By - Vin135mm
Your post has been removed for the following reason:
Rule 9: Meme is a low quality post. (See extended rules for a definition and a list.)
I am a bot and this action was performed by the moderators of /r/HistoryMemes.
If you have any questions or concerns about your post's removal, please send us a modmail with a link to your removed post.
Makes me wonder how these three would compare if Pol Pot was in control of a country the size of Russia or China. Within four years, his leadership lead to the death of 25% of Cambodia's population.
Depends in which year but if it was USSR, well that might as well be the end of the world, imagine what someone like him would do with nukes.
*Hey, those guys in Europe are wearing glasses!*
According to r/GenZeDong Stalin and Mao were the next Jesus
Even Socialists can't stand that sub
That shit ain't socialist, it's communist.
It goes even further, it’s straight up Stalinism
So an extreme for of the already extreme ideology that is communism.
i’ve always wondered what people think the difference is. i self identify as a socialist because i just think the word rolls off the tongue better but Marx and Engels made no distinction between socialists and communists. what do you think?
Liberals will say communism is a more extreme authoritarian form of socialism, and socialists will say its the hypothetical end goal of socialism: a stateless, classless, communal society. You see both meanings get used commonly and it can be rather confusing and lead to people talking past eachother.
As someone who dips in and out of Communism, ot's the end goal.
Do you want a world without states, class, and money? You may be a Communist.
Do you want a world where industry is controlled by the workers within that industry instead of a state or business owners? You may be a Socialist who *isn't* a moron.
Do you want a world where all industry is owned by the state "on behalf of the People"? You may be a Corporatist, which is a form of fascism laid out by Mussolini and utilised by the heroes of GenZedong.
Minus that last point which I included out of spite, that's pretty much the difference as per theory. The issue is the practice tends to go...Corporatist...shall we say...
I'd argue it tends to go corporatist because most countries rhay go socialist must modernize QUICKLY and the best way to do that would be central planning corporatism which leads to alot of issues.
It would be far easier for say the us to become your idea for socialist since it's completely developed.
As much as I agree with that as a possibility, I think there is more to it.
Instances like Kronstadt, the Free Ukrainian Territory, the Korean People's Association of Manchuria, basically any attempt to put more power in the hands of the workers...so y'know, the whole point...has been attacked and repressed by those who want power *over* the workers.
These examples were used because, to the best of my knowledge, they weren't special; they were no more advanced than the vanguards that shot at them. Power dynamics, and dogmatic adherence to theory, definitely has a major role I'd say.
for Engles and Marx Socialism is the means, Communism is the ends.
unfortunately those two words have acquired so many extrea meanings the original definition is almost worthless, and no one outside the left knows what the difference between a Social Democrat, a Mao's third worldist, a Marxist-leninist, and an Anarcho-Syndicalist is.
it's all buzzwords now.
by my understanding, Engels and Marx never used the “socialism is the transition”. I’m pretty sure that was Lenin.
and if that was the definition of communism vs socialism, how does that translate to communists vs socialists. do socialists only believe in the transition state and not the end goal?
ask 4 Socislists, you'll get 20 answers and 5 parties. we don't even know anymore.
And they will spend their entire life arguing about it while the world burns.
Thays modern socialists though the past socialists were movers
Socialism in itself isn't a transition state, it's just the fact that you have a government that restricts economy to provide basic needs for everyone and prevent exploitation. Socialism can be had without any communist goals. The socialist transition state of Marxism-Leninism included heavy cultural authority to forcefully re-educate the people so they could one day live in a communist society by themselves without authority forcing them to adhere to certain ideals. Basically they were grooming sheep if you wanna call it that. Most leftists (including many communists) despise this cultural authority. It's awfully similar to the cultural authority used by conservatives and fascists. It's not letting people live freely and only oppressing oppression like it should be, it's creating a theoretical perfect citizen and punishing everyone who's too far from that ideal. ML doesn't just erase economic individualism like socialism should, it also erases social individualism, which is unacceptable in my opinion.
I personally consider myself a libertarian democratic socialist. I want a society in which a government only uses authority to oppress oppression (as the paradox of tolerance requires) and fulfill democratically chosen basic needs with a voluntary incentivised work force. A private market can exist outside of those basic needs, but it has to be heavily regulated so it's based on craftsmanship and artistry, not manipulation of the consumer or exploitation of the environment. Of course that government should act as directly democratic as possible and can be out out of office at any time by the people. There has to be a constitution however protecting non-oppressive minorities from oppression by the majority.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't be fine with a communist or anarchist society, but if that means forcefully grooming people by dictating their culture and social life until they're ready for that society, then I'd rather let humans stay imperfect and rebellious and create a fair system for those humans.
It's so diluted and between countries the definition even varies I find
I don’t know where you are from, but in many places in Europe at least there has politically been big differences between them. Here in Finland Socialist and Communist hated each other. I don’t think it’s worth going back to Marx for a definition when socialism has been in use for a quite a while as it’s own term.
but were those socialists really socialists? or were they just socdems and liberals pretending to be more radical than they were
Socialism just means "when the only people allowed to own capital are the people who directly use it as part of their labour."
The big one people always argue about is communism, but the most accepted definition for it (much to the chagrin of 14 year olds whose rebellious phase for some reason involves simping for a murderous ideology) is a complete nationalisation of all industries, and them being run via a planned economy.
so do you propose that anarcho-communism is impossible since communism (in your opinion) requires complete nationalisation?
No, I propose that anarcho-communism is impossible for more than 2 months because once you achieve a classless and stateless society, nobody has the authority to prevent a resurgence in private property rights being respected.
Ultimately, ancoms will either have to make their peace with the fact that some people like private property rights and they'll learn to live in panarchy (the good ending), or it'll descend into a totally-not-warlords-trust-us situation. It all depends on whether they're on the left because they want to help the poor or because they want to hurt the rich.
Socialism is whatever Scandinavia does, communism is whatever the USSR does.
That's not how words work. Tankies are authoritarian socialists. Communism is something else entirely, even if tankies like to claim they're communists.
I'm a communist and fuck that place.
Online socialist/communist groups are all a bunch of kids who fell into a group and compete to be the most IT. The problem is that their idea of IT stems not from their moral base, or their ethical core values, but from what they think IT is. And they look at people waving red flags to see what IT is, and the people who waved the red flags the best were USSR, China and a few other places run by irredeemable cunts.
So they think do that but more.
And no bro, do that much less!
Like, what possible ethical core values could lead you to be socialist or communist that also led you to deny/celebrate the Holodomor?
My core values include a desire for all people to be free and happy and for everyone to ensure everyone has enough, because everyone deserves enough. That's why I think socialism is the best route to get there. And I think the closer to communism you can get, as impossible as it is, the better.
But how do you justify Stalin just murdering everyone? You'd have to think that actually you should oppress and exterminate anyone who opposes your plan so that your nation can become strong.... which.... Well there is a term for that and it isn't socialism....
I can't see a parallel between any core values that would lead you to socialism and lead you to the shit tankies do. That's how you can tell they chose a team and justified it afterwards. And that's dangerous because they could have chosen another tram just as easily, and have no qualms about going there as long as they feel like they're winning the political sports game.
That's literally what communism is tho. This is like saying "I'm a nazi but the whole holocaust thing was too much".
Nothing about communism leads you to the holodomor.
Fascism leads you to the holocaust.
Like the nazis were bad before the holocaust, you get that right?
>Fascism leads you to the holocaust.
Lol no, naziism does.
How does this place exist? I read so many LGBT posts talking about things like trans rights, then the next second I see them praising China and Russia. How do these people not understand that simple discrepancy? China and Russia despise the LGBT movement, what’s their logic there?
It simply doesn't fit their narrative. Just like with any extremist they come with altered history, or declare it a lie
China doesn't actually despise the LGBT movement. Actually one of the most famous media personalities (can't remember his name) is transgender.
Its more so that the culture doesn't really accept anything else than the social norm and therefore being LGBT is looked down upon but its slowly changing
I agree that China might be forced to change opinions on LGBT in the future (a prominently male population might be a little gay in the future). After a little bit of research, it seems like China is a little more tolerant than I believed, but not vocally, maybe more accidentally or out of necessity. It's like they don't want to allow the LGBT community to thrive, but they worry what shutting it down could do to their gender skewed population.
It seems like most policies remain silent on the issue, but when they are vocal, it is against groups like the Trans community. There are policies in place, like banning media where a character is unclear as to what their gender is (including BotW Link, or Genshin Impact ironically enough). Xi Jinping seems to want to shut down any form of counter culture, so policies are being put in place to slow down ways for the LGBT community to grow or express themselves.
Reading about Jin Xing is interesting. I'm curious if that is genuine acceptance from China or some sort of, "I have a black friend, so I can act this way." sort of behavior. Or maybe she got too popular for China to pull the trigger on her yet? Definitely worth keeping on eye on her career in the future.
They are largely under the impression that most western news regarding China are simply Lies. they point to times the news has screwed up like the safety harness thing that got passed around as a public hanging, and rationalize that if that's wrong other stuff can be too.
it's simple really, the disaffected, the disillusioned, and the distraught, when things are shitty people want to find a way to feel like it could be better. it would be reductive to call it "the same" process that turns edgelord teens into neo-nazis, but its not dissimilar. but the core of it is born from a genuine anger at the system that is failing us, they just want to feel like someone has the answers.
now personally I find them a hell of a lot more tolerable then the fucking nazis, but I'm at least nominally "on their side" so biases etc.
So glad that place is gone, they were a disgrace to socialist ideals
Tbh you should see r/communism and r/communismmemes
Those two are just like that sub, plus they have the mindset of ‚every western news propaganda‘ and ‚china has the only accurate news‘ a few of them also support Putin which is hilarious cause I am pretty sure that his goal isn’t communism and he is an imperialist
They're oppositionally defiant. Regardless of who or what it is, if America hates it, it's good. NATO is western imperial oppression, so anything that NATO opposes must be righteous liberation of the people.
Anti-NATO groups are my favorite. As much as they hate it, the moment a russian or any kind of bomb is flying over their head, they would be the first to cry. We are seeing it in real time what can happen to country without NATO
I often ask peaceniks which hegemony they want. We see what Russia is like, we see what China is like, and we see what the US is like. Opposition and criticism are two different things, I'll make that clear. But if you're against NATO, then you're either dangerously ignorant or you want to see China or Russia gain global hegemony.
We can clearly see that Russia can't pull that off, the past couple of months have shown that pretty well. We don't truly know about China, since they haven't tried to project power by force on the global stage yet. Either of them are bywords for human rights abuses and while the US definitely has its share of skeletons in its closet US citizens can freely discuss and criticize those skeletons openly and get rewarded for it, not thrown in prison or worse.
The argument that we should just "stop war" is childishly absurd. Yes, that's ideal, champ. Now go play with your toys, the grownups are having grownup time. Si vis pacem, para fucking bellum. If we stop projecting global power, that isn't going to make Russia or China follow our shining commitment to the ideals of peace, its going to create a void that they will fill with Grad rockets and dead civilians. We're watching that scenario play out before our eyes on TV.
The funniest part to me that NATO is defense/war preventation pact. If you are advocating for peace, then you are pro nato practicly
Sometimes I would just wish that we as humans or more our governments and politicians could see past their stupid fights over ideology and country borders
I wish that some time in the future if humanity still exists we will have grown enough to unity all countries as one and work towards prolonging humanity
I bit unrealistic but one can dream right?
We had some signs for something like that at the start of the Ukraine war a sort of pan-European mindset that we are united but sadly that is fading away again
War sucks. I've seen it firsthand, and when I was younger I participated in it. I wish it weren't necessary, but there's always someone who wants to use force to achieve what could have been achieved diplomatically. There's also always someone who is doing reprehensible things and will not be stopped except by force.
In ideal world we wouldn't need it. But the world isn't ideal, and we need it. I wish it weren't so, but if it has to be, we may as well be the best at it.
>I often ask peaceniks which hegemony they want.
>We can clearly see that Russia can't pull that off,
Its kinda interesting that in a lot of cold war era science/speculative fiction, that despite all of the Russia stuff, most writers though that it would be US and China hegemonies competing in the future.
As if socialism was respectable in the first place.
ah yes socialism understander has appeared.
you people always frequent PCM. God damn.
Ah yes the socialist simp.
You professional redditers always go through peoples history. Didn't mean to annoy you that much bud.
Why's that sub look like anarchy what am I even looking at?!
Just absolute free speech. Wouldn't be suprised if twitter was transformed into something like this
I'm sorry what even is this sentence. you know who just bought Twitter right?
Yes. And he wants to "uncensor" it. Which either means actually uncensorig, or just censoring stuff that he don't like.
okay you are right on the second one so follow the logic train... Elon hates leftists because we keep calling his ideas stupid (they are)
so how will Twitter become a genzedong style hellscape again?
Because he will enforce free speech and not punish people for saying racist or insane things.
And I'm sure electric cars will solve climate change on their own.
It would have rather far rigth groups. But god knows. Maybe he actually uncensors it as another extremely stupid idea of his
It would lose value overnight
There is a possibility. Musk can talk about free speech as much as he wants, he will just make a more public 4chan if not 8 chan
My idea is if it becomes anything like 4chan other companies will slowly start to leave it as the house minority or whomever will incite that only "hateful" people use Twitter.
Nonsense! I could rack a higher kill count any day!
I got banned from that sub, greatest achievement in my life
not really, these dumbasses can ban you simply for being in a pro-west/anti-china subreddit, or making any shitty fucking joke that either doesn't portray the West negatively or China positively
Apparently I am permanently banned lol
Hitler: least kills, most brutal
Stalin: in the middle in regards to death, very brutal
Mao: most kills, brutal combined with utter incompetence
For some reason we’re literally making this a fucking contest
Part of our human nature, we just like to turn everything into a competition. For so many of us, measurement is meaningless without comparison (the one is effectively the other), and we humans need to measure in order to comprehend, get a grasp of something.
If Mao gets blamed for all the "kills" in China under his leadership Hitler should get blamed for all the European theatre deaths in WW2.
This argument is always based on minimising Nazi atrocities- well the Commies were just as bad.
By this metric Hitler is responsible for around 40-45 million deaths.
personally I agree with the metric if everyone who starved in China because it had just fought a civil war, a world War and a civil war, then got ruled by people who were more or less making shit up and it gets to be blamed on Mao, Hilter is at the very least responsible for the 20 aught million Soviets who died to his invasion.
Well you can blame hitler for that given that virtually all of the deaths in the European theatre were caused by his actions/his armies. God knows the Italians didn’t rack up a high kill count…their military kinda sucked
Enough mao apologia
In my last HOI4 game Italy had the most kills. Does that count?
That would have us delve into alternate history, would Stalin invaded Central Europe and caused a World War of communism vs west if Germany didn’t attack them?
In American politics it’s usually used as an argument against communism (which is weird because they end up siding with hitler?) but in a history sub you’d think the argument and joke would be old be now
No. Being against Communism doesn't mean you're pro Hitler or pro nazi. Let's step away from the liberal arts degree 12 year old logic once and for all. People are emphasizing Mao and Stalin currently because many young people are coming out of high school and college utterly ignorant of the horrors of Communist dictators. Hitler and the evils of nazism is already taught in abundance and constantly talked about. (rightfully so.)
TLDR: young people know about Aushwitz, but not the gulags.
EDIT: The memes constantly mocking Communism will stop when leftist groups stop pushing for Communism.
All through school we were hammered with the Holocaust, I'm friends with one of my teachers from high school and it bothers her still. **Why** the focus on the Holocaust, when the 20th century was **filled** with genocide? Yeah, we ought to learn about the horrors of Nazi Germany, but also lets talk about the Armenian genocide, the Soviet purges, including the Holodomor, China, Cambodia, Rwanda, that one wasn't even that old, that was happening, it was on the news, in color.
But no, we're gonna talk about Hitler, again.
For real, why does my being passionately anticommunist make me a Nazi? I'm a Jew. I'm a question they want to "solve". Going to Dachau and having the thought of "but for 50 years' difference, this could have been you" in your head the whole time makes one pretty anti-Nazi. I'm concerned about the modern kind of Nazi too. Don't like them either, they still want people like me dead.
Zoomer and millennial leftists are insufferable and their ideology has some horrific implications, implications we've seen carried out across so much of the world. And it's always been couched in trying to good. But when good comes with a red banner attached you're gambling with the lives of millions. I know people who survived the gulags. I've personally worked with people who were victims of Soviet repression both indirectly through Warsaw Pact puppets and directly through the abuses of the Red Army.
Soviet hands are poison that infected every gift they gave.
Sobering words. The soviets talked about how they knew they could never defeat the U.S. in a direct confrontation. Kruschev and others talked about how they planned on defeating the U.S. from within by dividing the people and pitting them against one another. Racism is a huge way to do it. I feel like our society peaked as far as race relations in like the mid 2000s and it's just been downhill ever since. More and more people are openly racist against whites, Asians, and Jews. I can't remember who said it (maybe Aristotle?), but it's like we're picking scabs that have long since closed and are reopening them only to feel the smart of an old wound turned fresh as the blood drops down, self-inflicted. The root of this increasing racism seems to be what the education system (primarily universities) are teaching young people. I can't help but wonder if these are Soviet seeds from decades ago that are finally sprouting to reveal their bitter fruit. I truly believe they (media/unversities) want there to be more racists. It feeds their narrative. Resisting the bubbling resentment and temptation to judge people based on how they look is going to be incredibly important moving forward. We need to keep viewing the individual as made in God's image.
There's a paraphrased Sun Tzu quote that a lot of people get wrong. "Divide and conquer". It has nothing to do with "splitting up your efforts" in the original text. It means split your enemy. Force him to work on multiple problems at once, so that he doesn't have the time to work on you.
Yuri Bezmenov wrote a wonderful short book called Love Letter to America. He detailed exactly what the KGB was doing to foment discord in the West, widening divisions of all kinds to destabilize the US. They knew Russia would never conquer NATO militarily, so they had to do it socially. Find the tiny cracks and pick at them until they become canyons. Watch the enemy crumble and win without firing a shot.
We're being wounded by a bullet fired in the 1930's and the most horrifying part is that we can't go after the source because the men who fired the shot died decades ago. All we can do is try to hold it together and hope that enough people see through the madness to be able to keep the dream of the US alive through this storm.
I'm a millenial and I'm so disappointed by my generation, and although I'm reading/hearing a lot of stupidity from zoomers as well--I'm also seeing more and more zoomers wake up. I don't have much hope for millenials waking up in time, but if we can get through this long enough generation alpha (millenial's children) will grow up and I honestly think they will reject leftism in a huge way after being raised by millenials and seeing the craziness first hand. The 'rubber band' effect is strong. But we may not have time for generation alpha to save us (Probably will just have to do it ourselves) if Biden, Trudeau, etc. have anything to say about it.
I'm genuinely astounded at how much sheer damage Biden has been able to inflict in such a short time. It's incredible.
This is just plain incorrect.
Kids learn about the Gulags, they also learn about the mass killings under Stalin, the Invasion of Afghanistan, etc. because the Soviets were our enemies during the Cold War, and the history curriculum was partly developed to boost patriotism.
furthermore, you are reframing the argument the parent comment was making, they weren't saying that everyone who calls out Stalin or Mao's death count is being pro-nazi, most are just parroting, however playing the "what about" game is a tactic hitler's apologists use to make him seem more favorable. yeah you can be anti-communist and anti-Nazi, but you'll forgive the Reds for not trusting you on that when the last time this debate got serious those people who didn't like either side, sat down, shut up and didn't do a damn thing while the Nazis seized power.
When I went to school, they taught us about the horrors of communist regimes. But the curriculums aren't covering that any more. I worked in the education system(printing workbooks and tests for local districts), and I saw what they are focusing on. There aren't talking about how how the communist regimes did horrible things, but rather why they failed(with an emphasis on "how could it be made to work"). Its concerning
I'm gonna go ahead and say no, they aren't. and play my ultimate trump card, I am a teacher. I have never heard of any state or national curriculum which says anything like what you say we are teaching.
now there isn't a unified national standard for history curriculum so it could be different where you live. but where I'm teaching the state standards are straight out of 1970 high of the cold war.
Uh huh. Sure. That's your opinion. Op's comment was poorly worded. We're interpreting the subtext differently. That's fine. This is what I find most interesting about your comment:
"you'll forgive the Reds for not trusting you on that..."
I'm not going to sugar coat it, this totally reads like it was written by a leftist. It's so easy to spot leftists because they are so infantile in their group-think mindset. They're very group oriented. It's their biggest strength and yet their biggest weakness. The "If you're not with us you're against us!" Shtick is so easy to spot. You don't get to insinuate that someone who literally is saying they are against nazism is a nazi. The fact that you aren't saying it openly doesn't make it any better, it just comes across as cowardly. Most people are anti-nazi AND anti-communist. We are the VAST MAJORITY. And it's not even close.
Oh and by the way... Communist whataboutism is world-famous, so although it doesn't surprise me that Nazis used it as well, let's not pretend that Communists aren't the OG whataboutism propagandists...
I'd argue Hitler was least brutal cause death by starvation is a lot worse than gas
Go look up Generalplan Ost. The Nazis turned Ukrainian and Belarusian cities into giant concentration camps, intentionally starving the population to death.
Okay, but Hitler literally created the environment that lead to the killing becoming industrialised. It became a death factory, whereas Mao and Stalin just had Ad Hoc killings(a lot of them mind you)
Gaslit cluebags like you were the first to go once your usefulness was spent during those 'adhoc killings' in the name of a fraudulent utopia that is only ever about total power. How is removing God/religion/higher ideals and reducing everyone except the elite to cattle status to be managed at the whims of the soulless not 'industrialized' killing?
Hitler was a chump change strawman and a temporary big fish in the globalist's useful idiot pond. We are not allowed to criticize true evil today.
I literally did not understand a word of that
because removing that stuff doesn’t actually kill pe- Ah fuck it who am i kidding you are probably a methhead from arkansas or some shit
Hitler started a war that killed 40 million people. (not counting Pacific theater deaths) just to satisfy his delusional dreams of restoring a fake Germany that never existed for a fake "master race" that he fundamentally misunderstood.
also being gassed fucking sucks, you don't just pass out, it's more like choking to death while feeling as sick as humanly possible to be, and your awake and suffering the entire time.
"Hitler: least kills, most brutal"
lol If that's the case I wonder why most of the people who survived WWII in eastern europe and Poland considered soviets to be much more brutal and barbaric then the germans, and besides you are the one who is ranking them so why complain about making this a contest?
This isn't any more useful than "both sidesing" less... extreme... ideological dichotomies. If you're going to bother comparing them at all, you absolutely can talk about the motivations for their actions and the geopolitical situation in their countries and say one is more or less justified given those factors. "Everything bad is the same, actually" is intellectually lazy and obscures any kind of lesson we might learn from their actions.
After reading the Dikotter series on Mao's China, I feel we underestimate the evil of Mao.
The Great Leap Forward is portrayed as simply a failed agricultural reform policy that just got out of hand. The fact that Mao deliberately used it to starve Tibet and kill 1/4 of its population in order to suppress their struggle for independence is somewhat overlooked.
Not to mention the CCP still exists and is as genocidal as ever while Nazi Germany and the USSR are both things of the past. (although with Putin in charge that second one is debatable)
Putin in no way is a communist. I sometimes am baffled by some people's "history" in a history sub
Putin does have a connection to the USSR, though, as he was a KGB officer prior to going into politics.
Correct. But he is incredibly open about decommunisation. No Russian or Eastern European older than 30 can possibly not have a connection to the USSR. Putin may be KGB but he's certainly not a communist
No, fuck that. Sorry, but I feel strongly about this. Bad people in history are not equally bad. I can't give you a concrete answer as to who is the worst, but they're all different levels of despicable depending on how you weigh their atrocities. Body count, brutality to each person, indirect harm and benefits, etc. Depending on that, they could trade spots in the top 4 (including Pol Pot, maybe top 10 if we add in other dictators) and in that way maybe they're overall equal. But the qay your first panel shuts down any discussion as if we shouldn't think too much leads me to my original point of fuck that.
ok yknow hitler is kinda like inserting a razor blade underneath your pinky fingernail and pushing it until it comes off, stalin is kinda like replacing the bones in your middle finger with rusty nails. and mao is kinda like if ya cut off the tip of the thumb and sprayed lemon juice into it.
you can argue which one was worse but your kinda missing the fucking point
And then there's Leopold 😏
Yeh it's like.... Once you get past irredeemably abhorrent it really doesn't matter who was worse.
Stalin killed more than Hitler, but Stalin had more time...... OK? Both go in the sea
This is the answer.
Pol pot is worst
Nah I'd say Hitler is still worse than Pol Pot, but in turn he is worse than Stalin or Mao.
Hitler had the best drip and speeches, Mao had the best songs and Stalin had the best luck. Combine the 3 and you have the most OP dictator in history.
Hugo Boss made some absolute banger uniforms for the SS. But they do look like literal cartoon villains, which is fitting.
Not enough crust, can you do a jpeg version of this.
Mao has the most kills but he commanded the largest number of people
Oh come on. It was Hitler he was the worst.
Mao and Stalin were dumber though, and it's not like Hitler was a genius.
I mean, say what you want about Stalin he didn't think the Tiger II was a good idea.
But he loved this guy, the dumbest "scientist" in the history of the world.
From that wiki
"Lysenko forced farmers to plant seeds very close together since, according to his "law of the life of species", plants from the same "class" never compete with one another. Lysenko played an active role in the famines that killed millions of Soviet people and his practices prolonged and exacerbated the food shortages."
Most sane take
No it isn’t. Not in the slightest. There’s a reason hitler is the most infamous. Hitlers kills were cold, calculating, efficient and methodical. The others simply allowed people to die through a mix of disdain and incompetence.
Ukrainian starvation was intentional. Tinetian starvation was intentional. Gulags were intentional, and any severe punishment for resisting collectivization was intentional
No you’re not getting it. There’s a difference between killing someone and letting someone die. Stalin didn’t waste time money and resources building infrastructure solely for the purpose of killing. Hitler went out of his way to kill people. Stalin put people in a situation where they’re likely to die.
Finally some fucking sense on this sub. Anybody who says Stalin is as bad as Hitler is diminishing the atrocities of the Nazis. Stalin was utterly brutal absolutely no doubt, but saying he was worse than Hitler is just stupid.
Ever heard of Stalin's great purge though?
Was that the systematic murder of 17 million people over a period of 12 year's total but in reality it was more like 4 years?
I'm fully on board that Hitler did all that, but that doesn't Stalin didn't go out of his way to implement a system for killing people, albeit on a smaller scale.
According to official figures there were 777,975 judicial executions for political charges from 1929–53, including 681,692 in 1937–1938, the years of the Great Purge.
Then there's The Katyn massacre, Holdomor etc.
After WWII, Stalin also ramped up his antisemitic rhetoric, and started the Anti-cosmopolitan campaign, where Jews were characterized as rootless cosmopolitans and were targeted for persecution.
As the other commenter said it, the great purge was about killing. And the gulag was not that different from a death camp.
And forced starvation is an intentional bad logistics
Jfc no it isn’t. I’ve already explained this to you twice now you clearly just don’t want it listen. If you want it continue to be ignorant and ignore the nuances of history be my guest.
"Nuanced": try to tell ppl that one genocide was worse than the other
I literally just explained *why* the methodology is worse. You can’t seem to listen. Has it not occurred to you why hitler is more infamous despite killing less?
I listened. It's just bullshit.
And hitler is more famous because germany lost the war while they started it. Japenese commited way, WAY worse atrocities, yet barely anyone knows about them, relatively. Or Pol Pot. "Popularity" and the severity of the atrocities aren't connected.
And the gulags are still the same infrastructure as the concentration camp. Being gassed because you can't work, or being shot in the head because you can't lift a shovel are the same shit in my opinion
> And the gulags are still the same infrastructure as the concentration camp. Being gassed because you can’t work, or being shot in the head because you can’t lift a shovel are the same shit in my opinion
Hitler kills you even if you can lift, even if you can work. Hitler had nothing to gain from it. It’s death for the sake of death. That’s the difference that doesn’t seem to get through your thick head.
Throw Churchill in there for what he did to India
It's not enough
"Wait, they're all genocidal scumbags who should have never been in power?"
"Always have been"
Same how people proclaim *insert empire* was worse then *insert empire*. Dudes they where all horrible
What a crock of horseshit. Mao killed most of his victims by accident of farming reform and this is “equally despicable” as starting wwii to do genocides on Jews, Slavs, tards, gays, pinkos, Roma, etc.?
"Accident" except the cause of said accidents were completely intentional.
This is how accidents work
You know what they say about coincidences. They take a lot of planning.
Mao still killed an incredibly amount of people willfully
forgetting the invasion of Tibet and the millions they executed and put into camps?
yes i also like random number generators
ah a tankie scum in the wild.
He literally said he was willing to kill half of his people because he still had so many left
Even discounting the famines(which may or may not have been intentional), the dude still had a penchant for brutality executing large swaths of the population
You would be surprised how many people defend communism on reddit. Though it's mainly young university kids who have never been close to communism.
Add churchill to the list
Finaly someone thinking the right way.
Nah. Hitler was on another level to Stalin or Mao. He created a systematic murder machine that killed 17 million people in a few years. Stalin and Mao had a complete lack of care for human life, but they were not genocidal maniacs on the level that Hitler was. Death toll isn't everything when you take into account how long they were in power, the population of their country and how many of those deaths were purposeful.
It's not about which one is morally worse, it's about who got the high score.
They really weren't though...different degrees of culpability
Okay but hear me out: the Soviets liberated Auschwitz. If Hitler had come across a Soviet death camp, would he have liberated it or told them to go faster?
Liberated or under new management?
I guess that's possible. I'm just skeptical that Russian occupation was any better given their history of pogroms and exiling Jews to that autonomous oblast in the Far East.
Liberated from a death camp to be send to gulag
Not op but i got u.
Hitler: killed a lot of people
Stallin: killed a lot of people
Mao: killed a lot of people
So did Bush or Churchill for that matter. Whould you call them genocidal maniacs?
I mean, you certainly could
Because America besht cuntry in the werld 🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷
best thing about aggressive wars on foreign soil is, it counts as self defense if enough people need your money.
Elaborate on what? What are you gonna do debate that they weren’t genocidal psychopaths
This ain’t it chief.
Well. I definitely don't agree with calling Mao a genocidal maniac, stalin is up for discussion and Hitler was a pice of shit
Don't you know that genocide means literally anything the person making the accusation means now?
Who is mao not a genocidal maniac he literally killed millions to keep power
Stalin’s Holodomor is debated but recently most historians that were on the side saying it wasn’t a genocide switched after some more documents got declassified that showed Hitler wanted to punish Ukranians
Hitler :- Starts Holocaust
Stalin:- ends Holocaust
Liberals :- I clearly find no difference
1. you can't really compare atrocities
2. the nazis actively murdered people, while mao was a huge idiot, he was responsible for the deaths, but he did not actively murder people, he starved them. Also the Nazis murdered people at a very high rate for a short period of time. The holodomor was a genocide.
3. It's true all those regimes were murderous, but I don't think it's fair to say contemporary socialists or communists shall be compared with Stalin or the soviet or Mao, while the far right is often okay with hating other ethnicities. You find more haters and people who actively support nazi ideals on the far right than on the far left.
4. The whole argument often hides some intention to "mitigate" the bad image of the nazis by putting them of the level of the soviets or mao, while arguing against medicare, socialism, redistributive policies by equating them with gulags.
the most sane r/historymemes user
I just searched your entire reddit post history and concluded that you're a virgin
although I shall not explain the circumstances, I am not actually a virgin
edit: but I don’t think you have had sex either with that history
Sundowner: Bullsh#t! War's just a part of who we are! Why fight it?
U watch mr.beat too huh?
I mean, it might just be more about the sheer scale of the atrocities, and the nature of the human rights violations compared with one another. Like, Stalin definitely had more people killed than Hitler, and it's interesting to talk about why we don't hear about that as much as the holocaust. I don't know anything about Mao. But its probably similar, if I were to guess.
>I don't know anything about Mao. But its probably similar, if I were to guess.
Pretty much, considering he pretty much copied Stalin's playbook.
Charles Taylor of Liberia was the most evil dictator of all time, change my mind
Stay away from r/socialism talking about Mao like that or they’ll ban you.
I would not call them equal since their kill count and their means and purposes were vastly different. Hitler was exterminating people groups who were seen as inferior on an industrial scale, Stalin on the other hand used starvation to remove his unwanted peoples and worked any political opponents to death, Mao was a mixed bag of incompetence and insanity.
Here are their kill counts for those interested
Y'all really don't understand why people think Hitler was worse than Stalin and Mao? Here's a couple of things to consider:
Yes, in total, Stalin and Mao have more lives on their hands - they ruled for longer, and they controlled countries many times bigger than Germany, with a much bigger population.
Now, why has Hitler worse? Because Hitler sought out to ethnically cleanse Europe. He designed factory-like camps to churn out as many corpses as possible thoughtout Germany and Poland. He had his own brigade who's sole purpose was to find, transport, and execute the people he literally called sub-humans. This wasn't just his megalomaniac idea, this was one of the center points of his ideology, an ideology MANY people shared and wanted to help carry out. The war he waged on Europe also caused many lives, a direct consequence of HIS actions.
Stalin and Mao also put people in prison camps, like political enemies, people they conspired against, etc, yes. They are not good people. They were psychotic dictators. But the millions upon millions of deaths attributed to them were because of dumb ruling, terrible planning and country management. We all know of the famine in China, which killed millions. Do you honestly, in your heart, believe that being a bad ruler who tries to revamp the agriculture and on accident kills millions, is as bad as purposely hunting down and killing particular humans in millions of numbers?
Furthermore, this meme is a part of a long line of anti-socialism and pro-fascism. Not saying OP is a fascist or nazi, but what you are doing is using the same rhetoric as nazi-apologists. These types of points are often discussed in right-wing circles when criticizing the left. First, you associate the left who wants health care, better wages, and basic respect for LGBTQ+ people and POCs, with communism, Stalin and Mao. Then you say that these people were as bad as Hitler (which they infact were not). Right there, you've both played down Hitler's evilness, and at the same time associated the left with radical, genocidal, dictators - making lefties "just as bad" as people on the right who flirt with fascist ideas. It's fucking dangerous, and I advice you to stop.
Out of all the posts in this comment section, I find yours perhaps one of the best. I don't know why people can't account intent, objective, scale, nor the modus operandi in their judgements of how unethical a crime was. The Nazis deliberately and intentionality carried out an initiative to exterminate entire groups of people, enslaving and subordinating them in the process.
Even in comparison to other settler-colonial projects throughout history, the Nazis far exceed their evil by creating an industrialized and institutionalized machine to murder as many people of a certain nation as possible. The Nazis targeted people for their inmutable characteristics, seeking to make their people functionally extinct.
Going back to my first comment, not accounting the overaching context of the situation and just looking at the body counts of a crime is a terrible moral framework. By that logic then the CSA would be less evil than the USA despite the fact the latter was explicitly founded for the preservation and expansion of chattel slavery.
If we don't look at the intentions of a crime then we'd let people get away with so much shit. If some dipshit decided to contaminate the water supply of their neighborhood to murder everyone in it and failed by only killing 5 people, I would still consider their crime worse than a burglar breaking into someone's house and killing 10 people in the process.
However, I disagree with the portrayal of the Holodomor and the Three Years of Great Famine as mere accidents by part of the Soviet and Chinese leadership. This logic is also problematic as it diminishes the degree of how indifferent these regimes were to human life; how obvious it was, and how many knew, about the harm their actions would cause; and how their actions were predetermined with that knowledge in mind, intentionally suppressing and murdering "subversive" groups, like nationalists, the critics of their governements, peasants, etc.
Nixon, Kissinger, Truman, Bush, Obama
See, at least Hitler and his crew were honest. They promised us an ethnic cleansing and, boy did they deliver.
Stalin - like every commie before or since - kept insisting that it's all being done for the greater good of the people. "You are being liberated. Spread your cheeks and do not resist."
The Nazis were not honest. They fabricated lie after like about the Jewish people, the "stab in the back" the "Judeo-Bolshevism" the "inevitable race war". All lies, with no basis in reality, created from thin air to justify genocide.
Don't try and make the Nazis ok, even in comparison to other evil groups. No comparison could make them moral.
And where did you get the "making Nazis OK" bit again?
I guess I was trying to say don't diminish (intentionally or unintentionally) Nazi crimes by comparing them to others but I said it in a sloppy way cause, sorry about that
The difference between someone who kills one innocent person and someone who kills zero is extremely large.
The difference between someone who kills one innocent person and someone who kills a million is small.
Murdering an innocent is already the most heinous thing you can do so you can’t go much further. Basically law of diminishing returns.
The thing is that the entire point of this argument is that it isn't a numbers game; if that were the case then the title for "worst dictator" would be an objective fact.
The point (mostly) is behind their levels of responsibility and methods. Hitler killed less people, but he built camps for the sole purpose of killing people as efficiently as possible, which is a whole other level of malice and intent than starving people to death or throwing them in run-of-the-mill prison camps.
Can we add Churchill to the list?