona, strychnine, and a score of other drugs, it's a wonder Hitler did drop dead on his own. You can see the symptoms of the drug over use in the last films of him. He had to be mentally impaired by the last 2-3 years of the war.

No, we can consider the generalized wheat failure. Then we can summarily dismiss it, when we realize that collectivization, as it played out in the Ukraine, became synonymous with dekulakization, and the consequent loss of existent distribution networks and expertise. Also, given that the wheat failure was so widespread, why was the dying concentrated?

I need to take exception your claim of Soviet pop numbers of 130 mil. Tzarist Russia already had 180 mil by the 1890s. Even with war etc USSR had to have about at least 200mil pop. Unless Stalin did kill 70 mill by than where did they go. If your going to quote numbers at least be close. I agree Operation Sealion was questionable since the British ships would have put them selves in harms way to stop it. The Battle of Britian might have had a different outcome if they had kept hammering RAF airfields, aircraft factories etc, and not switched to the population. Also casualities the Luftwaffe lost in the form of pilots did have long term affects due to low rate of training of new pilots, no rotation, etc.

How do you figure the dying was concentrated? Some 1 million died in western Siberia and possibly another 2 million in the Volga region. Kazakhstan also experienced famine. As I said, in these areas there was no Ukrainian-style massive resistance to collectivization or difficult dekulakization process, yet lots of people died there.

So evidently we can't summarily dismiss wheat failure, unless we want to pretend that Ukraine was the only area where significant starvation occurred. By the way a similarly terrible famine happened in the Volga region in 1920-1921 (this is where Conquest famously ripped off his pictures in Harvest of Sorrows from), yet few speak of Lenin's "genocide". Why? Because famines sadly happened a lot in Russia.

"I need to take exception your claim of Soviet pop numbers of 130 mil. Tzarist Russia already had 180 mil by the 1890s. Even with war etc USSR had to have about at least 200mil pop"

Good thing I never said 130 million. I said 160 million, according to the 1937 census.
Any citation for your numbers? According to the Russian Empire census of 1897, the population was 125 million. So where are getting this Tsarist Russia had 180 million in the 1890s from?

http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_lan_97.php

@Putin33 "Certainly there is reason to suspect that Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov, Trotsky, and Bukharin were up to no good." Sure they were trying to remove Stalin, like Lenin wanted to. To bad for the world he died first.

Wiki "1866 est. 181,537,800" sorry I was off by 25 years.

Looks like wiki has posted 2 different numbers at different pages

Oh, right, wiki, well obviously that trumps census data. And are you saying that the Tsars killed off 55 million people in 30 years? ROFL.

"Sure they were trying to remove Stalin, like Lenin wanted to. To bad for the world he died first."

Which is why Lenin had him appointed General Secretary right before his stroke in 1922 and intervened to defend him when others were criticizing Stalin for holding too many positions?

Or are you relying on the complaints of a sick dying man who was annoyed that depriving him of political news, per doctor's orders?

"Looks like wiki has posted 2 different numbers at different pages"

Just a thought, but maybe you shouldn't be so adamant on points if you're relying on nothing more than wikipedia.

How ever 190 mill by 1941. Close to 200 mill.

"How ever 190 mill by 1941. Close to 200 mill."

You base this on.....? wiki again? The census underreported by 30 million eh? Shocking, because obviously it helps out the state a ton if it has inaccurate demographic information, right? Especially a planned economy!

I don't use wiki always The approx 200mil by 1941 I've seen several other places over the years.

Ah, the very specific and helpful "several other places". Well that does it, you've convinced me with your vague unsubstantiated hearsay data.

@ Loftus99 I know this is a rather old statement, but misinformation in your post still really needs correcting. It was in WW I that the Tsar sent the Russia troops, weaponless and foodless into the front, not the communist regime.

I'd have to go with Stalin, while both he and Hitler had some very solid policies during there times in terms of reforming the state of their countries, Hitler was not only more unstable, as well as a Facist. I'd rather live under Communism then Facism. Good policies included the Nazi Youth groups, Five year plans, improving education systems in both countries and massive scientific advancements. The real issue with Stalin's Russia in my mind that they were involved in a war communist economies don't really have room for unnecessary drains on resources that need to be used to keep everyone fed and in good shape.

To those of you quoting, the Ukraine Famine, and the Holocaust as reasons for these two being evil, I wonder if you've ever looked much into the history of India under Britain, with the East India Company? The Spanish in South and Latin america? Any of the European powers in Africa? There were tons of atrocities happening during that era does it make any of them less vile? Of course not, however that was the reality of the time and it can hardly be judged by todays morals which are radically different.

As for the Great Purge, and the Night of Long Knives both of these events are a tragedy that you see repeated in regimes where a single leader holds power to this day, it bred of paranoia and a desire to stay where they are. In that regard it seems most dictators are the same.

@damian

The fact that other people have done terrible things does not lessen the atrocities that Hitler and Stalin committed.

@Abe No less then it lessens the atrocities Churchill allowed to happen in India, yet he is personified as a hero, which Stalin is a personified a villain and a butcher. I'm not saying by any means that any of them were good. More suggesting that such was the reality of the time and in a different scenario we'd be looking at Hitler or Stalin as the hero and Churchill has the villain it's all a matter of perspective. I'd like people to broaden there view enough to view these characters in a more subjective stance, as lessons can be learned from all of them. They were all great leaders of a nation in one way or another.

I'm not too familiar with what happened in India. If you have any references, I'd happily read them, but I find it hard to compare a war-torn country not sending supplies half way across the world to the systematic genocide.

After having read a bit about it, I think these are very different cases. The Indian famine was a result of a natural disaster and Japanese attacks, both of which were outside Churchill's control (unlike in the USSR, where Stalin had a direct hand in the famine). Furthermore, it seems that the reports that Churchill got regarding India did not convey a sense of urgency for some time. Finally, Churchill didn't know if Waters were safe yet from U-Boats and didn't want to risk ships/supplies that would never make it.

So, could Churchill have done more? Yes, but he was not intentionally starving India.

Unfortunately most of the information I have readily available is in my textbook. However digging around in it revealed a few web links for further information.

Why the Famine in India was the fault of the British: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/7991820/Winston-Churchill-blamed-for-1m-deaths-in-India-famine.html

Jallianwala Bagh Massacre: http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/india/india1919.htm

There is also the Sepal Uprising as well as a host of other less reported on events that happened in British controlled India but these are some of the worst.

As Putin has stated, the situation that led up to the Ukraine famine is complicated. I won't deny that it was partially to mismanagement but the fact that many of the Kulaks destroyed crops, made it a particularly nasty famine. Cutting off there nose to spite their face kind of deal.