"Our Struggle": What If Hitler Had Been a Communist?

[CountofDooku]

It's the central question of the timeline, isn't it? To what extent does an authoritarian ruler being communist matter vs that dictator being fascist. In terms of external and internal reaction it obviously does but in terms of how they rule.

So we have a handful of people, Hitler, Goebbels and Guderian who are working within a communist germany whereas in otl they held positions of power within a fascist germany. We're following people who in otl devised and carried out the greatest mass murder in human history but in a timeline where the ideology driving them is not the one which encouraged such atrocities. The overwhelming question is does following a different ideology with different allies and different priorities save us from those atrocities or does it not. Was it their ideology or their character that drove this?

Communism is an interesting choice for this because it's not a political ideology that demands violence on the same scale as fascism does but it's also not a pacifistic philosophy, it's nature encourages class war and views violence as acceptable in that goal. We've already seen summary executions.

There have been authoritarian dictators who were marxists but would not have ruled that much different if they were fascists. Mengistu and his purge of the Ethiopian student socialists who had brought him to power comes to mind. If you are someone who has the power to commit atrocities one argument goes, you can justify that regardless of what your supposed ideology is, especially if your actual ideology is power. But fascism is innately violent in a way communism isn't so it produces more Mengistus.

I don't see Hitler ruling as OTL and the timeline flat our agreeing with popcorn that a nazi dictator and a communist dictator would run the country the same because well that's nonsense. But I also don't see him ruling as a complete saint (or why choose hitler) but rather some mixture of the two, where the change in ideology prevents anything like the shoah but he's still hitler and hitler's germany is still not a fun place.

Really now?

As someone who'se Jewish ancestors suffered under both regimes that is a statement not only hard to believe or swallow, but one I can't believe is even allowed here on this side for the same reason Holocaust denial should not be allowed here!

 

[CalBear]

It's the central question of the timeline, isn't it? To what extent does an authoritarian ruler being communist matter vs that dictator being fascist. In terms of external and internal reaction it obviously does but in terms of how they rule.

So we have a handful of people, Hitler, Goebbels and Guderian who are working within a communist germany whereas in otl they held positions of power within a fascist germany. We're following people who in otl devised and carried out the greatest mass murder in human history but in a timeline where the ideology driving them is not the one which encouraged such atrocities. The overwhelming question is does following a different ideology with different allies and different priorities save us from those atrocities or does it not. Was it their ideology or their character that drove this?

Communism is an interesting choice for this because it's not a political ideology that demands violence on the same scale as fascism does but it's also not a pacifistic philosophy, it's nature encourages class war and views violence as acceptable in that goal. We've already seen summary executions.

There have been authoritarian dictators who were marxists but would not have ruled that much different if they were fascists. Mengistu and his purge of the Ethiopian student socialists who had brought him to power comes to mind. If you are someone who has the power to commit atrocities one argument goes, you can justify that regardless of what your supposed ideology is, especially if your actual ideology is power. But fascism is innately violent in a way communism isn't so it produces more Mengistus.

I don't see Hitler ruling as OTL and the timeline flat our agreeing with popcorn that a nazi dictator and a communist dictator would run the country the same because well that's nonsense. But I also don't see him ruling as a complete saint (or why choose hitler) but rather some mixture of the two, where the change in ideology prevents anything like the shoah but he's still hitler and hitler's germany is still not a fun place.

The key to Hitler, and by extension, the 3rd Reich, regardless of his political polarity, was a deep, abiding hatred focused on a two groups, Jews and Slavs. Even his intense hatred of Communists was predicated on the (far from uncommon at the time) belief that Communist was identical to "Jewish" with a couple extra letters.

Where Hitler would have found serious problems would have been in harnessing the willing compliance of the German people in a Communist society. Hitlers rise to power, and his seduction of the German people was, effectively, a massive set of bribes. The Nazi Party sponsored vacations, held public events, and generally made the population believe, at a visceral level, that Hitler was actually leading them, as a special "race" into a land of milk and honey. German housewives ha access to labor saving tool and appliances at a remarkable rate, far beyond that found in much of Europe. The country, which had been economically destroyed just a few years earlier seemed to have pulled itself up by its bootstraps into prosperity, and the Party was the agency that had allowed it. This was, of course, a lie, a real world "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" but it was a good one and it made most of the population see Hitler as a positive figure.

A communist Reich would not have had that set of tools, or would not have thought to use them. Hitler's facade was based around bringing everyone up in wealth and prosperity. One of the most brilliant, and diabolical, tricks he played was the "Volks wagen " scam. The public would pay a few dollars a week/month into a subscription/savings account and hen the account reach the purchase price they could have their own car (private car ownership in most of the world at the time was miniscule). Of course none of the millions of Germans who sent in money ever saw a personal car out of it, the regime used that money as part of its nation-wide Ponzie scheme that made everyone think that things were vastly better than was actually the case. A communist dictatorship would never have even considered something similar, in fact the entire system was designed to eliminate personal wealth and private ownership.

tl;dr: Fascist are better at bribing people.

 

[Fleetlord]

Really now?

As someone who'se Jewish ancestors suffered under both regimes that is a statement not only hard to believe or swallow, but one I can't believe is even allowed here on this side for the same reason Holocaust denial should not be allowed here!

I think you're misunderstanding the statement: it's not that Communist dictators can't be as awful as Fascist ones, but that Communism in theory is an egalitarian ideology which does not require state violence (even though in practice the redistribution of wealth and power results in it), where as Fascism is an inherently exclusionary ideology ("our nation" vs. "those fuckers") which requires it by definition. (I suppose Salgado tried to come up with "peaceful fascism" but apparently even on paper it only lasted a year or so before devolving into anti-Semitism.)

 

[Diverge]

Really now?

As someone who'se Jewish ancestors suffered under both regimes that is a statement not only hard to believe or swallow, but one I can't believe is even allowed here on this side for the same reason Holocaust denial should not be allowed here!

I hate to break it to you, but that figure on Stalin is wrong. It can't be denied that Stalin killed a lot of people and no-one should ignore the atrocities that he committed, but 23 million people is far too large a figure. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exces...n_under_Joseph_Stalin#Total_number_of_victims) It's difficult to say for sure, but 10-20 million is far more sensible and even then possibly a little inflated, so it's actually quite possible that Hitler or even Leopold II killed more than Stalin.
No doubt this will lead some to assume I'm some kind of dismissive tankie apologist, but what can I say? I dislike the proliferation of false figures, call me whatever you like.

 

[Youngmarshall]

Really now?

As someone who'se Jewish ancestors suffered under both regimes that is a statement not only hard to believe or swallow, but one I can't believe is even allowed here on this side for the same reason Holocaust denial should not be allowed here!

That graph has hitler as responsible for the deaths of 17 million which is unambigously far too low. More than 20 million soviets died on the eastern front even if you ignore every other front of the war and the murders of pre war german citizens.

I think the other figures are equally incorrect but thats less important to me to correct.

 

[falcon]

I’ve seen quite a few listings of “victims of Communism” which include the SS among them, so I tend to be skeptical.

Seriously, who the fuck apologizes for Stalin and Hitler at the same time?

 

[wcv215]

That graph has hitler as responsible for the deaths of 17 million which is unambigously far too low.

The source noted on the graph is a website called "popten.net"

The first article on that site is about comic book movies, and is a top ten list. The second article is "Top ten Fantasy Football Sites." That should give you some idea of how much thought and research the poster put into it.

 

[CountofDooku]

The source noted on the graph is a website called "popten.net"

The first article on that site is about comic book movies, and is a top ten list. The second article is "Top ten Fantasy Football Sites." That should give you some idea of how much thought and research the poster put into it.

I actually just used the first Graph Google showed me, but seeing how the base statement is ignored to point out some inconsistency in a graph I puleld up to show what I basically meant tells me everything I need to know here...
I can change the image, my basic statement however remains correct and the quate I quoted has me therefore in serious doubt about it's intentions and views on history. Just because Stalin and Mao did not dare to bring their evil to other countries in fear of the Allies/ Western Powers and still kileld so many poor peaople of their own should tell you something. Mao openly said in a nuclear war China could survive and believed it to be a option should the Americans push to hard in Korea and other places, there is little more to know about such evil man and to believe just because Communism had more problems at home and more opposition after WW2 to do the same shit as to invade otehr countries, doesn't mean they didn't try or wish they could have done more. They might not have been driven by the same extermination plans then most Nazi's but overall they were not better in any way or form and to imply that by downplaying their evil liek the quoted post did is simply disgusting in my opinion, so I pointed it out. Either every evil mass murderer and tyrant is evil and needs to be stopped or someone is picking rasins because of hsi own political believes or other rather strange reasons, it's as simpel as that.

 

[Youngmarshall]

I actually just used the first Graph Google showed me, but seeing how the base statement is ignored to point out some inconsistency in a graph I puleld up to show what I basically meant tells me everything I need to know here...

Your base statement was that it should be a bannable offense to say that nazism is innately more violent as an ideology than communism and to prove that you showed figures which compared the deaths Hitler caused with the deaths Stalin and Mao caused.

The fact those figures are not remotely true and vastly vastly underestimate the real deaths Hitler caused is somewhat critical to the validity of your argument.

 

[CountofDooku]

Your base statement was that it should be a bannable offense to say that nazism is innately more violent as an ideology than communism and to prove that you showed figures which compared the deaths Hitler caused with the deaths Stalin and Mao caused.

The fact those figures are not remotely true and vastly vastly underestimate the real deaths Hitler caused is somewhat critical to the validity of your argument.

No my base statement (if you had read it correctly) was that any form of denial of past mass murder should be treated the same, I don#t care if the nazi's Communists or Turks (Armenia) did it to be honest. I do not diosagree that Nazi's is mroe openly violent or tries to eliminate other not based on wealth or class system but race and other criteria. AGAIN, I used the graphic as a pojnt to show what I meant the figures are therefore irelevant to the argument, I simply wanted to point otu how nonsensical and twisted it was to even imply they were and that tehreby one mass murdering evildoer is better or wors then the rest and that was clearly implied by the way the post was phrased, as wel las by the way some are picking rosins to point at numebrs instead of simpyly agreeing that no matter if Nazi, Communist or soemthing else these mass murdering tyrants are all evil, bad and always need to be stopped, no matter if they wage war across the globe or kill of their own people at home. If you read anything else inside my post you're clearly missing the point. I just pointed out that any form of denial or relativation of this crimes is disgusting to me and that it clearly shows there.

 

[wcv215]

I actually just used the first Graph Google showed me, but seeing how the base statement is ignored to point out some inconsistency in a graph I puleld up to show what I basically meant tells me everything I need to know here...

That when you don't know enough about the topic to not recognize when the "first graph Google showed" is actually complete and total bullshit that you'll be called out on it? Yes, that is what's going to happen.

Because here's the thing, it just being the first graph you found is NOT a defense, quite the opposite. And pointing out that you clearly didn't recognize that your graph was bullshit is not "some inconsistency", it completely undermines your ENTIRE line of reasoning.

 

[CountofDooku]

That when you don't know enough about the topic to not recognize when the "first graph Google showed" is actually complete and total bullshit that you'll be called out on it? Yes, that is what's going to happen.

Because here's the thing, it just being the first graph you found is NOT a defense, quite the opposite. And pointing out that you clearly didn't recognize that your graph was bullshit is not "some inconsistency", it completely undermines your ENTIRE line of reasoning.

Dude I worked at one fo the biggest German archieves for Holocaust memories and archives, simpl because I don't had the time to look twice at the graph. Like I said pointing out the graph does only increase my point since you care mroe about numbers and how it's portraied instead of agreeing that all those dictators and massmurdering ideologies are evil entirely. What does that say to me? is some ideology or idea better or worse in these crimes for you? if yes please tell me why, you facor a certain ideology or own political believe or what on Earth could be the reason for not completely and simply say yes all mass murdering tyrants are evil, as that was is and has always been my core statement in the quote...

 

[Youngmarshall]

I think all tyrants are bad, yeah. So if that statement is all you want, you've got it. it's bad to be a tyrant. Bad to kill civilians. Not a fan of that sort of thing.

Not entirely sure why you're going off at it but yeah happy to say that, don't think anyone disagrees.

 

[Swordploughs]

The new chart you edited in is also still pretty bad, given the numbers that far exceed / undersell general estimates, but this is the wrong thread for that.

 

[CalBear]

I hate to break it to you, but that figure on Stalin is wrong. It can't be denied that Stalin killed a lot of people and no-one should ignore the atrocities that he committed, but 23 million people is far too large a figure. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exces...n_under_Joseph_Stalin#Total_number_of_victims) It's difficult to say for sure, but 10-20 million is far more sensible and even then possibly a little inflated, so it's actually quite possible that Hitler or even Leopold II killed more than Stalin.
No doubt this will lead some to assume I'm some kind of dismissive tankie apologist, but what can I say? I dislike the proliferation of false figures, call me whatever you like.

All of the figures are wrong. Mortal lock, bet the family farm, the cow, and the wife and kids on it.

Why can I say that with absolute certainty?

No one can ever agree who the victims are/are not. To use a few really easy examples - Who was responsible for the deaths of 3.3-3.5 million Soviet PoW? Hitler, who had them in hand when they died or Stalin who refused to allow them to withdraw before encirclement. Flip the script, how about the 350-390K Wehrmacht PoW who dies in Soviet HandsHow about the Siege of Leningrad? 800K-1M died. Did they die because of the siege, making them Hitler's victims or because of Stalin thought that "soldiers will fight harder for a live city than a dead one" and refused to evac the civilian population despite there being ample time? For that matter, just look at the three examples I provided the actual accepted gap in fatalities themselves, without assigning blame, is well over 400,000 lives.

How many people died in the Holodomor? 3 million? 7.5 million? 12 million? Somewhere in between? The gap in estimated deaths, 9,000,000 from that single Crime Against Humanity exceed the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust and approaches the total death figures , for all victims (11 million, again a figure that has a wide variance itself), for the Nazi extermination camps and Einsatzgruppen.

The Post-war displacement of ethnic Germans from the East resulted in between 500,000 to 2,500,000 German civilian deaths, often in "displaced person camps" (including some straight up Nazi death camps repurposed to house the millions of the deports as the were shoved West? Who get the blame of them? Stalin, who flat out stole a third of Poland and gave the Poles a third of Eastern Germany in compensation? The Governments of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania? How about Churchill, who had discussed the relocation of Sudeten ethnic German with the Czech government-in-exile as early as 1942?

Whatever figure is attributed to the bastards in the graphic is too low, By how much? If you believe in God (and the Adversary) he/they know. Outside of them, throw out a number, it will be wrong, just like everyone else.

 

[the Imperium of Canada]

I mean Hitler might technically have a lesser body count then Stalin or Mao only because he was stopped before he could put his full plans into effect.

Stalin was a tyrannical monster, but at least he didn't decide to enact a full on Generalplan Ost but in reverse...

 

[CalBear]

No my base statement (if you had read it correctly) was that any form of denial of past mass murder should be treated the same, I don#t care if the nazi's Communists or Turks (Armenia) did it to be honest. I do not diosagree that Nazi's is mroe openly violent or tries to eliminate other not based on wealth or class system but race and other criteria. AGAIN, I used the graphic as a pojnt to show what I meant the figures are therefore irelevant to the argument, I simply wanted to point otu how nonsensical and twisted it was to even imply they were and that tehreby one mass murdering evildoer is better or wors then the rest and that was clearly implied by the way the post was phrased, as wel las by the way some are picking rosins to point at numebrs instead of simpyly agreeing that no matter if Nazi, Communist or soemthing else these mass murdering tyrants are all evil, bad and always need to be stopped, no matter if they wage war across the globe or kill of their own people at home. If you read anything else inside my post you're clearly missing the point. I just pointed out that any form of denial or relativation of this crimes is disgusting to me and that it clearly shows there.

And it is treated the same here.

The list of countries/genocides that have resulted in Banning is as depressing as it is impressive. I've personly Banned member for Justification of Genocide/War Crime Denial/Ethnic cleansing related to (not a complete list, just off the top of my head) The Congo, The Trail of Tears, Armenian Genocide, Holocaust, Holodomor, Rape of Nanking, War Crimes by Japanese, Nazi, Soviet, PRC, Italian, and Imperial German troops in the last couple years. Ian has probably added half a dozen more in Chat, and BKW and Dom have their own list of actions.

Justification of Genocide is One of the Eight Ways to Crash Land (which includes trying "well, how about... justification minimization). What isn't an instant ban is debating if Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot are the worst of the worst. For my money the absolute worst of the worst was the Reich, it was evil incarnate, stands alone based simply on the fact that the committers of the crimes treated it like going to work in an office typing business proposals and planning where to go for lunch, but that is my personal view.

What I've seen in the last couple pages is a version of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and much much does that number change if they are square dancers compared to Irish clogging.

 

[cortz#9]

IMO it doesn't matter who has the higher body count, Hitler, Stalin or Mao or their reasons for mass murder, Political or racial, it's like asking who was the worst serial killer, Dahmer, Bundy, Gacy?
If there is a Hell I'm sure they're all down there and I don't think they're on different levels of the place based on their numbers or their reasons for what they did.

 

[CountofDooku]

IMO it doesn't matter who has the higher body count, Hitler, Stalin or Mao or their reasons for mass murder, Political or racial, it's like asking who was the worst serial killer, Dahmer, Bundy, Gacy?
If there is a Hell I'm sure they're all down there and I don't think they're on different levels of the place based on their numbers or their reasons for what they did.

Amen to that!

 

[Kibbutznik]

IMO it doesn't matter who has the higher body count, Hitler, Stalin or Mao or their reasons for mass murder, Political or racial, it's like asking who was the worst serial killer, Dahmer, Bundy, Gacy?
If there is a Hell I'm sure they're all down there and I don't think they're on different levels of the place based on their numbers or their reasons for what they did.

The reasons matter when analyzing the ideology they claimed to follow.

This discussion started with a dispute concerning communism and Nazis, not Hitler or Stalin.