DEBATE: Which is worse? Holocaust or Communist genocides?

[Avernian Republic]

While obviously the Holocaust is one of the worst tragedies ever seen in human history, was it truly the absolute worst of humanity? The Holocaust is practically synonymous with evil. But what about the other large-scale mass killings throughout the 20th century (or other time?) when far larger or at least roughly equal numbers of people were killed?

My personal opinion: While the Holocaust was roughly 11 million people killed, the Great Leap Forward, a mass collectivization campaign my Mao Zedong, killed around 45 million people in 1958-1962. Of course, the true numbers vary wildly on this which is a testament to how horrible the Great Leap Forward truly was.

Holodomor comes close to the Holocaust with somewhere between 2.4 and 12 million people starved by a man-made famine in 1932-1933 caused by Stalin to stop an independence movement in Ukraine.

What do you think? Got any mass-killings that shoul be recognized as worse than the Holocaust?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Death count is a death count, though my understanding is the Holocaust was more....industrial
So I’d say in general mass murder is bad

[Chan Island]

Mass murder is general is terrible, but the Holocaust truly was a unique massacre. Communist genocides(as are most genocides) were often generally sending some soldiers out with vague orders to kill certain people or put them in death camps.

But the Holocaust pales by just how .... industrial, the whole thing was. It was done with precision, an entire apparatus of state dedicated to finding and eliminating those they wanted dead. The Nazis were ruthless and efficient, using the most modern tools at their disposal.

Another thing to bear in mind was the end goal. Most genocides, including communist ones, were pretty ... generalised. "Let's starve get intellectuals" or "The Ukrainians are annoying me." All of that. Meanwhile, the holocaust was clearly about extermination. Hitler made damn sure to try as hard as possible to wipe out every single jew in a whole continent. Not just jews of course, also Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals... all pursued and destroyed with modern methods. The scale of the holocaust, and the geographical scope it encompassed, shouldn't be forgotten.

That's why the Holocaust really does sink to be the absolute worst. Think of it like this: imagine most genocides as being a murder done with a club. Messy, obvious, not sophisticated. Blunt. Now imagine the Holocaust as being a murder with a suppressed handgun. Mechanical, precise, targeted. Remember too that it was cleanly recorded, hundreds of documents reducing the deaths of thousands to just a couple of sentences, to be filed by a bureaucrat like it was just another tax return... a very modern era sort of thing.

However, there is a broader point. The Holocaust is unique not only because of the body count, duration and efficiency, but perhaps because it says something about modern society. One of the most industrialised, modern and educated countries in the world at the time showed itself capable of horrendous mass murder, and it brought that rampage to a dozen countries from Tunisia to Norway, from Bordeaux to Stalingrad. Perhaps, it removes a mask. It shows that First World countries are completely able to carrying out unspeakable evil.

That, why the holocaust was absolutely the worst crime ever committed in human history. And don't you forget it!

[USS Monitor]

Does it really matter which is worse? When you get beyond a certain level of bad, I think it is kind of missing the point to split hairs over which is worse.

Body count doesn't work as an objective measure of how bad something was. Events in Chinese history have often run up huge body counts because China has such a large population. That does make it a serious problem when things go wrong in China, but it doesn't mean the idea that caused the problem is a worse idea than the bad ideas that people have in other countries. And it doesn't mean the experience of an individual who lived through the Cultural Revolution is going to be more devastating than the experience of an individual who lived through the Holocaust or the Khmer Rouge.

Each genocide or mass murder or societal breakdown is unique, and there's no objective way to quantify which is the worst.

[Neanderthaland]

I'm usually slightly irritated by the notion of quantifying suffering. There are exceptions, like when a doctor asks you "on a scale of 1 to 10, how bad is the pain." They have to do that sort of thing to adequately do their job.

But the idea that you could find some lone survivor of a massacred tribe in the Amazon and say, "So sorry the entire world you knew was destroyed, but at least you weren't a Jew in the Holocaust, because that scored higher on the genocide scale" or alternatively tell a Jew, "I mean... sure you lost everyone you loved in a death camp, but the percentage of Jews who survived is proportionally greater then the whatever tribe of the Amazon. So they deserve my sympathy more." That's irritating.

[MC United]

While obviously the Holocaust is one of the worst tragedies ever seen in human history, was it truly the absolute worst of humanity? The Holocaust is practically synonymous with evil. But what about the other large-scale mass killings throughout the 20th century (or other time?) when far larger or at least roughly equal numbers of people were killed?

My personal opinion: While the Holocaust was roughly 11 million people killed, the Great Leap Forward, a mass collectivization campaign my Mao Zedong, killed around 45 million people in 1958-1962. Of course, the true numbers vary wildly on this which is a testament to how horrible the Great Leap Forward truly was.

Holodomor comes close to the Holocaust with somewhere between 2.4 and 12 million people starved by a man-made famine in 1932-1933 caused by Stalin to stop an independence movement in Ukraine.

What do you think? Got any mass-killings that shoul be recognized as worse than the Holocaust?

Communism killed more people, over a longer period of time, than Nazism, as you rightly note. But, since Stalin wound up on the winning side of WWII, and ultra-extreme leftists have successfully infiltrated the Western education system, ignorant products of said system obsess over the former while essentially ignoring the latter. Thus, "Nazi" is a favorite SJW slur against anyone not in complete agreement with them, while "Communist" often elicits only approval.

Although the question savors of asking, "Which was worse: being burned at the stake, or being roasted in the Sicilian Bull?"

[USS Monitor]

While obviously the Holocaust is one of the worst tragedies ever seen in human history, was it truly the absolute worst of humanity? The Holocaust is practically synonymous with evil. But what about the other large-scale mass killings throughout the 20th century (or other time?) when far larger or at least roughly equal numbers of people were killed?

My personal opinion: While the Holocaust was roughly 11 million people killed, the Great Leap Forward, a mass collectivization campaign my Mao Zedong, killed around 45 million people in 1958-1962. Of course, the true numbers vary wildly on this which is a testament to how horrible the Great Leap Forward truly was.

Holodomor comes close to the Holocaust with somewhere between 2.4 and 12 million people starved by a man-made famine in 1932-1933 caused by Stalin to stop an independence movement in Ukraine.

What do you think? Got any mass-killings that shoul be recognized as worse than the Holocaust?

Communism killed more people, over a longer period of time, than Nazism, as you rightly note. But, since Stalin wound up on the winning side of WWII, and ultra-extreme leftists have successfully infiltrated the Western education system, ignorant products of said system obsess over the former while essentially ignoring the latter. Thus, "Nazi" is a favorite SJW slur against anyone not in complete agreement with them, while "Communist" often elicits only approval.

Although the question savors of asking, "Which was worse: being burned at the stake, or being roasted in the Sicilian Bull?"

NSG is an OOC forum. You're supposed to be discussing the real world, not posting about some alternate history where communism is the dominant ideology of the US, Canada, and the EU.

This is NOT being posted in an official capacity as a moderator. It is just a personal observation.

[Trotskylvania]

While obviously the Holocaust is one of the worst tragedies ever seen in human history, was it truly the absolute worst of humanity? The Holocaust is practically synonymous with evil. But what about the other large-scale mass killings throughout the 20th century (or other time?) when far larger or at least roughly equal numbers of people were killed?

My personal opinion: While the Holocaust was roughly 11 million people killed, the Great Leap Forward, a mass collectivization campaign my Mao Zedong, killed around 45 million people in 1958-1962. Of course, the true numbers vary wildly on this which is a testament to how horrible the Great Leap Forward truly was.

Holodomor comes close to the Holocaust with somewhere between 2.4 and 12 million people starved by a man-made famine in 1932-1933 caused by Stalin to stop an independence movement in Ukraine.

What do you think? Got any mass-killings that shoul be recognized as worse than the Holocaust?

Communism killed more people, over a longer period of time, than Nazism, as you rightly note. But, since Stalin wound up on the winning side of WWII, and ultra-extreme leftists have successfully infiltrated the Western education system, ignorant products of said system obsess over the former while essentially ignoring the latter. Thus, "Nazi" is a favorite SJW slur against anyone not in complete agreement with them, while "Communist" often elicits only approval.

Although the question savors of asking, "Which was worse: being burned at the stake, or being roasted in the Sicilian Bull?"

What I find most amusing is that the people who play the body-stacking game never bother to take a serious look at anything but Stalinist regimes.

India under British rule had multiple famines, each larger than the Holodomor, and those are never mentioned. In every instance, India remained a net exporter of food, and capitalist political economy coupled with British policy led to the deaths of tens of millions. Millions more died in the Transatlantic slave trade, doing the brute work of civilization that would greatly enrich European states, and that too is never mentioned.

Capitalist industrialization is a murderous process. And historically, there has been no difference in the murderous nature of this process whether it occurred under liberal capitalism, or if it occurred under Stalinist state capitalism.

[Telconi]

Communism killed more people, over a longer period of time, than Nazism, as you rightly note. But, since Stalin wound up on the winning side of WWII, and ultra-extreme leftists have successfully infiltrated the Western education system, ignorant products of said system obsess over the former while essentially ignoring the latter. Thus, "Nazi" is a favorite SJW slur against anyone not in complete agreement with them, while "Communist" often elicits only approval.

Although the question savors of asking, "Which was worse: being burned at the stake, or being roasted in the Sicilian Bull?"

What I find most amusing is that the people who play the body-stacking game never bother to take a serious look at anything but Stalinist regimes.

India under British rule had multiple famines, each larger than the Holodomor, and those are never mentioned. In every instance, India remained a net exporter of food, and capitalist political economy coupled with British policy led to the deaths of tens of millions. Millions more died in the Transatlantic slave trade, doing the brute work of civilization that would greatly enrich European states, and that too is never mentioned.

Capitalist industrialization is a murderous process. And historically, there has been no difference in the murderous nature of this process whether it occurred under liberal capitalism, or if it occurred under Stalinist state capitalism.

I'm not well versed in India''s history, we're the famines the result of bad policy choices, or were they purposeful?

[Neanderthaland]

What I find most amusing is that the people who play the body-stacking game never bother to take a serious look at anything but Stalinist regimes.

India under British rule had multiple famines, each larger than the Holodomor, and those are never mentioned. In every instance, India remained a net exporter of food, and capitalist political economy coupled with British policy led to the deaths of tens of millions. Millions more died in the Transatlantic slave trade, doing the brute work of civilization that would greatly enrich European states, and that too is never mentioned.

Capitalist industrialization is a murderous process. And historically, there has been no difference in the murderous nature of this process whether it occurred under liberal capitalism, or if it occurred under Stalinist state capitalism.

I'm not well versed in India''s history, we're the famines the result of bad policy choices, or were they purposeful?

Mostly bad policy choices. Coupled with applying Malthusian ideas to humans populations (you just have to let these things work themselves out.) You could argue that the one that happened in WWII was deliberate, because the British deliberately chose not to send cargo ships that could have redistributed food out of fear they might be needed in the Atlantic. The food for work camps were also sort-of iffy. They fed the laborers less than 1,000 calories a day while asking them to do hard labor. Which, as it turns out, kills most people.

[Telconi]

I'm not well versed in India''s history, we're the famines the result of bad policy choices, or were they purposeful?

Mostly bad policy choices. Coupled with applying Malthusian ideas to humans populations (you just have to let these things work themselves out.) You could argue that the one that happened in WWII was deliberate, because the British deliberately chose not to send cargo ships that could have redistributed food out of fear they might be needed in the Atlantic. The food for work camps were also sort-of iffy. They fed the laborers less than 1,400 calories a day while asking them to do hard labor. Which, as it turns out, kills most people.

I think in situations like that intent matters. For example comparing The Great Leap Forward to the Holocaust is IMO like comparing a driver who negligently, but accidentally kills a family, to a pre-meditated homicide. While the car crash results in a higher loss of life, the homice is far more sinister, and therefore worse.

[The Free Joy State]

What I find most amusing is that the people who play the body-stacking game never bother to take a serious look at anything but Stalinist regimes.

India under British rule had multiple famines, each larger than the Holodomor, and those are never mentioned. In every instance, India remained a net exporter of food, and capitalist political economy coupled with British policy led to the deaths of tens of millions. Millions more died in the Transatlantic slave trade, doing the brute work of civilization that would greatly enrich European states, and that too is never mentioned.

Capitalist industrialization is a murderous process. And historically, there has been no difference in the murderous nature of this process whether it occurred under liberal capitalism, or if it occurred under Stalinist state capitalism.

I'm not well versed in India''s history, we're the famines the result of bad policy choices, or were they purposeful?

According to this BBC report (warning: distressing images), it appears that 1 million people died, partly as a result of a policy by the British to export 200 million pounds of rice away from India (possibly in 1866 alone; I wish the link were clearer), and partly as a result of sheer arseholeish heartless indifference.

The British knew in 1865 that people could not afford rice and were starving, but believed in "Malthusian" principles (that any deaths were "nature's way of reducing population", according to the link).

As for the original question, there's no way to quantify genocide. Each is unique and each is uniquely awful. Each death is a human being, and each genocide is a personal tragedy to those who suffer.

As others have said, though, the Holocaust does stand out in sheer scale of industrialised mass-murder.

[Neanderthaland]

Mostly bad policy choices. Coupled with applying Malthusian ideas to humans populations (you just have to let these things work themselves out.) You could argue that the one that happened in WWII was deliberate, because the British deliberately chose not to send cargo ships that could have redistributed food out of fear they might be needed in the Atlantic. The food for work camps were also sort-of iffy. They fed the laborers less than 1,400 calories a day while asking them to do hard labor. Which, as it turns out, kills most people.

I think in situations like that intent matters. For example comparing The Great Leap Forward to the Holocaust is IMO like comparing a driver who negligently, but accidentally kills a family, to a pre-meditated homicide. While the car crash results in a higher loss of life, the homice is far more sinister, and therefore worse.

I'm sure it matters if we're only considering the culpability of the perpetrator.

But from the perspective of the victim, I'm not sure to what extent it matters. I don't imagine the cold indifference of the British to the effects of British policy eased Indian grief any.

[Vassenor]

Is anyone else getting bored of all these "Why does everyone hate the Nazis so much when the communists were totally worse" threads or is it just me?

[The Free Joy State]

Is anyone else getting bored of all these "Why does everyone hate the Nazis so much when the communists were totally worse" threads or is it just me?

It's not just you.

[Neanderthaland]

Is anyone else getting bored of all these "Why does everyone hate the Nazis so much when the communists were totally worse" threads or is it just me?

To be honest, I wouldn't be as tired of it if it weren't for this undercurrent of alt-Right bullshit that seems to go hand-in-hand:

ultra-extreme leftists have successfully infiltrated the Western education system, ignorant products of said system obsess over the former while essentially ignoring the latter. Thus, "Nazi" is a favorite SJW slur against anyone not in complete agreement with them, while "Communist" often elicits only approval.

[Shamhnan Insir]

Is anyone else getting bored of all these "Why does everyone hate the Nazis so much when the communists were totally worse" threads or is it just me?

To be honest, I wouldn't be as tired of it if it weren't for this undercurrent of alt-Right bullshit that seems to go hand-in-hand:

ultra-extreme leftists have successfully infiltrated the Western education system, ignorant products of said system obsess over the former while essentially ignoring the latter. Thus, "Nazi" is a favorite SJW slur against anyone not in complete agreement with them, while "Communist" often elicits only approval.

This thread smells of baiting these sorts of people under a thin guise of half attempted discussion. Personally I tire of the modern squabbles between the nu-socialists and nu-hard rights.

It's as if no one reads history objectively any more. Both sides cherry pick their best bits and both fail to realise we are making the same mistakes that we are supposed to have learned from.

[Socialist Federal Slavia]

The thning that actually happened, AKA the Holocaust, obviously.
But most idiots here are not gonna listen to reason so I`m not gonna bother much with explaining it.

[USS Monitor]

Is anyone else getting bored of all these "Why does everyone hate the Nazis so much when the communists were totally worse" threads or is it just me?

To be honest, I wouldn't be as tired of it if it weren't for this undercurrent of alt-Right bullshit that seems to go hand-in-hand:

ultra-extreme leftists have successfully infiltrated the Western education system, ignorant products of said system obsess over the former while essentially ignoring the latter. Thus, "Nazi" is a favorite SJW slur against anyone not in complete agreement with them, while "Communist" often elicits only approval.

I agree. There's something to be said for reminding people that there have been other mass killings, that genocide is not just a Nazi thing or a German thing or whatever, that it can come in different forms. But there's something really off-putting about the direction these discussions are going in the current political climate.

I didn't mind these threads so much back in 2010. I had no problem promoting Nazism as a joke back then, and playfully grumbling about how Nazis were misunderstood and unfairly maligned -- but it's really not funny anymore when there's so much serious Nazi apologism out there, and so many people promoting Nazism as a "joke" that isn't really a joke.

[Pilarcraft]

How is it that we legitimately start comparing genocides? and why is it that while the Left -normally- sticks only to the most glaring one -I.E Holocaust-, the Right puts every single dumb action that ends up killing a lot of people, whether intentional or just plain dumbassery in the same troupe as the 'reply'?
I mean. really? comparing genocides? that is this, "these people were harmed more than yours?"
it's not a competition.

[USS Monitor]

The thning that actually happened, AKA the Holocaust, obviously.
But most idiots here are not gonna listen to reason so I`m not gonna bother much with explaining it.

I'm not acting as a mod here because I'm a participant in the thread, but I think your post would be more helpful if you would explain yourself instead of just griping about "idiots."

Just because someone argues with you and doesn't immediately concede doesn't mean your arguments have had no influence. Sometimes people need time to think about an argument before they can fully appreciate it. But you have to give them something to think about. "You idiots won't listen anyway" isn't going to change anyone's mind.

[Pilarcraft]

The thning that actually happened, AKA the Holocaust, obviously.
But most idiots here are not gonna listen to reason so I`m not gonna bother much with explaining it.

Ok, but are you claiming something like, say, Holomodor didn't happen? it was just a fabrication? or that it wasn't as bad as they said it was? or that it wasn't the USSR's fault? Because I do agree with you on the last one. but claiming "it didn't happen" is just kinda plain dumb.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Number by number, the Commies have killed far more people than the Nazis throughout the 20th century. Wherever a Communist regime took root, mass purges and executions would soon follow.

As for the degree of organization, let's not forget that the Nazis merely perfected what they had learned from the Bolsheviks. The Soviets had been running the GULAG for almost 20 years at the time when the Nazis concieved their extermination camps. The entire concept of a concentration camp system was in fact adopted from the Soviets during their pre-war collaboration, which included extensive "exchange programs" between the Gestapo and the NKVD, the Gestapo being distinctly in the student role for much of the time. The Nazis merely applied scientific rationale and German meticulousness to an existing system, creating the industrial-scale operation of human slaughter that we know today.

[Valrifell]

Death count is a death count, though my understanding is the Holocaust was more....industrial
So I’d say in general mass murder is bad

The fact we can compare their death tolls when one went on for much longer and is a broader topic altogether is certainly something. We don't know the final scope of the Holocaust, but it probably would've been worse than Communist genocides and rapid industrialization schemes.

[Souseiseki]

Number by number, the Commies have killed far more people than the Nazis throughout the 20th century. Wherever a Communist regime took root, mass purges and executions would soon follow.

As for the degree of organization, let's not forget that the Nazis merely perfected what they had learned from the Bolsheviks. The Soviets had been running the GULAG for almost 20 years at the time when the Nazis concieved their extermination camps. The entire concept of a concentration camp system was in fact adopted from the Soviets during their pre-war collaboration, which included extensive "exchange programs" between the Gestapo and the NKVD, the Gestapo being distinctly in the student role for much of the time. The Nazis merely applied scientific rationale and German meticulousness to an existing system, creating the industrial-scale operation of human slaughter that we know today.

gualgs were very bad prisons where people died at an unacceptably high rate. death camps were camps with the explicit purpose of actively killing everyone that was sent there. there were people that served their times in gulags or other prisons in communist regimes (like deng xiopang, some random dude you might have heard of) and were released. no jew served their time in the death camp and was released. not a single one. it is a concept that fundamentally did not exist.

more people died under communism - but they were in power longer in larger countries. the primary reason that the nazis killed less people is that they got their faces kicked in before they could complete their plan. it's also worth noting that there's a difference between a famine and campaign of active murder, and that oddly enough famines under capitalist regimes aren't held up a mass killings which are the final proof of capitalism inherent failure.

it is these false comparisons, double standards and lack of understanding that gives birth to every "oh the commies were just as bad" post.