Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior
That's not a valid generalization. I think that you may find that many, if not most, Americans, given a choice between fighting on the "Nazi side" and fighting on the Stalinist (Soviet) side, would choose the Nazis -- after someone explained the facts to them (most Americans being clueless about both). IMO, while the Nazis were awful, Stalin was even worse. Most history that's still being taught today glosses over the fact that Stalin killed more Russians than all the people that Hitler and his Third Reich goons did.
|
Considering the base population and the time he had to do it, Stalin's record while far from nice is probably better than the nazis's. And one can give him credit for one thing : he was fairly egalitarian in his heavy-handedness. Basicially anyone looking like he might challenge his power got a ticket for Siberia.
I would also point that even if the goulag was a far cry from a picnic, he never went for the planified industrial extermination of embarassing minorities - rather he had them displaced and spread over the USSR while planting a strong russian minority to act as a bullwark against nationalist impulses.
If you want to find worse than the Nazis, I'd rather pin that medal on Pol Pot and his Red Khmers. If you compare the damage they did with Cambodia's population, especially considering for how long they were in power, Stalin is a amateur.