White Victory in Russia; Horrible?

I don't think anyone who can look at a population deficit of between 13 and 18 million and claim that 30 million is the most accurate number is in a position to call other estimates ridiculous.
You missed the part where I wrote : And then there are the dead between 1937 and 1953.

The declining birth rates alone would have substantially decreased the population growth and there was certainly a substantial reduction of birth rates both due to the famine and due to the increasing urbanization. For example, in Russia and Ukraine there was over 9 million decrease in births overall during this period when compared to 1926.Anyway, if the claim about 30 milion was even remotely true, birth rates would have collapsed even further, leading to a significant population decrease, not an increase.
Source?

On a sidenote: It absolutely shocks me how communist appologetia is rampant and that it is tolerated. All tricks and lies are used to minimize the number of vicitims slaughtered in the USSR, ridiculous excuses are used to justify millions of dead: "You know Stalin improved the lives of the people that surived his rule - by like a LOT."

With the same "logic" one could say: "You know Colonialism improved the lives of the people that surived its rule - by like a LOT." I doubt that such a statement would be treated as leniently as Stalinist appologetia.
 
Last edited:
You missed the part where I wrote : And then there are the dead between 1937 and 1953.
These are even more unlikely to be exaggerated to the extent needed to come even close to your claims, since most of those deaths were recorded. And while the Soviet archives might undercount the total numbers, it's not going to be by an order of magnitude or even close to that.

Just summing up the births between 1928 and 1936 posted here and here and comparing them with the births which would have happened if all those years had the same number of births as in 1927. This is of course an underestimate, since number of births would have increased with the growing population.

On a sidenote: It absolutely shocks me how communist appologetia is rampant and that it is tolerated. All tricks and lies are used to minimize the number of vicitims slaughtered in the USSR, ridiculous excuses are used to justify millions of dead: "You know Stalin improved the lives of the people that surived his rule - by like a LOT."

With the same "logic" one could say: "You know Colonialism improved the lives of the people that surived its rule - by like a LOT." I doubt that such a statement would be treated as leniently as Stalinist appologetia.
Regarding Soviet apologia, do you mean in general or on this forum? Because I haven't seen anything remotely resembling "tricks and lies" here. And I don't really see much justification, except for the argument that the alternative would have been worse and that the Soviet regime prevented defeat against the Nazis. Both of these are debatable, but it's contributing to any useful discussion to simply denounce them as Soviet apologia.
 
Last edited:
And anyway, however culpable the Soviets were in not preparing for the German invasion, it was the Nazis who decided to start a genocidal invasion. Trying to transfer blame for that to the Soviet regime only diminishes the Nazis decision to carry out those crimes
without splitting up Poland, and dismantling the Stalin Line on the old Polish Border, followed up by supplying the Third Reich with every bit of raw materials they asked for, means, yes, the Soviets were indeed responsible for growing
the German War Machine, and even more so for later ignoring his own spies who warned of the Summer attack, and warnings from the Allies
Yes, if you discount most of Hitler's victims
11M in the Camps and a couple million more Sov POWs is less than Stalin's Toll in 1939
 
Last edited:
All tricks and lies are used to minimize the number of vicitims slaughtered in the USSR, ridiculous excuses are used to justify millions of dead: "You know Stalin improved the lives of the people that surived his rule - by like a LOT."
If someone claimed that Leopold was good for the Congo from the infrastructure improvements done, they'd be kicked for a week, if not longer.
 
without splitting up Poland, and dismantling the Stalin Line on the old Polish Border, followed up by supplying the Third Reich with every bit of raw materials they asked for, means, yes, the Soviets were indeed responsible for growing
the German War Machine, and even more so for later ignoring his own spies who warned of the Summer attack, and warnings from the Allies
You have just restated what the other poster wrote and have not addressed my point.

11M in the Camps and a couple million more Sov POWs is less than Stalin's Toll in 1939
Thank you for illustrating my point. The total number of victims caused by Hitler includes a considerable number of civillians murdered outside the concentration camps, plus the famine caused by the Nazi invasion. The true total is between 20 and 25 million.
And of course even 11 million is more than Stalin's toll in 1939, even by the highest realistic estimates.
 
Regarding Soviet apologia, do you mean in general or on this forum? Because I haven't seen anything remotely resembling "tricks and lies" here. And I don't really see much justification, except for the argument that the alternative would have been worse and that the Soviet regime prevented defeat against the Nazis. Both of these are debatable, but it's contributing to any useful discussion to simply denounce them as Soviet apologia.
Well, by that argument you can argue that colonialism helped defeat the Nazis, since the Raj provided a massive volunteer army for the British. I'm not sure India would see it that way, though.

Also, industrialization didn't require Stalin repeatedly to ignore the warnings of the build-up to Barbarossa.
 
Well, by that argument you can argue that colonialism helped defeat the Nazis, since the Raj provided a massive volunteer army for the British. I'm not sure India would see it that way, though.
I don't think anyone would seriously argue otherwise. Britain's huge colonial empire is always cited as an important factor in the Allied victory.
The real argument would be whether that was worth it. Of course India would certainly disagree with this position.

Also, industrialization didn't require Stalin repeatedly to ignore the warnings of the build-up to Barbarossa.
As I said, it's a debatable issue. One has to decide whether the industrialization and mobilization of resources under Stalin is outweighed by the disastrous Soviet policy towards Germany between 1939 and 1941.
 

sonofrome

Banned
I'm new here and this was the first thread in the post 1900's section I've looked at and some of the opinions are fascinating. Just thought I'd put my thoughts down.

Bickering over the amount of millions of people who died because of Bolshevism in Russia is like doing the same but with the holocaust; what are people trying to lower the body count by a few million out of tens of millions trying to achieve?? Its strange that certain people with certain ideological leanings choose to believe the historians with lower body count estimates and aggressively assert their opinion to the point of fanaticism just so they can say "it was actually 5 million less than". But "muh archives"!!! They are irrelevant, millions of people died, and what is getting people to believe less died going to achieve? Maybe a more sympathetic view towards revolutionary socialism and Lenin's belief that killing is OK so long as it's a means to an end?

The Russian revolution was perhaps the most tragic event in recent history, just because of what it led to. Also saw this video from the channel that actually led me to this site. I agree with it, other than WW2 happening as it did but that has already been discussed enough as it is.

 
If someone claimed that Leopold was good for the Congo from the infrastructure improvements done, they'd be kicked for a week, if not longer.
After searching this forum, I found out that people who claimed that Leopold II. rule could not have cost the lives of 10 Million Congoles because there were no population statistics prior to 1920 and that the "real" number of dead was at most 1-2 Million, were banned.

On the other, hand people that claim that Stalin didnt kill 20 or 30 Million people but "just" 10 Million because the birth rate kept declining "naturally" and that his "achievements" somehow "justified" this death toll, get a pass. A disgusting double standard.
 
These are even more unlikely to be exaggerated to the extent needed to come even close to your claims, since most of those deaths were recorded. And while the Soviet archives might undercount the total numbers, it's not going to be by an order of magnitude or even close to that.

Just summing up the births between 1928 and 1936 posted here and here and comparing them with the births which would have happened if all those years had the same number of births as in 1927. This is of course an underestimate, since number of births would have increased with the growing population.

Regarding Soviet apologia, do you mean in general or on this forum? Because I haven't seen anything remotely resembling "tricks and lies" here. And I don't really see much justification, except for the argument that the alternative would have been worse and that the Soviet regime prevented defeat against the Nazis. Both of these are debatable, but it's contributing to any useful discussion to simply denounce them as Soviet apologia.
As someone whos family suffered under the Communist Mass Murdering Psychopaths - I have nothing to say to you and I do not wish to communicate with you ever again. We have free speech and you are entitled to your opinion, however sick, evil and wrong it is.
 
Last edited:
After searching this forum, I found out that people who claimed that Leopold II. rule could not have cost the lives of 10 Million Congoles because there were no population statistics prior to 1920 and that the "real" number of dead was at most 1-2 Million, were banned.

On the other, hand people that claim that Stalin didnt kill 20 or 30 Million people but "just" 10 Million because the birth rate kept declining "naturally" and that his "achievements" somehow "justified" this death toll, get a pass. A disgusting double standard.
For anyone who reads this and actually takes these arguments seriously, there are in fact well reputed historians who believe that Stalin's death toll was around 10 million. For example, I believe Timothy Snyder has already been cited in this thread (the exact quote is in Bloodlands, p. 384). But of course he's perhaps a closet Stalinist apologist as well...
And false quotes about "birth rates declining naturally" aside, if you're trying to estimate the death toll of an event by calculating the shortfall of the projected population increase, it makes no sense not to consider the birth rate in this period. This is basic demographics.
 
without splitting up Poland, and dismantling the Stalin Line on the old Polish Border, followed up by supplying the Third Reich with every bit of raw materials they asked for, means, yes, the Soviets were indeed responsible for growing
the German War Machine, and even more so for later ignoring his own spies who warned of the Summer attack, and warnings from the Allies
By that logic Chamberlain and Daladier get slapped with massive death tolls as well? I get the argument but it still seems like a pretty obtuse way of assigning responsibility.
 
Dementor 14 or 10..,

Stalin was the most murderous ruler until 1941. By far! He is in human history only surpassed by Hitler and Mao. And the latter only became ruler of China because Stalin wanted him to be.

Assertions that any white government could have been worse are backed up by nothing and against any historical fact.

The only argument coming up is beating Hitler. Well first of all Stalin could have had the industrialization without killing millions!!
Second he had not decided to prep him up so there would be a long war between the capitalistic countries (so he could get in later) Hitler would have been stuck latest 1940. To justify the millions Stalin killed by saying but he stopped Hitler and without it things would have been worse for Russia is ignoring the RM pact completely.
 

sonofrome

Banned
For anyone who reads this and actually takes these arguments seriously, there are in fact well reputed historians who believe that Stalin's death toll was around 10 million. For example, I believe Timothy Snyder has already been cited in this thread (the exact quote is in Bloodlands, p. 384). But of course he's perhaps a closet Stalinist apologist as well...
And false quotes about "birth rates declining naturally" aside, if you're trying to estimate the death toll of an event by calculating the shortfall of the projected population increase, it makes no sense not to consider the birth rate in this period. This is basic demographics.
Why exactly does it matter to you that the Bolsheviks caused 10 and not 25 million deaths? Do you get offended when people claim (and its really hard to prove) that murderous people killed more than you think? Does it show that there was some good in them after all if the figure is 10?
 
Why exactly does it matter to you that the Bolsheviks caused 10 and not 25 million deaths? Do you get offended when people claim (and its really hard to prove) that murderous people killed more than you think? Does it show that there was some good in them after all if the figure is 10?
It has nothing to do with being offended, nor does having killed "only" 10 million somehow make Stalin good. I can assure you that it was someone was claiming that Hitler had killed 75 or 150 million, I would also object to their claims. Quite apart from the fact that you can't really have objective historical research on the base of false facts, historical accuracy is important on its own - present day political argument are often built on historical claims.
 

sonofrome

Banned
It has nothing to do with being offended, nor does having killed "only" 10 million somehow make Stalin good. I can assure you that it was someone was claiming that Hitler had killed 75 or 150 million, I would also object to their claims. Quite apart from the fact that you can't really have objective historical research on the base of false facts, historical accuracy is important on its own - present day political argument are often built on historical claims.
Fair enough but really continuing this death tole argument is futile tbh.
 
By that logic Chamberlain and Daladier get slapped with massive death tolls as well? I get the argument but it still seems like a pretty obtuse way of assigning responsibility.
Rather than Uncle Joe being an all but Ally of Hitler from 1939-41, declared War over Poland. Substantial difference, I think
 
Dementor 14 or 10..,

Stalin was the most murderous ruler until 1941. By far! He is in human history only surpassed by Hitler and Mao. And the latter only became ruler of China because Stalin wanted him to be.
True enough about Stalin. As for the total death toll, it's possible that the Militarist Japanese managed to beat him out during their attempt to conquer Asia.

Assertions that any white government could have been worse are backed up by nothing and against any historical fact.
Of course they are not based on historical facts - how could there be any historical facts about events that never happened? But as for arguments that a White government could be worse, quite a few have been presented in this thread already. I haven't seen you address any of them, though.

The only argument coming up is beating Hitler. Well first of all Stalin could have had the industrialization without killing millions!!
Second he had not decided to prep him up so there would be a long war between the capitalistic countries (so he could get in later) Hitler would have been stuck latest 1940. To justify the millions Stalin killed by saying but he stopped Hitler and without it things would have been worse for Russia is ignoring the RM pact completely.
I certainly agree that Stalin could have industrialized without killing millions and I don't think anyone has been arguing otherwise.
As for your other argument, two points should be made. One, considering that the vast majority of supplies sent by the Soviets to Germany after the RM pact only came after the middle of 1940, so it's not clear whether Germany could still not have defeated France with a neutral Soviet Union. Second, it's quite likely that without the RM pact, Germany would attack the Soviets instead, with the Allies being de-facto neutral. Which might have been worse than an invasion in 1941.
 

sonofrome

Banned
But as for arguments that a White government could be worse, quite a few have been presented in this thread already. I haven't seen you address any of them, though.
In a white victory scenario, Russia would still be allied with France, so, even going by the highly unlikely scenario that Nazi Germany still rises to power, the moment Germany declares on France or Russia they would be in a two front war immediately and would be crushed. France isn't going to surrender as easily and will have more faith having the ally in the east. Not to mention the amount of war material sent by USSR to Nazis IOTL, which would mean a Germany without soviet lent fuel.

Because of this, and I'm sure Wehrmacht Generals aren't suddenly retarded, Germany cannot start a European war; with no prospects and no crusade against Bolshevism to undertake, there would be no appetite for war. The most they can do is make war with Poland and maybe Sudetenland, but otherwise they are stuck. No WW2 in this scenario. WOW that's a lot less deaths than OTL. Maybe people can now accept that this TL is better; or is there still ideological stumbling blocks?
 
Maybe people can now accept that this TL is better; or is there still ideological stumbling blocks?
The USSR supported decolonization?
So maybe without the UK being bankrupted in the war they would try to fight much harder for their colonies?
And if you want to get really ideological you can talk about comparing the deathtoll of communism with capitalist neocolonialism and all that stuff, but that is not what this thread is about
 
Top