Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Stalin Killed Fewer People Than Hitler Did
III. How Stalin Tricked Hitler with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
IV. Post-Script
Content
I. Introduction
I have decided to publish this written, expanded version of my 2018 video for YouTube which is entitled ""Stalin Killed More Than Hitler" Borders on Holocaust Denial". That video was written, filmed, and published in October 2018.
What piqued my interest in this topic was the research which followed the production of my video "Ben Shapiro's 'Socialism is Theft' Ignores WWII, NATO, Corporate Privilege", which can be viewed at the following address:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8kQcpvDFIE. In that video, I criticized
Ben Shapiro's erroneous attribution of millions of Eastern European deaths to Stalin rather than Hitler. That video can be viewed at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y1Md5zEG8k
I have decided to publish this written version, because the video
""Stalin Killed More Than Hitler" Borders on Holocaust Denial" has been categorized as "controversial" by YouTube, and risks being taken down. What follows is an expanded version of that eight-minute video which I improvised on October 18th, 2018. That video can be viewed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Frkru0Dcs&t=1s&bpctr=1556707612
II. Stalin Killed Fewer People Than Hitler Did
I spent the first half of October 2018 researching World War II, the short-lived Nazi-Soviet pact (the
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), and Hitler vs. Stalin death totals, and I
found out some really disturbing things. Most importantly, that the
U.S. has been engaging in a 75-year-long propaganda campaign against
its own citizens, to make them think that the U.S. was the most
important and primary actor in World War II on the Allied side, when
it was really the U.S.S.R., which lost 20 to 27 million people.
The number of deaths attributed to
Hitler in Eastern Europe are deliberately downplayed in Western media, in order to get Hitler's
numbers lower, and Stalin's numbers higher, than they actually were. I believe that this is being done in order to lead people to think
that America single-handedly defeated the Nazis, instead of that it was Stalin's brilliant diplomatic and manufacturing maneuvers which saved
the world from Hitler.
Contrary to popular American belief, America was
not the most important victor, nor victim, of the Allied participants in World War II; that title goes to the U.S.S.R. (both because it was attacked before the United States was, and because it suffered between 50 and 75 times as many deaths as the Americans did).
In a 2011 interview with RussiaToday, British historian Geoffrey Roberts says that "it was primarily the Soviet Union that won the Second World War, made the greatest sacrifices, was the greatest victor of the war. It didn't win the war on its own by any means - it won it in association with Britain, the United States, and other countries - but nevertheless... the Soviet Union was the key to victory over the Nazis in the Second World War." Roberts also concluded that, without American help, the Soviet Union would have eventually won the war by itself; it just would have taken longer. (Note: that interview is available at the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2xW6veHY9U).
Furthermore, few Americans are aware that American
businesses financed the death camps of the Nazis. This occurred through the actions of Nazi financier and industrialist Fritz
Thyssen, Brown Brothers Harriman, the Union
Banking Corporation, the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company, and other agents. Prescott Bush - the patriarch of the Bush American political dynasty - handled Thyssen's American accounts, resulting in the construction of a network of forced labor camps centered in Oswiecim, Poland; which were eventually converted into extermination operations. But we forget about that, and we forget that the
Soviet army liberated that same extermination camp; whose Polish name Oswiecim was Germanized to "
Auschwitz".
The consequence of misremembering history in this way, is that we have allowed ourselves to be led to believe that America and the U.K. deserve all the credit for winning World War II.
Moreover, Hitler is beginning to
look good in comparison to Stalin in the eyes of many Americans. Days dedicated to the remembrance of Holocaust victims and victims of fascism - and now, even May Day (which in 2019 occurs on the same day that Holocaust Remembrance Day begins in Israel)
- are being perverted by anti-communist opportunists, by being turned into events dedicated to the remembrance of "victims of communism". That's a problem because "victims of communism" is a group of people which would logically include
Nazi and fascists collaborators, because they were murdered by communists too.
Additionally, Stalin, Communism (and socialism, in all their forms), and Vladimir Putin are routinely demonized in the West, as if they were all in the same category, all one and the same, and all equally deserving of the charge of having killed some 80 to 100 million people. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Ironically, those who pretend that anarcho-communism and totalitarian socialist autocracy are exactly the same thing, are often the same people who enthusiastically admit that infighting amongst leftists is a common cause of lack of socialist resolve in decision-making and in fighting back against fascists. Anti-communists thus acknowledge leftist infighting, while pretending that all leftists are the same.
Many even claim that the
Nazis were socialist simply because they labeled themselves as such (Note: I have addressed this topic thoroughly, in my September 2017 article "Debunking the Top Six Claims that the Nazis Were Socialist"; which can be viewed at the following link:
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2017/09/debunking-top-six-claims-that-nazis.html). The ludicrous idea that the National Socialists were merely nationalist versions of the Soviet Communists, practically reduces World War II to nothing more than a bout of socialist infighting. The idea that the Nazis were socialists, is one of the lies that anti-communists use to deliberately inflate the death tolls of socialist regimes (that is, by adding Nazi victim counts to socialist death tolls).
If we want the Cold War, and American military belligerence and intervention, to end, then the record regarding U.S. and European relations with the Nazis and the Soviets during World War II must be set straight.
Stalin perhaps
deserves some credit for saving the world from Hitler, so I would not blame
anyone for being appreciative of this fact (especially not the 50 to 70 percent
of modern Russians who today still view Stalin as an admirable defender of the
nation). But on the other hand, Stalin once said that “Gratitude is a
sickness suffered by dogs”. So even by Stalin's standards, we don't have to be appreciative towards Stalin
for defeating the Nazis if we don't want to.
But even if we
are not completely prepared to accept
the idea that a world with Stalin and without Hitler is better than a world
with Hitler and without Stalin (which is the choice that the people of Europe
had to make), we can still examine fairly which of these men actually caused the deaths of more people
(whether through direct orders, or through willfully or misguided decisions
that caused destruction and affected millions). And that is what I intend to
examine throughout the remainder of this essay.
Many people died
at the hands of the Nazis, and during Stalin's regime; there is no doubt about
that. Getting a consistent and reliable death total, however, can often be
difficult when studying atrocities, or when studying regimes that lasted twelve
or thirty years. But why is there such a big discrepancy between the totals
usually offered in regards to Stalin and Hitler? Some say that each killed
about 20 million, but other sources say that Stalin killed 60 million or more.
But what are the facts?
Hitler is
remembered for having killed six million Jews. But he also killed five million
people who weren't Jewish
in Germany, like Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals, and disabled people. But there
were also the nine million German political dissidents,
many of whom were Christian. So that's twenty million right there. And then you
throw in the military deaths – the Battle of Stalingrad alone saw the death of
nearly a million people, and about half a million Soviet troops – and you add the 20 to 27 million Soviet citizens who
died during World War II to the Nazis' murders of 20 million people inside
Germany, you've got a total of 40 to 47 million killed by the Nazis.
Some say that
Stalin killed more people than Hitler did. First of all, that's not
conclusively true. Second, do you remember who Stalin was killing? He was
killing Nazis. If Stalin
was killing Nazis – while cooperating with the U.S. and U.K. against Hitler, no
less - then I hope Stalin
killed more people, if it
means that more Nazis would be dead.
Some
claim that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn estimated, in his book The
Gulag Archipelago,
that 66.7 million
deaths were caused by Stalin. As far as an accurate death total caused by Stalin goes - or even just occuring during Stalin's rule - that number is bogusly inflated, and
could only have been arrived at if you got confused and added together either: 1) all
deaths caused by Stalin and Hitler put together; 2) all deaths that
occurred in the U.S.S.R. during Stalin's 30-year-long regime, whether
their death had to do with Stalin or not; and/or 3) all Soviet subjects
who ever entered the gulag system once,
while reasoning that since they all eventually died, it must have
been Stalin's fault. None of these are appropriate ways to arrive at
an accurate count of the number of people Stalin killed or ordered
killed.
Only
about 830,000 people were formally ordered killed by Stalin. Capital
punishment is terrible, but it is not as though none of these
executions had any cause. Some people in Poland today still claim
that the Katyn Forest Massacre was an act of attempted genocide
against the Polish people. To claim that the Katyn Forest Massacre
was an act of genocide trivializes the fact that Poland was housing
German death camps, and diminishes the ethnic cleansing character of
the Holocaust against the Jewish people. That's because the 18,000
Polish officers who were executed had refused to cooperate with
Russians after being captured, when doing so would have allowed the
Poles and Russians to join forces against the Nazis (although, of
course, Poland would have to agree to be a protectorate and satellite
of the U.S.S.R., which it eventually did).
(Additional note on Poland: The Soviet Union may have played a role in the destruction of the Polish government, but it also arguably helped save the Polish people from the hubris of its military command structure, which foolishly thought itself strong enough to fend off the Nazi threat by itself, without Soviet assistance).
Not
every single death that happened in the U.S.S.R. between 1924 and
1953 is attributable to Stalin. The 20 to 27 million deaths of Soviet citizens in World War II are not attributable to Stalin. Some say that they are attributable to Stalin; supposedly for the large number of Red Army troops which Stalin "threw wave after wave of, at the Nazis", owing to Stalin's alleged shortfalls as a military general.
Well, when your army's main strength is that
you have a lot of men, what are you going to do? Resist the urge to "throw your men at them", and instead wait patiently for the enemy to show up at your door? If you expect the
Soviet army to have waited for the Nazis to show up at their
doorstep, I have some bad news
for you: they tried that. Operation Barbarossa happened, the Nazis showed up right outside Moscow, and the Soviets didn't begin to regain territories lost in Operation Barbarossa until after the Nazis had already begun to encircle Moscow.
The
Soviet army was, unfortunately, ill-prepared technologically for the
Nazis' onslaught. Those deaths are regrettable and to be mourned, but
the fact that these people died fighting for Stalin doesn't mean that
Stalin caused their deaths. The blame for their deaths should go to the officers who commanded Nazi troops (or Italian, Romanian, etc.) to shoot at them.
To
believe that the 10 to 20 million Soviets who died of disease,
starvation, and natural disasters during Stalin's nearly
30-year-reign are all attributable
to Stalin, is equally fallacious. Natural disasters, mechanical
errors, distribution inefficiencies (like mass concentrations of
wealth), and government failures, can all
cause significant increases in rates of starvation, disease, and
death. But that doesn't mean that Stalin, or the Soviet government,
were capable of saving all their subjects from death, given these
many manmade and natural odds against them.
To
suggest that Stalin should have done something more to alleviate the
starvation in Ukraine which caused the Holodomor, is to ignore
history; and it is to ignore, once again, that Stalin did
do something to try to alleviate
the starvation; he collectivized farms, confiscated grain,
and redistributed it. Stalin did
not cause that episode of mass starvation in Ukraine; the famine
did. Stalin was trying to fix it. The farmers were making the famine worse; by slaughtering their livestock, and refusing to turn food over to authorities, choosing instead to try to profit off of the desperation of starving people.
And in case you'd like to criticize Stalin for doing something
instead of nothing, Stalin did
wait several years before undertaking any direct measures to relieve the effects of the famine.
To
expect a government to be responsible for saving the lives of all its
citizens – to the point where you blame whomever is nominally in
charge of the government for any and all disasters, manmade and
natural alike, that result in people's deaths – is ridiculous. It
is to expect government to be able to completely subvert nature to
human control. It is to expect government to be as powerful as God,
and as much in charge of whether and when we die as God is.
Historians acknowledge three main sources of mass deaths which occurred under Stalin: 1) deaths from forced collectivization; 2) deaths in the gulags; 3) deaths in purges and show trials.
Low
estimates for deaths from forced collectivization under Stalin was 3
million. The medium estimate is 5 million. The high estimate, by
historian John Heidenrich, is 7 million.
For
the gulags, the low estimate is 2.3 million, but John Heidenrich's
estimate is 12 million. This wide discrepancy will make a reliable
average estimate all but impossible.
For
the purges, John Heidenrich makes a high estimate of 1.2 million
killed by Stalin, while low ranges run from 600,000 to 750,000.
While
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's 66.7 million claim is the highest, John
Heidenrich's totals come out to 20.2 million, while mid-range
estimates have Stalin's death totals at 8 million, and low range
estimates are 5.3 million. [Note: Solzhenitsyn's estimate refers to the total number of executions ordered by the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1959].
The
Soviets did not kill
sixty million people or more. The population of the Soviet Union
increased during
Stalin's reign. Maybe Stalin directly or indirectly caused the deaths
of 20 million people, maybe that figure is 5 or 8 million; we could
probably debate that all day. But this much is for sure: if you're
looking for someone who killed 60 million people, then look no
further than the fascists. If you add together the 40 to 47 million
people killed by the Nazis, to the deaths caused by their allies
(Franco in Spain; Mussolini in Italy; Hungary, Romania, and others), it adds up to
nearly 60 million dead in Europe at the hands of the fascist,
imperialist Axis Powers.
The
20 to 27 million Soviet citizens who died during World War II – as
well as another 8 million Slavs outside of the U.S.S.R. who died –
were nearly all attributable
to the Nazis, not Stalin.
Up
until 1939, Stalin killed more people than Hitler did, and more
quickly. But during the time period that matters most – World War
II – it was Hitler
who killed more people more quickly. And he also killed more people;
at least twice
as many people, in fact. If Stalin's death tolls amount to only 5.3
or 8 million, then it's possible that Hitler may have killed even as many as six
to ten times as many people as
Stalin did.
If it upsets you that I’m appearing to defend forced labor, and the many
deaths that it caused, just remember what the costs would have been - while
fighting the Nazis - to allow people to go days or weeks at a time without
working.
First off, they would starve to death, because working was necessary for
them to survive, even independently. Remember that survival is the main objective here, which requires both material
sustenance and physical protection. And in that spirit, secondly, in the face
of impending Nazi invasion, some of
these people’s labor would have to
benefit the state, and its war effort, if the Soviet citizens were to expect
adequate protection by the Red Army, and/or to expect to be able to perform effectively
as a soldier in it.
This idea helps explain why the Soviets treated people who refused to
work as if they were Nazi collaborators. People who refused to work were not
only harming themselves by avoiding
the efforts necessary to be self-sustaining; they were deemed to be effectively cooperating with the Nazis,
because they refused to let the product of at least some of their labor go to fund the armament of the nearest armed
agency that was willing and able to physically protect them from Nazi
aggression (i.e., the army of the
U.S.S.R.).
The deaths which resulted from forced labor which occurred under Soviet
control are not horrors of Stalinist totalitarianism; they are sacrifices which
should and must always be remembered and mourned. Keep in mind that Stalin
embarked upon the Five Year Plan to rapidly industrialize the U.S.S.R. knowing
that Germany would eventually find itself in war with Russia, war with itself,
or both. Much of the product of people’s labor did indeed end up in the hands
of the state, and to some extent that is a betrayal of Marxist principles.
However, the strength of the Soviet war machine – technologically flawed though
it may well have been – turned out to be the source of the strength and protection of the
Soviet people (if we’re talking about the moment it mattered most).
Whether they liked it or not, people who died from being worked to death under the
Soviet regime, gave their lives to the cause of producing enough armaments and
produce to help a hundred million Soviets survive in the face of Nazis’ threats
of death. The Nazis, whom – by the way – attacked the Soviet Union first; and initiated the conflict in the first
place.
In order to protect large numbers of people from grave threats to life
and limb during wartime, it is sometimes necessary for some people to die
without wanting to, so that others may live. It’s not something that has an
ethical resolution, but then again it’s not something that we ought to expect to be able to resolve ethically.
Maybe it’s not so crazy to suggest that, if the cause of a war is just, and if
people must die in it besides the enemy, the allies who contributed the least to defeating the
enemy, are at least an acceptable (if
not preferable) loss, compared to the costs we would incur in failing to
defeat that enemy.
[Note: You can read more about my views on forced labor in my articles “Reflection
Upon the Use of Forced Labor Camps by Anarchists and Communists”, and “The Gulags Were
Less Harsh Than American Prisons Are”, which can be found at the following links: http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/02/reflection-upon-use-of-forced-labor.html and
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-gulags-were-less-harsh-than.html
III. How Stalin Tricked Hitler with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
By
most any and all measures, what Stalin did to protect his people and
hang onto power, was not as bad as – and, in many cases, was both
necessary and objectively better – than what Hitler did in order to
achieve those same goals for himself.
Not
only did Stalin succeed in commanding his army to occupy most of
Berlin and Western Germany, and in forcing a Nazi surrender; he also
succeeded
in tricking
Hitler with
the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which allowed Stalin to lead Hitler into
this trap in the first place. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was also
known as the “Nazi-Soviet pact” to “carve up Poland” between
Germany and Russia.
However,
this pact was not
a
military alliance (at least not explicitly), although many people
believe that it was. The pact
was merely an agreement establishing friendly trade, and
non-aggression and non-intervention concerning one another's military
affairs. Additionally, the idea that any formal,
explicit military alliance took place between Hitler and Stalin is
false. The only remotely “military” aspect of the
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, pertained to establishing a state of
non-aggression between the two countries, and to preventing each
country from working with each other's enemies. The Soviet Army did
train
German military units; but this stopped
in 1933, the year Hitler took power, so the idea that the Soviets
provided direct military assistance to the Nazis is also false.
True;
Poland
was practically reduced to the status of a Soviet buffer zone against
Nazi aggression in the process of its occupation. And true, the
boundaries which were delineated in the Molotov-Ribbentrop
agreement did serve
to mark the maximum extent of the spheres of influence of Germany and
the U.S.S.R. in Polish territory (and, in that sense, allowed the
Soviets to move troops in). But this was at least as much a blessing
for the Polish people as it was a curse.
The Polish had
recently been at war with each
Germany
and the Soviet Union, and thus
were not initially prepared to accept Soviet orders even if it meant
better protection from the Nazis - did
benefit, on the whole, from the protection afforded by Soviet
occupation.
What
Stalin did, objectively served a more protective and peaceful purpose
than what Hitler did.
We
hear horror stories of people sent to work in the cold, far east of
Siberia. Why do you think Stalin sent people to Siberia? Yes, to
sentence them to several years of harsh labor. But that labor served
to support the war effort in part. Additionally, sending people far
to the east in Russia, also served the purpose of getting
those people physically far away from the front line so the Nazis can't hurt
them; to a place where the Nazis couldn't reach them unless they attempted a full-scale invasion of all of Russia.
Stalin even authorized the creation of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast
region in Siberia. Relocating people to the East was strategic, in the same way that relocating factories had been strategic; protecting them from the Nazis.
While
the Soviet Union's occupation of Poland was not initially welcome, it
served not only a “buffer zone” purpose for the Soviets; it
allowed the Poles cover from the Nazis. Furthermore, the Soviets
protected the Polish people from their own hubristic government,
which thought its army capable of protecting against the Nazi armies'
advance. They needed the Red Army's help and were ashamed to admit
it.
Don't
forget, though; all of this happened immediately after - and as a
result of – mass attempts at Nazi appeasement. Not just by the U.K.
and France, regarding Czechoslovakia. Nearly every country
in Europe attempted to appease
the Nazis. The King of Belgium even gave his troops an order to stand
down as the Nazis drove through his country, bypassing the Maginot
Line in the northeast of France.
So
blame Stalin for bargaining with Hitler if you must; the Soviet Union
was the last
significant player in World War II to attempt to bargain with Hitler.
Moreover, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact allayed Hitler's concerns about
a possible Eastern Front building up between Germany and Russia,
which allowed Hitler to prepare for his attacks against the U.K. and
France.
Don't
get me wrong – Britain and France were American allies, and fought
Hitler alongside the U.S. – but agents in Britain and France had
both attempted to
appease fascists. France had just recently been governed by the
fascist Daladier, the racist Churchill made attempts to cooperate
with Mussolini and Franco (albeit against Hitler), and Wallis Simpson
was eyeing the British throne while at the same time having an affair
with Nazi diplomat Joachim von Ribbentrop.
Americans
attempted to appease fascists too. I have already addressed above, the role which American business interests played in the construction of the forced-labor-camps-turned-death-camps in and around Auschwitz. But moreover, American authorities allowed the Nazi-sympathetic German-American Bund to march in Grafton, Wisconsin; and even to hold a rally at Madison Square Garden on February 20th, 1939.
Franklin D. Roosevelt repeated his
“I hate war” slogan that got him elected. At this time, 84% of Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the war. The 1938 Evian Conference to
address the global refugee crisis (which F.D.R. called for) failed to
provide for an adequate accommodation to mass displacement of Jews.
Additionally, Roosevelt's mother, his vice president Harry Truman,
and his advisor Henry Stimson, were all anti-Semites. Henry Stimson,
in fact, advised F.D.R. to refuse to allow a ship full of Jewish
refugees, the M.S. St. Louis, to dock on American shores in 1939.
They had been sold fraudulent disembarking passes by people in Cuba.
Canada accepted some refugees, but 300 of the 900 passengers returned
to Nazi-occupied Europe.
The
Americans, the British, the French, and the Soviets could all be said
to have attempted either appeasement, non-aggression, and/or friendly
trade with Nazi Germany; and/or to have attempted to cooperate with
the Nazis' fascist allies, evidently in order to try to work with
some fascists to destroy others. But given Germany's size and
industrial output, it was inevitable
that the Soviet Union would make Germany into its trading partner, at least temporarily (and moreover, the U.S.-German volume of trade was higher than the Soviet-German volume of trade in 1940).
But also, it was inevitable that Germany and the Soviet Union would go to war with another, after trading peacefully for a time. The large border between Germany and the U.S.S.R. which existed only after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact went into effect, allowed Stalin to create a war front where there needed to be one (because Stalin knew that Hitler was up to no good), while before the pact went into effect, there was no border between Germany and the Soviet Union.
Unfortunately for Poland, however, the creation of a battle front between Germany and the Soviet Union meant that Poland would temporarily disappear from the map. But Poland stood in the way of the Soviet destruction of the Nazis. And fortunately for the Soviet Union and its protectorates (which includes Poland), the Molotov-Ribbentrop allowed Stalin to
maintain an air of neutrality concerning Germany's military affairs, while the Soviet Union continued to benefit from Germany's sale of resources to it, which were crucial to the
maintenance of the Soviet
war machine. Which was essential to the destruction of the Nazis.
The
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact thus allowed the Soviets to buy time to
prepare for Hitler's eventual betrayal of the pact. In the meantime,
vital industrial operations which could not be allowed to fall into
the hands of the Nazis, were moved East. We are told in the West that
Stalin was taken off guard by Hitler's betrayal, but it is quite
possible that the Molotov-Ribbentrop was an ingenious ploy by Stalin
that he was counting on
Hitler to eventually betray. Which could allow Stalin to trap him.
And
so, perhaps it was worth it for Stalin to buy his large number of
Soviet subjects a little temporary safety, while through little fault
of Stalin's own, Hitler would shake the relatively smaller
populations of Britain and France like a hornet's nest, in a tragic
act of payback for their attempts at appeasement of the Nazis (which were more enthusiastic and consequential than the Soviets', and not intended as tricks). Maybe that was the
only way that Western Europe could have been stirred into action, could
have resolved to end their appeasement attempts and start fighting,
could have accepted Stalin's help
despite their fear of Communism, in the name of defeating their mutual enemy, the Nazis.
Maybe
that's the only way that such a united front could ever have been
built up against Hitler in the first place. Maybe Stalin knew exactly
what he was doing by making the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The
“Nazi-Soviet pact to carve up Poland” should not scare us
anywhere near as much as the fact that nearly 20 European countries
attempted some form of non-aggression, trade, or appeasement policy
towards the Nazis and/or their allies. Not just Russia, not just Britain and France, not just America; eighteen or more European countries and the U.S..
Regarding
the aftermath of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Woody Guthrie sang that
if he were a Polish farmer, he would have been glad if the Red Army
came in. In my opinion, Poland should have agreed to become a
protectorate of the U.S.S.R. as soon as possible.
Why should it have formed an alliance with the U.K., which was much
farther away from Poland than Russia is? From a purely logistical
perspective, that arrangement could not have been effective.
Guthrie
also said at the time that Stalin was trying to figure out whether
the Nazis or the liberal democracies of Western Europe were going to
try to devour the Soviet Union first; and whether Fascism or
democratic capitalism was a bigger threat to Communism. After all,
they were both equally hostile to the Communists.
Recently,
conservative American viewers of Fox News were wrongly told that the
Japanese imperialists who allied themselves with Hitler were
“communists”. Americans are told to be fearful of Communists and
Nazis, almost as if they were the exact same thing. This, of course,
neglects the fact that during the most recent major world war, they
were enemies to the death, and also the fact that the conflict between them is continuing; just in other forms.
Americans
are told that Stalin killed on the basis of nationality, just like
Hitler. That is not true; Stalin may have ordered killed military
officers on the basis of what
country they fought for (and refused to stop
fighting for when captured), and also prominent people who were
leading nationalist uprisings within the Soviet Union, thus
undermining it and risking collaboration with the Nazis. But those
executions had a purpose; protecting the Soviet people from political
influence from the outside world.
It
may seem cruel and totalitarian to us to shield your people from outside
political influence, but remember that this occurred at the time of
the Anti-Comintern Pact. The Soviet Union was, at that time,
surrounded by sixteen different capitalist enemies (in Eastern Europe, Japan and the U.S., as well as neighbors in the Middle East, etc.).
Outside political influence on the Soviet Union would have meant the
collapse of the U.S.S.R., and the deaths of many Soviet subjects as a result. But deaths increase after any regime ends; when the U.S.S.R. collapsed (and submitted to capitalism), caloric intake declined, and alcoholism and suicide rates increased. Additionally, the Soviet Union had a larger population than any other country in
Europe at the time (and still does), so there were a lot of people
who need protecting; particularly including
in comparison to those in Western Europe who were targeted by the
Nazis while the Soviets were preparing for the Nazi invasion.
The deaths of Britons, Frenchmen, Czechs, and others at the hands of the Nazis are regrettable, but the alternative would have been that the Soviets would have had to fight the Nazis on their own. Not that the Soviets wouldn't have won that war eventually; it just might have taken much longer without help from the British, French, and Americans.
Moreover - without American, British, and French assistance to the defense of the U.S.S.R. - it's possible that those three powers might have even joined the fascist against the Soviets. It may sound dubious, but the British and French handing Czechoslovakia over to Hitler - and other appeasement moves, as well as Churchill's arguably genocidal actions in Bengal and Kenya, and attempts to reach out to Mussolini and Franco, whom were at times allied with Hitler - should suffice as ample evidence showing how far Britain and France were willing to go to keep Hitler happy (or at least for the first year or two of the war).
And can you imagine what would have happened, if Stalin had tried to demonstrate his resolve against the Nazis, by having the Red Army attack the Nazis first? What makes you so sure that the U.K. and France wouldn't have treated such an attack as an initiation of aggression against the Nazis? Until such an attack by the Soviet Union were to happen (and it didn't), a British-French-Nazi pact would not have been out of the question. That is, provided that the Nazis would have been able to make their case to the British and French that the U.S.S.R. had attacked Germany without provocation.
But the fact of European appeasement of Nazis, should not be construed to excuse the Americans' relentless self-congratulation for helping to win World War II. That's because this self-congratulation is mainly done to applaud the imperialist, fascistic, pro-capitalist, and anti-communist aims which have been pursued by the United States and the United Kingdom since the very day the Allies celebrated victory over the Nazis.
Once the Nazis surrendered, Churchill immediately began conspiring to order the killing of Stalin, the hero of World War II who commanded the Red Army to march towards Eastern Germany while Hitler cowered in his bunker contemplating suicide. Stalin, having won World War II almost single-handedly, was reduced right back to persona non grata, the moment that the European front of the war was over.
Based
on an Improvised October 18th,
2018 YouTube video
entitled ““Stalin Killed More Than Hitler”
Borders on Holocaust Denial”
Edited and
Expanded Version Published on April 30th, 2019
Edited and Expanded on May 1st, 2019
Links Added on May 1st, 2019
Edited on May 2nd, 2019
Edited and Expanded on May 10th, 2019
Meme Added on May 10th, 2019
